Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011.

  1. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Eric Stevens writes:


    >> They were fueled by the customer base, in this case the OEMs who were
    >> Microsoft's customers.


    > I recall Microsoft competitors being the prime movers in a majority of legal
    > actions. OEMs are not the end users. The end users never cared.


    It's a bit hard for the end user to argue that they'd get stiffed
    for $150 or $250 on the license and untold damage because of
    viruses and crashes because MS is and was a monopoly which used
    said monopoly power to crush the competition, which otherwise
    would have produced better, safer, cheaper technology.

    It's much easier for the OEM --- who's a MS customer --- to
    argue that MS is using unfair business practices (as proven
    by this and that paperwork) against them, hindering them
    selling other, possibly better, products.

    >> Apple are free to bring their own fully functioning computer to market
    >> in whatever way they want. Those who dealt with Microsoft were not.


    > Nobody is free to bring any Mac to market except Apple. Anyone can market PCs
    > that run Windows.


    Noone can market a Microsoft-computer but Microsoft.
    Noone can market a Nokia-phone but Nokia.
    Noone can market a Apple-computer but Apple.
    Noone can market a foo-thingy but foo.

    Notice a trend?

    Now, IBM allowed others to build *compatible* PCs.
    (That's not Microsoft! That's IBM!)

    MS doesn't allow anyone to build a *compatible* OS.[1]
    MS doesn't allow anyone to build a *compatible* program to
    their programs.[1]
    Apple doesn't allow anyone to build a *compatible* PC.
    Apple uses a partially open source system.


    So the only difference is IBM (not MS!), and that Apple isn't
    all closed source.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] At least they're trying very hard where they cannot
    prevent it legally --- using all legal technical and some
    illegal technical methods.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/16/2011 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Mxsmanic<> wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens writes:

    >
    >>> They were fueled by the customer base, in this case the OEMs who were
    >>> Microsoft's customers.

    >
    >> I recall Microsoft competitors being the prime movers in a majority of legal
    >> actions. OEMs are not the end users. The end users never cared.

    >
    > It's a bit hard for the end user to argue that they'd get stiffed
    > for $150 or $250 on the license and untold damage because of
    > viruses and crashes because MS is and was a monopoly which used
    > said monopoly power to crush the competition, which otherwise
    > would have produced better, safer, cheaper technology.
    >


    Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters. It
    would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
    extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others put
    together.
    If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    targeted Linux and OSx.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2011 11:12 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >>
    >> Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters. It
    >> would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    >> anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
    >> extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others put
    >> together.

    >
    > They target Windows because it has so many security holes.
    >
    >> If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    >> targeted Linux and OSx.

    >
    > I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a
    > successful virus that targets Linux. The ones that
    > claim to be are not successful, simply because they
    > cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only way
    > to get "infected" is to purposely install it.
    >
    > That's the same as claiming the command "sudo rm -rf /" is
    > a virus. It's not, it's just a possible stupidity.
    >


    I don't usually like to use the WICKI, but read for yourself.
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2011
    #3
  4. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2011 12:13 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 5/17/2011 11:12 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters. It
    >>>> would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    >>>> anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
    >>>> extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others put
    >>>> together.
    >>>
    >>> They target Windows because it has so many security holes.
    >>>
    >>>> If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    >>>> targeted Linux and OSx.
    >>>
    >>> I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a
    >>> successful virus that targets Linux. The ones that
    >>> claim to be are not successful, simply because they
    >>> cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only way
    >>> to get "infected" is to purposely install it.
    >>>
    >>> That's the same as claiming the command "sudo rm -rf /" is
    >>> a virus. It's not, it's just a possible stupidity.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't usually like to use the WICKI, but read for yourself.
    >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware>

    >
    > Did you read it?
    >
    > "There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware
    > threat of the type that Microsoft Windows software
    > faces"
    >
    > Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason
    > for that is exactly as I stated above: there is no way
    > to generate a self replicating virus for Linux. It
    > cannot spread automatically, and has to be purposely
    > installed. That is to say that a "rootkit" can be used
    > to attack one individual host, but that's all that it
    > attacks is just that one host. There is no way to let
    > it loose and have it attack a even a dozen hosts, much
    > less a million or more.
    >
    > A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows
    > machine using out of the box software only will be infected
    > within minutes of being connected to the Internet. Over a
    > period of a month or so...
    >
    > On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the
    > Internet for *years* with no concern whatever about a virus.
    >


    And that excuses the sick virus writers?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <170520111303546385%>,
    d says...
    >
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > They target Windows because it has so many security holes.

