kardos

63 ms·

661.
by kardos 11y ago
Chrome -- as far as we know -- doesn't transmit all of your keystrokes to Google, nor does it transmit the contents or indexes of your local filesystem(s) back to Google.
662.
by kardos 11y ago
Or just one that runs open software...
663.
by kardos 11y ago
That's a fragile solution at best. One update could change the IP/hosts of the data harvesting servers. Surely the data will be transmitted using TLS or equivalent; HTTP logging won't do you much good unless you can (a) MITM
664.
by kardos 11y ago
For the same reasons that they made it 10 min rather than less to begin with [1] [1] http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1863/why-was-the-...
665.
by kardos 11y ago
If the pending transactions fit in a block, there's not much incentive to not include them -- it doesn't cost much, so miners can include them all in order to maximise fee revenue. But when there are more pending transactions than
666.
by kardos 11y ago
Most of the sources and binaries are from 2012. That version of bash would have the shellshock bug(s). This project is a Good Idea, but it would be overwhelmingly more useful if it tracked modern versions.
667.
by kardos 11y ago
Those of us running adblockers and/or who have deinstalled flash remain blissfully unaffected. The ad industry needs to get its shit together.
668.
by kardos 11y ago
Actually, no. That article was dated Mar 31, 2014, so I assumed that they switched the configuration option by 14.10. .... but some searching indicates that they won't get around to disabling online searches by default until Unity 8 is
669.
by kardos 11y ago
> Heck, even Ubuntu nowadays comes with ads that you need to opt out of. No longer true. Canonical took a lot of (deserved) flak for making that feature opt-out, and last year they finally fixed it [1]. http://www.omgubuntu.co
670.
by kardos 11y ago
> Unfortunately we are living in opt-out world now. This is a hyperbolic statement. Here's a fixed version: "Microsoft has created an opt-out privacy-hostile software ecosystem" The world is not Microsoft. You're free
671.
by kardos 11y ago
It's a valiant effort, but you're navigating a privacy minefield. Even if you find/disable all the known things, a single windows update can introduce a new opt-out "feature" that undoes it all. Your effort might be
672.
by kardos 11y ago
TL;DR: "By using Windows 10, you relinquish any expectation of privacy". Stallman is an optimist! This "privacy policy" is much worse than what we expect from malware [1]. Cryptolocker might hold my files hostage for som
673.
by kardos 11y ago
You need to build tunnels at least at the rate that they get discovered. Also if there's excessive traffic at one tunnel, it's more likely that it'll get found. A distributed network of tunnels is much better for business.
674.
by kardos 11y ago
GCHQ, meanwhile, is not restricted from storing or querying such a database should they obtain a copy. Further, the NSA is not barred from asking GCHQ to return queries against the content of databases they hold. Lastly, GCHQ would be wise
675.
by kardos 11y ago
A week? We've been using it since April.
676.
by kardos 11y ago
You're right that the "low-end news" market probably can't afford to do any substantial quality control. But in the high end segment of the market, it's more important than ever. Edward Snowden's journalist&#x2
677.
by kardos 11y ago
Banks get hacked, governments get hacked, purveyors of malware get hacked, sleazy websites get hacked.... any reason to expect that self-driving cars won't get hacked? Something as complex as autonomous pilot software surely has plent
678.
by kardos 11y ago
>First there is the issue at the business level. Returning customers are the easiest and cheapest sells...but if your customer only buys a product every 30+ years...not great for business. This exact line of thinking has created scads of
679.
by kardos 11y ago
Hating people who criticise your code is about as useful as hating gravity.
680.
by kardos 11y ago
> Analog and "non-exact" computation is not something that sounds very useful. Floating point operations are non exact in general. Physics simulations work at various degrees of approximation. Non exact computations would be us
681.
by kardos 11y ago
aka bugs!
682.
by kardos 11y ago
From 2008. Are there any newer states in addition those listed?
683.
by kardos 11y ago
The FAQ at your link says that there is no problem with ocean disposal of the brine, which is only twice the concentration of normal seawater. If you dump that into the ocean, it will quickly be diluted and raise the salinity slightly. Got
684.
by kardos 11y ago
Ah, it appears that the patches made their way into my distro's packages. I tested both with weakdh.org before posting previous comment.
685.
by kardos 11y ago
Are you sure? I'm running Firefox 38.0.5 and Chromium 40.0.2214.91 through normal channels (ie, not nightly builds...) and they are both NOT vulnerable.
686.
by kardos 11y ago
> So if we're going to ignore the year, he might as well make all of his predictions just be "eventually, we'll accomplish X". The cognitive dissonance of Ray Kurzweil is impressive. So there's no value in being
687.
by kardos 11y ago
If you're not using passphrases on your keys, then yes they are locally wide open, much like a passwords.txt strategy for passwords. If you do passphrase them, the attacker now needs N passphrases. Perhaps you notice the keylogger be
688.
by kardos 11y ago
If you have one key, and use it for N services, compromising your key compromises N accounts. If you use one key per service, compromising a key only compromises one account.
689.
by kardos 11y ago
Sure, but as I understand it, he doesn't/didn't need to actually try it on github's servers. If he put the public keys in question into the authorized_keys list of a second account on his personal system, he can locally
690.
by kardos 11y ago
This is the answer right here. Also it's wise to use different keys for different services, for the same reasons that you'd use different passwords.

More ›