Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

rev0lt Re:What a bunch of Wuss (578 comments)

In the early days all of Germany's neighbors were weak in comparison, they'd all been through WW1 also.

I don't really see where you got that idea. The british empire had what was probably the most well-oiled war machine at the time - and Germany gave them a run for their money.

No one really wanted to get into a war and were slow to react.

If you mean "leaders were well aware of the consequences of war in your own backyard because it had happened a decade and a half before", yeah. No redneck reasoning here. And when the Americans realized this, they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They've witnessed the horrors of the invasion of China and what is now Korea a couple of years before. (Hint: google "nanking massacre" - it makes the german seem inefficient by comparison).

If Germany had just grabbed their "lebensraum" and stopped they probably could have kept it.

You seem to forget that WWII was also fought in Africa. And Asia. Germany was fighting every major country on Earth at the time (with the exception of Japan), and had taken control of France and Netherlands, both with colonies in Africa.

about two weeks ago
top

Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

rev0lt Re:What a bunch of Wuss (578 comments)

Even after the USA entered, if Germany had invested into expanding their submarine fleet as it was proposed internally (and, at the time, they had the biggest submarine fleet in the world), it would not have been difficult to cut the US supply lines to the allies by taking control of the Atlantic. Again, bad decisions.

about two weeks ago
top

Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

rev0lt Re:What a bunch of Wuss (578 comments)

Germany was close to eliminate the RAF supremacy, if they didn't went to take vengeance on the Berlin bombing instead. And they did have lighter, cheaper rocket technology, and instead they invested heavily on the V-2.

about two weeks ago
top

Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

rev0lt Re:What a bunch of Wuss (578 comments)

It took the combination of the largest empire (British), greatest economy (USA) and the largest country to bring them down.

And a healthy dose of luck, in the form of bad decisions from Hitler and his generals. Just by themselves, it wasn't clear they would win against Germany.

about two weeks ago
top

Big Bang Actors To Earn $1M Per Episode

rev0lt Re:Shouldn't they be starving to death? (442 comments)

That's why they only get a million a pop. If weren't for those pesky nerd pirates, they could make a million and 49 dollars a pop.

about three weeks ago
top

Big Bang Actors To Earn $1M Per Episode

rev0lt Re:Over paid (442 comments)

I just thing it's not worth millions of dollars a year.

No professional career is worth millions of dollars a year, even if you're running into burning buildings or doing the other crap you mention. Btw, writing is way easier than acting, at least for me. It has to do with talent. But - BUT - if someone builds a business model around your specific skill/trick/whatever that generates millions in revenue, aren't you entitled to a cut? That's how professional sports work. Acting careers. Writing careers. Inspiring spokesman. Religious leaders. Politicians. Bankers. Whatever, all those people making millions a year. They're just taking a cut of the profit their work generates. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

about three weeks ago
top

Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

rev0lt Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (739 comments)

https://lkml.org/lkml/1998/9/3... [lkml.org] I don't know what else to tell you. They really do suck. Trap-gates are faster and safer. Call-gates are... prettier, more elegant.

Have a look at Linux 2.0 implementation. You'lll see an interrupt handler copying registers to the stack, and *then* invoking the call gate. So basically, doubling the work. And no, interrupts are not safer, as they don't provide stack isolation. This is done *manually* in the Linux implementation.

It's probably much a much narrower/null lead these days with massive caches, but back in 98, it was serious business.

I seriously doubt that. I was working extensively with x86 assembly in 98, and actually implemented call-gate systems in some of my pet projects. Granted, they were pet projects, not a mainstream piece of OSS, but I don't share that experience.

he various kernel mailing lists are abound with discussions on people wanting to try out call-gates, and finding out that *they suck*.

AFAIK, the implementation 2.0/2.2 still uses a call gate. Not directly, but inside the IV.

Also, SYSENTER wasn't switched to until we ran into the P4's massive pipeline stall on trap-gates, which the AMD K6 did *not* exhibit. It wasn't a fundamental problem with the trap-gate itself, but a quirk of the Netburst architecture.

