Wonder what's going on when there's no trace of the linked blog post anymore.. Even G**gle returns it in a search but the link is broken (404).

How in the nine hells is this voted a troll? It's absolutely bloody spot-on.

Not really. The OP was about ransomware. Their answer (ZFS) fits perfectly for all the common/known attack vectors of typical ransomware.
If such an attack were to manipulate your snapshots, you're in a completely different threat scenario where tape spaghetti would be just as realistic.

The original question was: "What's the Best Ransomware Backup Solution: Disk or Tape?" The answer is neither - on their own.
The discussion that follows is about RTO - which is another word for availability and performance. In both cases, ZFS w/snapshots (or any other similar implementation of same) is an extremely good component of a competent defense.

Possible implementation (all of the below):
- "Live" restore points: ZFS snapshots on the live storage system. Restoring is as easy as rolling back, which is pretty much instantaneous and for most ransomware situations quite sufficient.
- Off-system/site/line (pick one according to your risk apetite) backups to disk: Use ZFS at the destination, aforementioned snapshots as sources. Inherently incremental, very efficient, can keep more historical restore points.
- Archival to tape: Format- and mechanism transformation, making even APT-style ransomware attacks more difficult.

There are *obviously* any number of use cases and situations where this is not applicable. Just like it is the case for traditional disk/tape backups. But this kind of threat models require an entirely new approach to backup *and* restore, which the OP is kinda acknowledging but without knowing which options actually exist.

Whatever happened to the fight for net neutrality?
Timothy can't have thought about this story for top many milliseconds before adding his 'insight' there..

...gnupg? ...tor? ...ssl+pfs? ...ssh? ...ipsec? ...openvpn? ...voip? .....<insert your favorite encryption/privacy tool here>?

Block everything? That would probably kick up more dust than the anti-gay legislation.

Have you given birth lately?

...collect all the money so the rich capitalist bastards won't get their hands on them.

(s/money/patents/)

That we have all become good citizens, backing up all our data. I presume the data recovery firms are all panicking now that all their potebtial customers have backups of everything, and thus no longer need their services.

Not bad to have a global backup ratio of >1:1

Personally I use RAIM (Redundant Array of Instant Messages) to back up all my important notes and communications. It only works as long as all my friends log everything too, of course.

What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve, in the context of Ad-providers?

Sounds pretty scary to me.

The researchers, and the article writers, completely fail to understand that 3-D Secure simply defines the interfaces between the three domains in the security model. The actual authentication model used is chosen and implemented by the card issuer. If the card issuer would decide it wants to use passphrase+OTP in a separate window (for URL validation), it could do so. In fact, outside of the US, many do. In Norway, for instance, online payments are usually verified through something akin to a "national electronic ID", which despite its flaws goes way above and beyond simple passwords.

The article is so full of factual mistakes and displays such a complete lack of knowledge and understanding it's not even funny.

They SO do .. but it might be for certain T-DSL products only; I have no idea. I've seen it in action at two different homes in southern Germany (Bavaria). My "samplings" are from the latter half of July 2009.

I don't have proof, and I cannot produce proof as I'm not in Germany at the moment.

I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, eh? Or offer alternative suggestions as to what I've seen.

The Deutsche Telekom / T-Online does exactly the same in Germany.

I couldn't disagree more.
Curiosity and Creativity are the two most outstanding qualities of human beings, and neither can flourish without the other.

Why should painters paint? Musicians compose and play? They shouldn't, following your logic. They do so because they can, and the rest of us are left to enjoy the fact that they do.

I think it is of *vital* importance that we explore and research for its own sake, and not only with specific purposes in mind. Fundamental research is the most important research we do, and for it to carry any meaning, it MUST be free of expectations and purpose. Whatever comes out of it can only be seen as a bonus, not taken for granted. Those bonuses will pay off, as they always have.

...as I still need that to keep myself warm.

First mention I've seen of 3-D secure here. Good research.
Anyway: Visa does not impose the authentication method on the issuers; the issuers can do this in any way they prefer (within certain limits). Some use "web shopping passwords", some use one-time passwords, some use a SMS or email solution, some tie it into the online banking security platform, some use national ID.

Also, many of the current gripes with 3DS are being worked on; for instance the iFrame/domainname issues.

Keep in mind that 3DS (VbV/MCSC) does NOT entail any other kind of fraud screening (name matching, etc.); it is an authentication system ONLY. And, for the time being and for most card products, if your card is not enrolled by your issuer (voluntary or not) you won't be asked to authenticate, though you will sometimes be redirected to a component of the 3DS chain to check your enrollment status.

For the merchant, it's simple: Attempt to authenticate, and liability for fraud is shifted to the issuer. Card not enrolled? Not your problem. Card enrolled? Authorize if authentication OK, otherwise don't.

But as many have said: This is not primarily done for the cardholder. It's for merchants (lower risk -> more/happier merchants), banks (lower risk -> lower cost, more merchants -> profit!) and the card companies (Visa/MC, less fraud -> less brand damage -> more shopping -> profit!).