Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Alternate Perspectives (Score 1) 150

One might argue that a "malware researcher" might already be at increased risk of having already contracted some sort of exploit that might manifest as a malicious redirect.

Then again, where Equifax and their recent security fumbles are concerned, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that such an exploit found its way into their services. Unless there's an independent and unbiased analysis of the Equifax systems and protocols, it's unlikely we'll ever be certain.

Comment Re:Android + WiFi Analyzer (Score 1) 499

We have a guy in the office with an Android phone... on which he had installed an app that he mistakenly configured in such a way that it killed all wireless connections within 50 yards. Apparently, it had a feature to create an ad-hoc network, which he gave the same name as our corporate wireless network. Joe Employee tried to connect to the corporate wireless network with a particular name, it spotted the ad hoc network and refused to connect. We had all kinds of complaints.

Comment Re:Use your local ham radio club (Score 1) 499

I would agree wholeheartedly with this recommendation. As a ham myself, I can say that many hams would very much enjoy the opportunity to solve a radio-related mystery like this for the public.

Here's the cool thing: if a ham determines that the source of interference also happens to interfere in any way whatsoever with ham radio communications, then the FCC will take notice and will compel the responsible party to correct their systems. The upside is that while the potentially-affected licensed services get fixed (ham radio), so do the unlicensed services (wifi). That is to say, messing with ham communications is bad. There are many cases where hams have had the FCC compel even electric companies to make needed changes and repairs to their systems. Of course, this may not be the case, but it doesn't hurt to investigate it.

We'll even track the problem down for free. Of course, like you said, pizza and beer are good, too.

Comment Re:What's the big deal? (Score 2, Insightful) 340

What's really scary is that there are people out there who actually believe exactly what you said. In their disturbed little minds, if everybody in the world could just have kind, happy thoughts all the time, then we would all get along.

These self-proclaimed pacifists literally become violent if you don't have the right kind of happy thoughts.

Pacifists scare me.

Comment It's Not a Security Device (Score 1) 347

This would be better classified as a surveillance device, not a security device. Cameras don't provide security -- that's what locks, restraints, and other physical barriers do. Cameras only serve to provide evidence afterwards... or to gather amusing videos of its owner doing stupid things so they can be posted on break.com.

Comment Re:So you had 6 months to upgrade (Score 5, Interesting) 299

Kinda my attitude, too. Had this affect a bunch of servers yesterday. Started researching, found the cause, and solved the problem in 30 minutes on 35 or so servers. Totally my own damned fault for not staying upgraded. Worst impact was that messages were delayed on a few mail server for half an hour and uploads to a handful of webservers threw errors because of the way I scan them. Users tried again. Problem solved.

Comment Re:Security theater (Score 1) 305

Get enough people redirected to goatse.fr when they click that link promising cute kittens and they might get shocked enough to simply stop clicking on cute kitten links. Then again, there will always be people who keep clicking through hoping that that adorable little feline will ultimately appear if they click it enough times.

Yeah, we can't fix stupid; we can only try to protect them from themselves.

Comment Re:Even more useless... (Score 2, Insightful) 457

If your target were stationary, with good light, and several seconds to steady yourself, with no stress -- sure, one could hit a target an inch across.

Now do that under stress, in poor light, with a very small moving target, covered by clothing and hair, and don't forget that you have about half to two seconds in which to land that shot.

Every moment that ticks by is another moment that the assailant has to kill you. A violent criminal actor is not going to stop because you've shot him in the chest with a .22 -- odds are pretty good that even if you hit his aorta, he'll still have about 20 to 30 seconds more to do what he's going to do to you.

There's a reason that people who carry a handgun for self defense often go for larger calibers. Primarily because they're more effective than smaller calibers.

Comment Re:Even more useless... (Score 3, Informative) 457

All fine points. And don't forget that it's only a .22. One would need to achieve a series of headshots to effectively stop a violent criminal actor. Center of mass with a .22 won't stop a violent actor intent on killing you. And at the 7000 euro price point, they're not going to sell many of these except to maybe a few government agencies or people with more money than brains.

Slashdot Top Deals

"History is a tool used by politicians to justify their intentions." -- Ted Koppel

Working...