It is a fundamental problem with the trap gate. The pipeline size and the agressive branch prediction mechanism only made it worse. Shorter pipelines don't suffer as much, as they are faster to clean and less prone to stupid execution stalls. Also, there was a huge amount of optimization done on silicon for this since 32 bit operating systems using interrupts became mainstream, and the same can't be said for the architecturally complex call-gate solution. SYSENTER simplifies a lot, but performs basically the same task as a call gate.

The fact that the unices/dos used entry 0x80 in the IDT, and NT used 0x2e, and 95 used 0x30, with call-gates to VxD code (eventually gotten rid of) doesn't mean the methodology of the trap was what was inherited

Actually, the fact that many other architectures do not provide any other user-defined global entry point besides the interrupt table has a huge weight in it; I don't see any problem with the metodology, if you're implementing a portable system. I see problems with a specific implementation of it on an operating system designed from the ground up for x86, and one of those problems is that whoever implemented it clearly had no clue about how it worked.

about a month ago
top

Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

rev0lt Re:Radicalization (868 comments)

Jews, on the other hand, have thousands of years old connection to the land. There are historical artifacts, found all across Israel with Hebrew writings on them, and indeed most of Jewish history can be traced back to Greater Israel.

As many other tribes do, including many many muslim settlers. Jews didn't existed as a "nation" trying to form their own country since the beginning of the 30's. Problems between jewish settlements and muslim settlements go back many many centuries, as both shared the same piece of land. To suggest that jews are the ones with the legitimate right to it is to be narrow-minded. During the beginning of the XX century, they were actually a minority in the region. In fact, when jews all over Europe started returning to the "promised land", the influx was so big that the Brits passed laws limiting Jewish emigration.

The sad reality, is that we have a "neighbour" that is so extreme and hell bent on our extermination, that we have no choice but to continue defending ourselves.

That is a piss-poor excuse. I bet your neighbour doesn't have nuclear devices and the backing of the most well-equipped army in the World. But if that "us-or-them" attitude is what makes you sleep well at night - by all means. But regardless, both sides are to blame.

about a month ago
top

Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

rev0lt Re:"Proportional response" is nonsense (868 comments)

That lie was exposed as such, when the Gazans voted — in free and internationally-observed elections [washingtonpost.com] — for Hamas [wikipedia.org].

Oddly enough, when American citizens are killed by the thousands as a response to direct actions of their freely elected democratic government, its called "terrorism", and it is a legitimate excuse to bomb the shit out of other countries. What you're saying is that anyone that suffered directly from decisions made by the US governments has the legitimate right of shooting down *any* american, just because it exercised its democratic duty. So, lets expand this concept - there has been some heavy international military interventions in the last decade, coordinated by more than a dozen democratic nations. It was their government's decision to take part on it. What you're defending is, that if you were on the other side of any of those interventions, you have the *right* to kill *anyone* from any of those countries, because they elected a government?
I actually hope you're an american.

Contrary to the haters' portrayal, IDF are not indiscriminate killers they don't need this sort of calculations to try their hardest to avoid killing innocent civilians. Shit still happens, unfortunately.

Its not the hater's portrayal when you have western media covering it, and even have Israel allies asking questions about this. Are you really convinced that Hamas has a super-duper propaganda machine that is bigger and more efficient than Israel's/US machine? Shit happens when you bomb one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and they don't care.

about a month ago
top

Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

rev0lt Re:Radicalization (868 comments)

So I really do think that comparing casualty numbers here, when they're competently kept low by Israel and intentionally driven up by hamas, and yes they're deliberately trying to get their own killed for the press value, is a little disingenious. Unless you don't mind parrotting Hamas propaganda. Because that is what it is: Propaganda, very very bloodily so.

And what do they have left? I'd suggest you try to corner a common house pet like a cat or a dog, and see what happens. It is easy to take the moral high ground when you have food, water, sanitation and electricity. And a job, public transportation, schools, shelter. Parks for kids to play. Do you think everyone in Gaza is a terrorist? Do you think every arab is a terrorist?
Imagine yourself without most of what you take for granted, and that you look across your fence and your neighbour has everything you want and is laughing at you. It is hard not to get emotional on this, specially when you have an active propaganda machine telling you who the enemy is. And this machine exists in both sides.

