Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Secure the gateways (Score 2) 107

Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.

You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.

The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.

Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.

My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.

Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 10

Wow, where to start with this one.

The claim that monarchies are legitimate so that makes them non-fascist is total bullshit - those monarchies didn't just naturally evolve - there was a lot of blood spilled in the process.

Oh shut up. Now you're picking random potentially totalitarian things out of the air as if Fascism is a generic term of really bad totalitarian governments.

Monarchies are a completely ridiculous diversion and no, they're not the same. They're not even the same type of thing. Fascism is an ideology, not a constitutional system of government. And nobody would argue that monarchies are "legitimate" so that makes them "non-fascist", because the term has no meaning here. Are fascist governments not "legitimate"? I'm pretty sure Mussolini was the legitimate leader of Italy until the Italians found a new use for meathooks.

Nor is this a discussion of totalitarianism, and we're not trying to define totalitarianism. We're discussing Fascism, a specific ideology, created by Benito Mussolini in the 1920s, and expanded upon by Adolf Hitler and others after that.

Europe in the 1920s and 1930s is precisely relevant to defining Fascism. That's when the first Fascists appeared. And almost from the beginning, Mussolini was adamant about "protecting" the "Aryan race". Between his own rhetoric, and Hitler's influence, this culminated in the Manifesto of Race on the Italian side. I don't need to tell you what it culminated in on the German side.

If you reject the inventor of the term "fascism" as being somehow unconnected to his own ideology, and decide to ascribe completely unrelated movements and constitutional systems (!!!) to Fascism purely because they're totalitarian, then again you're just plain not addressing the term.

And to circle back to the topic, I called Trump a fascist. Not a communist. Not a king. Not a totalitarian. Not a dictator. A fascist.

He's a racist who demonizes and dehumanizes non-whites, and scapegoats them for America's "problems". He has contempt for democracy. He directly and actively promotes violence against his political rivals. He wants to use the law to punish those who oppose him, from politicians to the free media.

I don't like Clinton, but she's none of those things. And you have to be those things to be a fascist.

Comment Re:Not a copyright violation, a Trademark violatio (Score 1) 218

No it's not legitimate if he merely mentioned either. Merely mentioning a trademark doesn't mean you're in violation of trademark law, otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk about most commercial products. The precise restrictions on trademarked word use are best described by a lawyer, but remember the intent of trademark law is to prevent people from passing an item off as something associated with the trademark owner, not to restrict people's ability to talk about products they've seen or owned.

For more information, visit Bing and google "trademarks".

Comment Re:About time. (Score 4, Interesting) 598

Medical professionals have a professional duty to state medical facts. If they refuse, they can and should be placed in a different career path.

An accountant or lawyer promoting a Sovereign Citizen view of the relationship between client and state would be struck off. A Bridge Engineer who rejects Newtonian (or better) mechanics would be struck off.

This isn't like banning a doctor from discussing gun safety because you lobbyists are worried it might lead to a decrease in household gun ownership. This is about nurses being required not to mislead people about medicine, abusing their positions as respected medical professionals to sow misinformation. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a professionalism issue, and critically it's a life and death issue.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 126

Funny thing is after I lived with the flip phone for a year or so, about a year ago I bought the cheapest smartphone I could ($30, at Walmart!) and was stunned at how much better it was than the GN. OK, the screen was worse, as was the amount of storage -- though the fact it took SD cards mitigated that in part, but it really was faster, smoother, and the UI had less bugs. It resold me on Android.

I honestly don't think price has much to do with device "niceness" in the Android world. Sure, in the early days, you had a few "cheap" phones with sub-WVGA screens that were barely usable, and right until a couple of years ago even the slightly better ones seemed cobbled together, but right now I'm actually seeing low end hardware that's caught up with Android's needs, while critical features continue to get removed from phones as they get more expensive.

And some of those removed features do, actually, make the phone less frustrating. That cheap $30 Walmart special had dedicated navigation buttons for example - its replacement doesn't, meaning I have to swipe from the corners to get buttons that'll close a full screen app or just send that full screen app a "back" signal. How is that an improvement? It isn't. The buttons are removed because it interferes with the lines of the device and would make it fractionally bigger, aesthetic considerations that undermine usability and makes the device more annoying to use.

Comment Or... (Score 5, Interesting) 126

...maybe it's because people who buy $600 phones tend to have more money (and less worries) than people who buy $50 devices.