    > >
    > > Windows doesn't have many security holes.

    >
    > oh yes it does, especially xp and earlier.
    >
    > > They target Windows because just
    > > about everyone is running it. You don't spend time and money developing
    > > attacks for systems that represent 0.9% of the market.

    >
    > they target systems that are easy to crack because it's a big return on
    > investment. malware is all about money now. it's not the bored hacker
    > who wants to play a prank.


    How does one make money with malware?
     
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    > >targeted Linux and OSx.

    >
    > I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a
    > successful virus that targets Linux. The ones that
    > claim to be are not successful, simply because they
    > cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only way
    > to get "infected" is to purposely install it.


    same for os x. the exploits are against the user, not the os, tricking
    them into installing something, generally porn or pirated software,
    which then asks for the admin password that they freely provide and
    game over.

    they don't rely on anything in the os, such as cracking root, to infect
    the machine.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2011
    #6
  7. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > They target Windows because it has so many security holes.

    >
    > Windows doesn't have many security holes.


    oh yes it does, especially xp and earlier.

    > They target Windows because just
    > about everyone is running it. You don't spend time and money developing
    > attacks for systems that represent 0.9% of the market.


    they target systems that are easy to crack because it's a big return on
    investment. malware is all about money now. it's not the bored hacker
    who wants to play a prank.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2011
    #7
  8. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2011 3:23 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2011 12:18:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>> "There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type
    >>> that Microsoft Windows software faces"
    >>>
    >>> Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason for that is
    >>> exactly as I stated above: there is no way to generate a self
    >>> replicating virus for Linux. It cannot spread automatically, and has
    >>> to be purposely installed. That is to say that a "rootkit" can be used
    >>> to attack one individual host, but that's all that it attacks is just
    >>> that one host. There is no way to let it loose and have it attack a
    >>> even a dozen hosts, much less a million or more.
    >>>
    >>> A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows machine
    >>> using out of the box software only will be infected within minutes of
    >>> being connected to the Internet. Over a period of a month or so...
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the Internet for
    >>> *years* with no concern whatever about a virus.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> And that excuses the sick virus writers?

    >
    >
    > You are the one saying that, not us.


    Please follow the thread. I made the first comment about sick virus
    writers who target MS. The response was that OSx and Linux are immune.
    Clearly a diversionary statement clearly designed to change the topic.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2011
    #8
  9. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2011 3:21 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:29:07 -0400, PeterN wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/17/2011 11:12 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters.
    >>>> It would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    >>>> anti-virus software vendors. They target MS because it is used
    >>>> extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others
    >>>> put together.
    >>>
    >>> They target Windows because it has so many security holes.
    >>>
    >>>> If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that
    >>>> have targeted Linux and OSx.
    >>>
    >>> I don't know about OSx, but there has never been a successful virus
    >>> that targets Linux. The ones that claim to be are not successful,
    >>> simply because they cannot replicate and spread on their own. The only
    >>> way to get "infected" is to purposely install it.
    >>>
    >>> That's the same as claiming the command "sudo rm -rf /" is a virus.
    >>> It's not, it's just a possible stupidity.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I don't usually like to use the WICKI, but read for yourself.
    >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware>

    >
    > Firstly Wicki can be written by anyone and so is not reliable.


    Absolutely true. Which is exactly why I prefaced my remark as I did.