Keep in mind, what is now the US and Australia was partially colonized by western criminals. Does this mean they are all criminals, and their children need to die? I don't think you believe what you wrote.

about a month ago
top

Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

rev0lt Re:Radicalization (868 comments)

Hamas started it and reuses to agree to any proposed cease fire. Israel isn't the group calling for the extermination, Hamas is. Israel has also offered legitimacy to the Palestinian government in exchange for a cease fire and removing the language in the charter to kill all jews.

So, a guy insults you and says you should die. You shoot him and his family? Is this the appropriate response? Because that's what I've seen Israeli leaders and spokesman defend, and they don't look like batshit crazy terrorists. The other guys do.

about a month ago
top

Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

rev0lt Re:Radicalization (868 comments)

Playing devil advocate's here, but most Hamas attacks are almost laughable a military point of view, and they are a pretty good excuse for Israel to retaliate. They may be taking the credit for them, but I'd be quite surprised if at least some of these attacks aren't "sponsored" by Israel itself.

about a month ago
top

Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

rev0lt Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (739 comments)

They suck. That's why Linux didn't use them (int 0x80).

Wrong. Linux didn't use them because every Unix OS out there didn't use them because... You know, they weren't designed specifically for x86. And - contrary to *every* single f***ing int 0x80 implementation out there, x86 Linux uses/used to (before SYSENTER) by-register instead of by-stack parameter passing convention.

That's why Windows NT didn't use them (int 0x2e)

Windows NT didn't use them because it was designed as a highly portable micro-kernel. Initially they targeted other architectures besides x86, such as MIPS. There were other reasons, and AFAIK most of the *actual* protection mechanism from the kernel was developed by an outside consultant (read it on a book some years back about Windows 95, cannot vouch for accuracy).

That's why *BSD didn't use them (int 0x80).

BSD kernels weren't designed for x86. They were ported for x86. The ports were done using the most generic approach. And every x86 BSD kernel uses by stack convention, not by register.

That's why OSX doesn't use them (int 0x80).

OSX wasn't designed as a x86-only operating system, and also inherits from BSD and XNU. XNU is based on Mach, which is based on 4.2BSD, so again, a port, not a native x86 development.

Cache locality is horrible, the far pointer requires more bytes/instruction and segment registers suck- especially when running in protected mode

You're kidding me, right? A single call that triggers a processor mechanism that creates a destination stack frame, SECURELY copies X bytes of stack between levels and invokes a higher - or LOWER level function? Most 32 bit code is 4-byte aligned anyway and binaries built page-bounded, so the actual savings are bare to none. And call gates are *actually* faster than interrupts. And given the way that protected memory works, I'd expect to see way more cache penalties on the interrupt approach than with a call gate. And all this not considering the huge amount of executed code before dispatching the actual syscall, at least on the kernels I mentioned.

The "DOS-style" syscalls you're referring to are a software interrupt trap, (also called a trap-gate).

No, you're confusing software interrupts (such as int 21h, int 80h, etc) with parameter convention. DOS-style is to pass parameters to interrupts by register, eg. ah=25h, al=00, int 21h. Every other x86 unix implementation passes by stack, not by register. There is the "but its slower" argument that falls when you actually look at the 2.0 kernel implementation specifics.

Every OS worth mentioning used them prior to SYSENTER being introduced.

True. Most unixes did it because of ABI compatibility (the use of int 0x80 predates any semi-decent protection mechanism from Intel, probably by a decade). Also, most OS developers aren't really tied into building a better mouse trap; If you look at it, most OSs use more-or-less exactly the same design, because most of the guys building them all learned from the same book and the same source references (nothing wrong with that, and it is truely the work of masters), and the guys that didn't usually don't care about x86 at all. Some are little details (such as the call gate stuff), others are a bit more serious (as in the case of not using the cpu's segmentation mechanism in userland applications to provide complete separated read-execute and read-write selectors), but in the end is like having a Ferrari to drive to church :)

about a month ago
top

Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

rev0lt Re:I know you're trying to be funny, but... (739 comments)