I'll be honest, the most expensive modern smartphone I bought was a Galaxy Nexus. It definitely didn't make me happier; the quirks and horrible UI actually made me switch to a flip phone in an effort to regain my sanity.

Comment Re:I wonder... (Score 2) 198

Bad news. I just invented time travel, and rather than do something worthwhile like kill Hitler (or, in some other way, ensure he never gains power) I've decided to cause minor annoyances for other Slashdotters.

I'm going to go back in time, suggest to Steve Jobs he adds a scroll wheel to the iPod, and change history so it becomes the most popular MP3 player of all time, and Creative becomes an also ran rather than the inventor of the cPhone!

That'll make the comment you just wrote look ridiculous!

Comment Re:Nintendo OFFICIALLY has left the "console" mark (Score 1) 263

This might be the next thing in portable gaming systems, but there is no way this will be 'console' class.

The latest Nvidia Tegra X series chips have excellent performance, in the same ballpark as previous generation of game consoles. Now, while you might say "Yeah, but not the current gen", Nintendo has lately prioritized price and flexibility over having CPUs and GPUs comparable to Microsoft and Sony's. If the Wii and Wii U were considered console class at the time, so is this. Except they couldn't cluster, while this one can.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest it's a PS-vita with a dock either. The video is at pains to suggest the technology is designed for a more fluid playing experience, with the type of thing you want to do (play against friends, play a conventional game at home in comfort, play in a plane or train, etc) determining how you configure your console.

Will it work? No idea. If they can keep the price down, conceivably yes. I think the big problem with consoles right now is that they're expensive toys for a committed minority. Nintendo misfired with the WiiU, but the biggest, most glaring, fault wasn't the hardware, but the price and pricing.

Comment Re:Escalation? (Score 1) 307

They're not removing USB, they're removing the original, large, four dimensional USB socket for USB-C. It's a standard USB port, and about the only inconvenience is that you'll need adapters or new cables for your older USB gear. Right now, I'm seeing "USB sticks" as being the main loser.

You guys think this is bad, but I started computing in the 1980s, and I can tell you back then this kind of thing would have been considered a giant leap forward. Virtually every brand of computer had:

1. Its own idea of what a keyboard port should look like
2. Its own idea of what a monitor port should look like
3. Its own idea of what a serial port should look like (hell, that even varied from model to model in a computer makers own product line.)
4. Its own idea of what a printer port should look like
5. Its own idea of what a mouse port should look like
6. Its own idea of what a joystick port should look like
7. Its own idea of what a disk drive port should look like

USB-A switching to USB-C? Great! They're switching from one standard to another, but it's still a well supported standard, and there are good reasons to do so. Well done Apple. Now, if you could add USB to your iDevices...

Comment Re:I mean... (Score 1) 218

In fairness, pretty much everyone already knows about the Note 7 fiasco.


If the modder were to modify the mod to include references to other Samsung phones, other than the Note 7, which would be used in the same way, then Samsung can consider the merits of either leaving it be, or doing the same thing, resulting in a large amount of publicity for a story that suggests the Note 7 was not unusual, that Samsung might actually have an exploding phone problem in general.

Comment Re:Am I the only one (Score 1) 325

He's not Hitler. He's a lightweight Mussolini. Scapegoats minorities, smears and dehumanizes same, promotes violence against his opponents, has a contempt for the democratic process, wants to jail his political opponents and restrict and punish journalists who publish stories he and his backers do not like, promotes simplistic solutions to complex problems, usually with an absence of detail that makes the solutions suspect even without further analysis.

He would have to have a raging hate-on for a racial or religious group beyond reason to be a Hitler. He's shown signs of that against Muslims, but he's yet to cross the line that would make me worry about a Muslim holocaust.

Comment Re:OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 1, Informative) 325

I recall the same people attacking Clinton for accepting donations from the Saudis now were going out of their way to buy bland, boring, breaded chicken a few years ago because the CEO of the company that sold it had been funding a group that promotes laws that mandate the death penalty for homosexuality in various African countries.

So: taking money from bad people who do bad things to gays and donating to worthy causes is bad to them. But giving money to bad people who lobby to get bad things done to gays is, apparently totally A-OK.

Just so you understand the mentality here. If Saudi Arabia was doing exactly what it is now, but under the sign of the cross, they'd be celebrating it.

Slashdot Top Deals

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.