    > Secondly I
    > have been using various linux distros for something like 8 years or so
    > (starting with Mandrake) and have never seen a virus on any of the distros
    > I have used. I do use a firewall and do NOT allow any other computer
    > access to mine. I do have windows on my laptop alongside Fedora 14 for
    > when I visit my daughter.
    >
    > The only virus that I have personally heard of for linux was just an
    > experimental one that was not successful in the wild.
    >


    I have been using Linux for longer than that. It is possible to write a
    virus, though for many years nobody released one in the wild. I have met
    virus writers. While I cannot disclose personal information, their
    motives ranged from they do it because they can, they have mental
    issues, including a virulent hatred of MS and a compulsion to disrupt
    business.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2011
    #9
  10. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J.
    Clarke <> wrote:

    > > > They target Windows because just
    > > > about everyone is running it. You don't spend time and money developing
    > > > attacks for systems that represent 0.9% of the market.

    > >
    > > they target systems that are easy to crack because it's a big return on
    > > investment. malware is all about money now. it's not the bored hacker
    > > who wants to play a prank.

    >
    > How does one make money with malware?


    obtaining user's banking info, phishing scams, identify theft, botnets
    to send spam, etc. there are even malware toolkits that are sold to
    make it easy to implement.

    <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/206726/zeus_botnet_bust_s
    hows_malware_is_all_about_money.html>
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #10
  11. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Yeah, sure. Just out of the box and plugged in. No anti-virus software at
    > > all... right fanboi?

    >
    > Well, as a matter of fact, yes.


    bullshit.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #11
  12. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > Prior to Windows NT, it wasn't very secure, but Windows NT is the most secure
    > operating system in common use for desktops and network servers. This is built
    > directly into the architecture. XP inherited this.


    you can't be serious. that is the most ludicrous thing i've read in a
    while.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #12
  13. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <4dd2dd48$0$12461$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > Please follow the thread. I made the first comment about sick virus
    > writers who target MS. The response was that OSx and Linux are immune.
    > Clearly a diversionary statement clearly designed to change the topic.


    straw man. nobody said they're immune, but that it's significantly
    harder to do and so far, the only malware is user installed.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #13
  14. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-05-17 23:10:57 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    >> ...and your clock is still screwed up. It is very strange that we are
    >> in the same time zone, and I am responding to your post about 90
    >> minutes before you posted it????

    >
    >...er make that 150 minutes before you posted.



    It's getting worse?
     
    Bruce, May 18, 2011
    #14
  15. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > you can't be serious. that is the most ludicrous thing i've read in a
    > > while.

    >
    > You've never worked with the code, whereas I have.


    yes i have worked with windows.

    > The design of Windows NT is
    > excellent, lightyears ahead of any other desktop.


    that's hilarious. what other systems have you compared it to?

    > Even Apple's half-way
    > solution with a complex proprietary layer bolted onto mostly free UNIXoid code
    > is inferior from a design standpoint.


    even more hilarious.

    how is it inferior? specific examples please (this should be good).

    > Of course, their previous OS (like the
    > Windows versions that preceded NT) was garbage.


    like everything, it had its advantages and disadvantages. in 1984, it
    was worlds ahead of everything else.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #15
  16. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 5/16/2011 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic<> wrote:
    >>> Eric Stevens writes:

    >>
    >>>> They were fueled by the customer base, in this case the OEMs who were
    >>>> Microsoft's customers.

    >>
    >>> I recall Microsoft competitors being the prime movers in a majority of legal
    >>> actions. OEMs are not the end users. The end users never cared.

    >>
    >> It's a bit hard for the end user to argue that they'd get stiffed
    >> for $150 or $250 on the license and untold damage because of
    >> viruses and crashes because MS is and was a monopoly which used
    >> said monopoly power to crush the competition, which otherwise
    >> would have produced better, safer, cheaper technology.
    >>


    > Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters.


    Wrong.
    Malicious code is written by people who want monetary gains (the
    most usual case these days: extorture, scareware, botnets, trojans
    with keyloggers for financial data, etc.), by people trying to
    spy or demolish infrastructure (your government agencies, for
    example), people demonstrating security bugs (not malicious)
    + not very inventive people adding malicious code to that, ---
    usually just distributed to AV companies and not released ---
    people who want to try their teeth on self-replicating programs.

    MS haters have nothing to do with it.

    > It
    > would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    > anti-virus software vendors.