I'd say pretty much every protected-mode/mode switching assembly line in 2.0/2.2, and the USB stack issues in 2.4.12 - 2.4.22. And the whole swap mechanism of pre-2.6 (and specially pre-2.4). And the shitty shitty DOS-style syscalls in x86! Wtf was that? Intel/AMD even came up with a shiny new instruction, since apparently linux devs (Linus?) cannot be bothered in reading about level switching with call gates.
Anyway, dreadful bugs? Can't recall any major one. I did have some linux machines locking up randomly, even when they shouldn't, but most of the times, its a driver issue, not the kernel itself.

about 1 month ago
top

LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

rev0lt Re:Shocked I am! Shocked! (151 comments)

I didn't know C and Excel had a native X.509 parser and cert management built into the language. I'll run and check my copy and K&R, but I'm pretty sure it's not in there.

If you configure any of them to that specific task, there is no technical limitation from their side. But I'm sure you wouldn't consider some scripted operations in Excel to generate and manage certificates a security product, right? That was my point.

In the last two years. Deployed in the main stream in that last year.

And is consistent in every environment? Shall I expect the same quality and behaviour in OpenBSD, Linux and Windows 3.1? Because, you know, this is the actual problem.

Gave the option of using local high rate entropy sources to ensure consistency in the random numbers from it's service interface.

Sure, its called ENGINE API. Did LibreSSL removed it? Doesn't seem so. Check https://github.com/libressl/li...

about a month ago
top

LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

rev0lt Re:Shocked I am! Shocked! (151 comments)

Of course I know about other hardware RNGs. I already pointed to VIAs and the occasional one strapped to an ARM core. I put some of them in some of those chips.

So, you acknowledge they're still not mainstream, as you tried to imply in your previous comment.

It may be two years old to you, but it didn't come into existence in 10 minutes.

Yeah, it didn't. Crypto support in general purpose CPUs is not new, and as you mentioned, the VIA instructions are way older than the incarnation from Intel.

These repeated crypto software failures point to a holier than thou attitude of some crypto software writers that does the public no good. You can't play in this game without accepting that it's easy to be wrong and you'd better have things checked and cross checked by the smartest people you can find and don't get all defensive when you've been found to be wrong.

The whole point is, probably some of the critical systems running software implementations in userspace shouldn't. Cryptoprocessors exist for a long time, and cryptocards and SoC are quite common well, everywhere. Bugs will always exist, but the attack surface is way smaller.

Mark it down to experience and move on. That's how it works. When Theo can't accept that the universe works this way, he automatically loses his security credibility license.

That's how all software works. It wasn't a serious/catastrophic bug. The peer review process from the community worked as expected, the bug was spotted and then fixed. The bug was tied to a specific implementation that wasn't very well thought of. Doesn't really matter, it was fixed. The bug itself was quite hard to exploit, specially if used on a secure environment (where process accounting is common; in fact, it baffles me the inane amount of Linux servers without any resource accounting at all, and the huge amount of sysadmins that don't even know how to configure this); I'd guess it is quite easier to gain root access on a given Linux server by using a more "generic" exploit (and then do as much hijacking as you want) than to hijack a crypto channel by using a fork bomb. And if it was Linus doing a similar fuckup, no biggie. But because it's Theo, it is newsworthy.

about a month ago
top

LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

rev0lt Re:Shocked I am! Shocked! (151 comments)

The last time I looked, OpenSSL claimed to provide command line tools for managing certs

So, it generates prime numbers and does some math between them. If that is a security product, so is everything else capable of producing that kind of output - it includes both Excel and the C language, as an example.

OpenSSL recently greatly improved its RNG code

Define "recently" and "greatly". Because if this bug actually happened in OpenSSL, I suspect that we'd have to wait months for the proper patch from upstream.

about a month ago
top

LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

rev0lt Re:Shocked I am! Shocked! (151 comments)

It's a shame that you don't realize that *modern* Intel is only a subset of the cpu market, and not even that relevant in network appliances. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R..., and you'll quickly see that the instruction you mention is about 2 years old. So, either you have the experience you say you have in other posts, and you're perfectly aware of this and are trolling, or you actually have no clue on the diversity of hardware out there.

about a month ago

Submissions

rev0lt hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

rev0lt has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>