Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:This guy will blackmail all the Bitcoin miners (Score 1) 101

You don't need to blackmail them. Their entire business is verifying transactions. Just put the transaction on the network and they'll verify it automatically. Of course, in order to generate a valid transaction to move funds from one wallet to another you'll need the private key of the source wallet, which you aren't going to get by blackmailing the miners because they don't have it.

You could blackmail them to put an invalid transaction in, but what would the point be? Nobody would accept the block.

Comment Re: MS pushing more into older OS or Linux/Mac (Score 2) 238

I haven't tried many distros, but this has basically been my experience too whenever I try to use Debian on a desktop. It's at the point where I expect something fundamental to be broken out of the box.

When I tried in 2011, that was volume control (I had to edit a config file to add the ability to change the output volume) plus my multi-GPU 3-head setup, which I could only get working by sacrificing either 2D acceleration or the ability to move windows between monitors.

When I tried last year, it was printing (my printer drivers segfault, I had to upgrade to drivers from backports), Bluetooth audio (gradually gets more and more delayed) and the mute button on my keyboard, which will happily mute but can't unmute afterwards. Per-application volume control was broken too, but that's by design so I'm not sure if it counts.

I mean, c'mon, how many years have we had to get printing to work? It's not exactly a new tech. Neither is audio, for that matter. Some of this is understandable, some of it has been fixed by now, and all of it is more tolerable than Windows 10, but it's still not a nice experience when fairly basic, non-cutting-edge stuff doesn't work.

Comment Re: IPv6 has NAT as well (Score 1) 113

I've done this, and I saw no difference. If you did then you fucked up the test. Specifically, you most likely changed the PC from a public v4 address to an RFC1918 one at the same time as introducing the NAT. Making two changes at once means you can't tell which change caused the different behavior.

Try comparing a traffic capture of a machine with an RFC1918 address with vs without NAT on the router, and then separately compare a capture of a machine with a public address with vs without NAT on the router. This will make it clear that it's not the NAT that makes any difference to inbound connections.

Comment Re:give me a break. (Score 1) 113

This is because 1:many NAT has no idea where to send incoming without an explicit rule.

A lot of people think this, but it's not true. Your router knows perfectly well where to send the packet, because the packet has a dest address field in the header that tells it where to send it.

Now, it is true that if your network is using RFC1918 addresses (which I note isn't actually a requirement for NAT) then it's quite hard to send your router a packet with one of those addresses in the dest field... but your ISP could do it easily, and of course so could anybody else in a position to twist your ISP's arm until they cooperate. If they do, your router will happily route those packets on to their destination, unless you also have a firewall in place that drops them.

In other words: if you want a firewall, you need a firewall. NAT is no substitute.

Comment Re:How Are These Devices Getting Public IPs? (Score 3, Informative) 163

Fun fact: NAT doesn't naturally firewall anything.

Here's how you do NAT on Linux: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wan0 -j MASQUERADE. See that "-o wan0"? The rule, and thus the NAT, only applies to outbound connections. It does nothing whatsoever to inbound connections! You can test this yourself if you want; just take a subnet where inbound connections work, add that NAT rule to the subnet's router, and you'll see that inbound connections continue to work just fine.

In any case, the answer to your question is that people set up port forwards for their cameras because they want to view the camera when they're away from home. IPv6 would help a lot here because it makes it significantly more difficult to scan for these devices, unlike in v4 where it's pretty trivial to exhaustively scan the entire address space.

Comment Re:Is Rust really better? (Score 1) 149

Of course exploits are going to be found in Rust code. It's not like it magically makes it impossible to write exploits. It's just that those exploits won't be memory safety bugs, buffer overruns or the like, because the Rust compiler rejects code with those. No point spending programmer time dealing with those when the compiler can handle it.

Comment Re:Robots, robots everywhere! (Score 1) 396

But you do understand that the situation is fundamentally different this time, right? In the past, we've automated jobs and people have moved to alternative jobs. This time, we're automating jobs and we're automating the replacement jobs as well.

Given that difference, I'm not sure how you could argue that it's all going to be exactly the same this time.

Comment Re:People don't care because ipv4 works for them (Score 1) 56

You're talking about public addresses, but I think the GP was talking about attaching v6 addresses to machines as a unique, permanent identifier. That certainly won't be happening quickly, because it's not how IP works. IPs are assigned by the network and you get a different IP when you move to a different network.

If you want a unique identifier that's permanently assigned to each computer... then you have the MAC address. If you want it to be 128-bit, then use a UUID. Why would an IP address be relevant here?

Comment Re:"Human Colleague"... Nope, You Just Don't Get I (Score 1) 407

The fact that human brains can do it strongly suggests that it's possible to make something artificial that can do the same thing. That doesn't necessarily mean we can do it with our current software approaches, or even in anything involving silicon, but it clearly is possible.

(With the pace of recent advances in AI I would argue that it seems likely to be doable in software, and probably very much sooner that you might expect.)

Comment Re:Another perspective... (Score 1) 299

Literally quoting from the article:

Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It's quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police.

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...