    Yes, as if they needed another virus, when they get thousands
    for free each day.

    > They target MS because it is used
    > extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others put
    > together.


    That depends on your definition of 'computer'. Washing
    machines and smartphones and cars and TVs and cameras rarely
    run windows.

    And Windows is a rather easy target to this day.

    If you want an extremely target-rich environment and lasting fame,
    target for Apache on Linux-x86.

    > If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    > targeted Linux and OSx.


    And Unix and so on ...
    Why? Because
    - most people use Windows
    .. most people affected by malware are affected by Windows
    malware[1]
    - most malware in the wild is for Windows. There are very
    few examples of Linux malware in the wild (and only a few
    of them are viruses). I don't know about OS X, but I
    assume the situation there is quite similar.

    Basically, you want me to include littering into a case of
    assault and battery. Viruses under Linux simply aren't a
    worry.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] Even those who don't use Windows. Think "Spam".
    [2] The reason for AV software under Linux is to 99% to protect
    Windows users (mail server/file server under Linux).
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 18, 2011
    #16
  17. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson writes:


    >> I'm sure that is exactly true, because both OSX and
    >> Linux are based on the "unix" concepts of security.


    > The UNIX concepts of security are essentially no security at all. Access
    > controls are virtually non-existent, you're either God or a worm, etc.


    You should create an account that's not root, next time.

    > UNIX actually discarded security concepts that Windows NT would later
    > implement.


    Name a few.

    > UNIX descended from Multics,


    in nothing but a play on the name. At least know the history.

    > one of the most secure operating
    > systems ever designed. Practically nothing of Multics security was retained,
    > leaving a system only slightly more secure than Windows 3.1.


    I see. I see a Windows 3.1 system with an axe embedded in
    the mainboard. Now it's quite unhackable.

    >> But in fact a successful attack on Unix would make
    >> virtually all of those MS systems worthless... because
    >> the Internet runs on Unix (and probably specifically
    >> Linux), and even a mildly successful attack would turn
    >> all of those MS boxes into useless islands of low power
    >> commuting.


    > That is not the objective of the bad guys. The objective of the bad guys is to
    > steal money from individual computer users.


    So you think controlling the network wouldn't allow them to
    do that? Feed the user false data, get them to reveal their
    CC freely. Hack Amazon and Ebay and Google, and you don't need
    to infect millions and millions of desktops.

    >> No Unix... means no network, and that is a
    >> far more juicy target than millions of individual
    >> desktops.


    > No, it's not. Nobody really cares about bringing down networks.


    Cyberwarfare can't happen. Really.

    > Money is the
    > goal, not mischief, except among a vanishing minority of pimple-faced young
    > boys.


    I can think of a lot of three letter agencies ... that would
    like to be able to control or at least shut down the network
    in hostile countries.

    >> And the specific reason that the Internet runs on Unix
    >> is because no matter how well MS was able to market
    >> their desktop, they simply cannot provide the same level
    >> or ease of security for the Internet.


    > That's not correct, either. The Internet was designed around UNIX, and so UNIX
    > systems are well adapted to the Internet and make excellent servers.


    You'd think a company like MS would be able to adapt to the
    Internet in the decades since.

    > However,
    > they are not particularly secure. They are easy to lock down because their
    > uses are so much more limited than those of desktops.


    Pray, can you decide what you want to tell us? "They are not
    particularly secure" doesn't jive with "they are easy to lock
    down", because locked down they *are* secure, by definition.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 18, 2011
    #17
  18. Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    > "There has not yet been a widespread Linux malware
    > threat of the type that Microsoft Windows software
    > faces"


    > Not just viruses, but *any* type of malware. The reason
    > for that is exactly as I stated above: there is no way
    > to generate a self replicating virus for Linux.


    Viruses aren't self replicating. Not even in biology. They
    use other cells (respective programs) for replication.

    > It
    > cannot spread automatically,


    A worm can.

    > and has to be purposely
    > installed.


    Not necessarily. A remotely exploitable weakness in a program is
    enough, preferably a program that listens on a port. Think Morris
    worm. There is no reason that couldn't happen on Linux.

