On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:30:42 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> We could do terminal server - how about just dumb terminals?
> 
>   VT100 rules.
> 
>   (Ok, I have never actually used a VT100 terminal. I have used a VT220
>   one,
> though. Back then it was enough to do everything you had to do... :) )

I think I have used a VT100 terminal.  Orange phosphor type screen, IIRC.

:-)

Jim

>> But even more significantly, social engineering attacks lead to more
>> compromise of data than any technical hacking does.
> 
>   I read recently about a test they did somewhere (I don't remember if
> it was done in Finland or the US). It's surprising how many people will
> write their account name and password on a paper questionnaire simply
> because the questionnaire asks for them.

Yep, but even worse than that is that help desk personnel will tend to 
reset passwords for anyone who says they are the person calling in.

Call one:

"Hi, I'm Joe Smith, and I can't seem to get in with my username - isn't 
it jsmith?"
"No, it's johnsmith, no spaces, all lowercase."
"Huh, I could've sworn it was jsmith, must've been thinking about a 
different system.  I'm in now, thanks!"

Followed by a second call to a different tech:

"Hi, I'm Joe Smith, just got back from vacation and I've forgotten my 
password, can you reset it for me?"
"Sure, no problem - it's now 'password', and you'll be forced to change 
it on your next login."
"Thanks, appreciate it."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:30:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> We could do terminal server - how about just dumb terminals?
>>   VT100 rules.
>>
>>   (Ok, I have never actually used a VT100 terminal. I have used a VT220
>>   one,
>> though. Back then it was enough to do everything you had to do... :) )
> 
> I think I have used a VT100 terminal.  Orange phosphor type screen, IIRC.
> 
> :-)
> 
vt52, vt100, vt220 and vt240 (using its grahical modes to plot things 
IIRC) but I started on on a beehive terminal where you could edit one 
line locally and then use the 'send' button to send to the mainframe.
No fancy full screen editors like VI yet.
Output to be collected the next day at the front desk.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:40:44 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:30:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> We could do terminal server - how about just dumb terminals?
>>>   VT100 rules.
>>>
>>>   (Ok, I have never actually used a VT100 terminal. I have used a
>>>   VT220 one,
>>> though. Back then it was enough to do everything you had to do... :) )
>> 
>> I think I have used a VT100 terminal.  Orange phosphor type screen,
>> IIRC.
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
> vt52, vt100, vt220 and vt240 (using its grahical modes to plot things
> IIRC) but I started on on a beehive terminal where you could edit one
> line locally and then use the 'send' button to send to the mainframe. No
> fancy full screen editors like VI yet. Output to be collected the next
> day at the front desk.

Technically, I think my first terminal was a real teletype - I remember 
my dad bringing one home from the office for the IBM 305 they had, 
acoustic coupler and all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Regardless of the suspected crime type, I'm still not very comfortable
> if the police could legally spy on anyone they want.

In the USA, the police are *supposed* to go to a judge and convince the 
judge of the need to do this.  That this is being ignored is troublesome 
to me. But I don't have much of a problem with it when the judge is 
involved.

Of course, the bit of "let's watch everyone always who is in public, and 
record any data leaving or entering their private house" is also 
troublesome, but certainly easier to get around.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   How is the police meant to stop domestic violence without installing
>> surveillance cameras in all homes?
> 
> Kill all men?

You *are* aware that men are abused more often than women are, right?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> After your PC 
> has been confiscated (before they realise it won't boot without the USB 
> key) you can destroy the USB stick.

That's called "destruction of evidence" and it's also illegal. Not that 
they could do much about it, but it's illegal.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   How is the police meant to stop domestic violence without installing
>>> surveillance cameras in all homes?
>>
>> Kill all men?
> 
> You *are* aware that men are abused more often than women are, right?
> 
It still works.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>   How is the police meant to stop domestic violence without
>>>>   installing
>>>> surveillance cameras in all homes?
>>>
>>> Kill all men?
>> 
>> You *are* aware that men are abused more often than women are, right?
>> 
> It still works.

Arguably for the women abusers it sure does....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> How are they meant to catch people downloading illegal material without
>> spying on you?
>
>  How is the police meant to stop domestic violence without installing
> surveillance cameras in all homes?

Looking at IP logs of suspects is a bit different to having a camera inside 
your house.

By using the internet you are effectively agreeing that everyone else can 
see what you are doing.  By living in a house you are certainly not agreeing 
to that.

Post a reply to this message

>> After your PC has been confiscated (before they realise it won't boot 
>> without the USB key) you can destroy the USB stick.
>
> That's called "destruction of evidence" and it's also illegal. Not that 
> they could do much about it, but it's illegal.

Yeh I guess it depends on how bad the punishments will be relatively.  I 
mean if there was evidence on your PC that would incriminate you for murder, 
would it be beneficial to destroy the decryption device?  What if you just 
"lost" it ("i thought it was plugged into the PC when you guys took it 
away")?  They couldn't prove that you destroyed it.

Post a reply to this message