That's a pretty in-credible report.
Emphasis on in-.
It's disturbing to see Security Researchers so willing to trade on
rumors in order to be quoted in the press.
The conclusion is pretty confusing.
Conclusion
Internet-based attacks are extremely popular with terrorist
organizations
Crossroads is an undergraduate journal.
We'd do well to single out more worth targets for public ridicule
than CS undergrads.
If you want to help the author, why not educate, rather than
mocking? He's obviously been motivated to think about the subject
matter and to even take the bold
Isn't this just a semantic game on the part of RIM and the government?
The phrase enterprise customers would seem to isolate a class of
customers such that individual customers not using a corporate version
of the product would see their crypto weakened... and be subject to
monitoring
On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Leichter, Jerry wrote:
Computerworld reports:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasicarticleId=9094818
[...]
Apparently earlier versions of this ransomware were broken because
of a
faulty implementation of the encryption. This
these have been circulating for hours, but they are content-free title
slides...
[Moderator's note: I've read them and they're far from content
free. They give you a recipe for doing things like rewriting the mag
stripes on stored value cards to give you arbitrary balances, and
they even
On Aug 9, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Jim Youll wrote:
these have been circulating for hours, but they are content-free
title slides...
[Moderator's note: I've read them and they're far from content
free. They give you a recipe for doing things like rewriting the mag
stripes on stored value cards
On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
From Slashdot: Psychologists gave university students phony
popups with various malware warning signs. Many just clicked.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-study-confirms-users-are-idiots.html
I think it's got to be said that
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Jim Youll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it's got to be said that it's not apparent that the end-users
are the /idiots/ who should be called out for failing this study.
We gave them these interfaces, protocols and technologies that
allow
On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
The whole point of the study (which you feel had an inappropriate
tone) and of such gedankenexperiments is to understand the problem
space better.
Clarification: not the study.
I believe the article had an inappropriate tone. Calling
On Dec 5, 2008, at 7:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well-placed but UNCORROBORATED informant sez that
day before yesterday (3 dec):
5 hours of CheckFree traffic redirected and likely
captured in full
half of IP addresses for CheckFree left in place, half
re-directed to Ukraine, i.e.,
On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
An interesting unintended consequence of the original media storm is
that no one in the media enjoys being played; it seems that now most of
the original players are lining up to ask hard questions. It may be too
little and too late,
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Adam Fields wrote:
I find it hard to believe that even the most uninformed dissidents
would be using an untested, unaudited, _beta_, __foreign__ new service
for anything. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? My first guess
would have been that it was a
12 matches
Mail list logo