    > That is to say that a "rootkit" can be used
    > to attack one individual host, but that's all that it
    > attacks is just that one host.


    And that host never logs in to other hosts.

    > There is no way to let
    > it loose and have it attack a even a dozen hosts, much
    > less a million or more.


    See above.

    > A simple example is that typically an "unprotected" Windows
    > machine using out of the box software only will be infected
    > within minutes of being connected to the Internet. Over a
    > period of a month or so...


    You are thinking of worms.

    > On the other hand, a Linux machine can be connected to the
    > Internet for *years* with no concern whatever about a virus.


    There have been weaknesses, there will be weaknesses.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 18, 2011
    #18
  19. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2011 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 5/16/2011 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> Mxsmanic<> wrote:
    >>>> Eric Stevens writes:
    >>>
    >>>>> They were fueled by the customer base, in this case the OEMs who were
    >>>>> Microsoft's customers.
    >>>
    >>>> I recall Microsoft competitors being the prime movers in a majority of legal
    >>>> actions. OEMs are not the end users. The end users never cared.
    >>>
    >>> It's a bit hard for the end user to argue that they'd get stiffed
    >>> for $150 or $250 on the license and untold damage because of
    >>> viruses and crashes because MS is and was a monopoly which used
    >>> said monopoly power to crush the competition, which otherwise
    >>> would have produced better, safer, cheaper technology.
    >>>

    >
    >> Malicious code is written by people with sick minds and/or MS haters.

    >
    > Wrong.
    > Malicious code is written by people who want monetary gains (the
    > most usual case these days: extorture, scareware, botnets, trojans
    > with keyloggers for financial data, etc.), by people trying to
    > spy or demolish infrastructure (your government agencies, for
    > example), people demonstrating security bugs (not malicious)
    > + not very inventive people adding malicious code to that, ---
    > usually just distributed to AV companies and not released ---
    > people who want to try their teeth on self-replicating programs.
    >
    > MS haters have nothing to do with it.
    >
    >> It
    >> would not surprise me if some malicious code was written by the
    >> anti-virus software vendors.

    >
    > Yes, as if they needed another virus, when they get thousands
    > for free each day.
    >
    >> They target MS because it is used
    >> extensively in business and is run on more computers than all others put
    >> together.

    >
    > That depends on your definition of 'computer'. Washing
    > machines and smartphones and cars and TVs and cameras rarely
    > run windows.
    >
    > And Windows is a rather easy target to this day.
    >
    > If you want an extremely target-rich environment and lasting fame,
    > target for Apache on Linux-x86.
    >
    >> If you want to be fair how come you don't mention the viruses that have
    >> targeted Linux and OSx.

    >
    > And Unix and so on ...
    > Why? Because
    > - most people use Windows
    > . most people affected by malware are affected by Windows
    > malware[1]
    > - most malware in the wild is for Windows. There are very
    > few examples of Linux malware in the wild (and only a few
    > of them are viruses). I don't know about OS X, but I
    > assume the situation there is quite similar.
    >
    > Basically, you want me to include littering into a case of
    > assault and battery. Viruses under Linux simply aren't a
    > worry.
    >
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >
    > [1] Even those who don't use Windows. Think "Spam".
    > [2] The reason for AV software under Linux is to 99% to protect
    > Windows users (mail server/file server under Linux).



    So you are saying that no malware is written by those who do it for
    motives other than money.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2011
    #19
  20. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


    >> Name a few.


    > Windows NT and its descendants have a vast array of discretionary and
    > mandatory access controls of individual user and group level granularity on
    > all system resources that UNIX cannot match.


    I see. Name a few.

    >> So you think controlling the network wouldn't allow them to
    >> do that?


    > I don't think, I know. There are some simple network-based exploits that can
    > work in certain situations, but all of them can be avoided. Cryptography is
    > the key, in most cases.


    Man in the middle.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 20, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bob
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,719
    J. Clarke
    Jul 3, 2011
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    252
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    227
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    636
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 8, 2011
  5. nospam
    Replies:
    180
    Views:
    2,747
    John Turco
    Jul 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page