ultramancool

81 ms·

841.
by ultramancool 13y ago
I disagree. Unless systems like TrueCrypt, PGP, Tor and Bitcoin are being outlawed, there is no need for such a protest.
842.
by ultramancool 13y ago
Why settle for awareness when you can have a real solution? Awareness is worthless when lies will be the only response. Never take a half-measure.
843.
by ultramancool 13y ago
If you want to "fight back" as a technical person, please do something useful: - Learn some applied cryptography and use that knowledge to write and review cryptographic software. Develop and analyze anonymity networks. Work towar
844.
by ultramancool 13y ago
I highly recommend reading that to anyone as an introduction to why free software and free content are extremely important. Not to mention reverse engineering tools like debuggers. Just reading that makes me yearn for the days of SoftICE wh
845.
by ultramancool 13y ago
log_2(7776^6)=77.5 bits of strength. Not too bad, but I wouldn't use it for anything cryptographic with local attack potential. If you want phrases to work properly, just put 1 (or many) non-dictionary word in them. This means the atta
846.
by ultramancool 13y ago
RMS has previously encouraged people to "just press enter" when asked for a password on unix systems. So I'd imagine he does this sort of thing on purpose.
847.
by ultramancool 13y ago
For most of them it's no problem, they're just selling their product or service in an additional way. However, something like this is scary as it's basically one hit easy money laundering. Not a bad idea if you're runnin
848.
by ultramancool 13y ago
I think even the most skilled programmer can benefit from making their code pass -Wall completely, even if just for the sake of sharing with other developers (but we all make mistakes and it'll likely catch some of those too!).
849.
by ultramancool 13y ago
-ansi and -pedantic often produce a lot of useless output unless your goal is to really target C89. -Wall is enough to catch most relevant things, throw in -Wextra if you want overkill, not -ansi -pedantic.
850.
by ultramancool 13y ago
That's fine by me as long as those "biggest corps" actually do something and aren't just patent trolls.
851.
by ultramancool 13y ago
I don't think this is a major concern. x264 is under GPLv2 too and has not run into any such issues despite being in nearly the exact same place patent licensing wise.
852.
by ultramancool 13y ago
Yeah, typically the trick here is to run OpenVPN on port 443/TCP (HTTPS, which almost no one bothers to examine), you can also stunnel it if by some chance they're doing deep packet inspection and blocking OpenVPN connections.
853.
by ultramancool 13y ago
Many VPN providers these days accept Bitcoin, just buy it locally and send it around a little and you're good to go. Though I doubt the government cares enough to look into everyone who buys VPN via other means anyways.
854.
by ultramancool 13y ago
Except the attack would not actually be done via HTTP, but just by blocking access to its ports. Perhaps you could say it's an attack on TCP/IP.