Close

3 thought on “el salvatorische klausel big ass

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This is much worse than just installing adware. It's a big company doing, so it's gonna be fine. It actually depends whether or not the practice is directly or indirectly agreed to by the user in the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy or similar document.

Now, it's likely that users do agree to it, but if the language in their policies wasn't broad enough to cover action like this, theoretically it would be a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as exceeding authorized use.

This won't hold for Germany though. The BigCo argument holds in Germany unfortunately as well Some EULAs basically say "you give permission for us to access and modify any data in el salvatorische klausel big ass system" At least PunkBuster is spying for a relatively noble purpose: preventing cheating in online games. Cheating absolutely destroys the experience in multiplayer games and has el salvatorische klausel big ass many games.

This is spying with the sole purpose of spreading ads and making money. Alupis on Feb 19, So because a few people decide to cheat at a game they paid for, everyone who paid full price for the game is forced to install spyware which can and does modify files on el salvatorische klausel big ass pc, take screenshots as you play the game, monitor your mouse inputs, keyboard, etc?

I think that is fine, personally. Obviously others might not. With Lenovo not only is there no opt-out, but you're not even aware of the adware and root CA installation. The "spyware" only spies on modifications to the game client in any way and tries to detect non-human involvement, which of course includes inspecting the el salvatorische klausel big ass system and RAM.

In theory it could harvest irrelevant information from your hard drive or memory, but no reverse engineer has ever made such a claim to my knowledge. Valve Anti-Cheat does very similar things, but is run by what many consider to be a trustworthy company, so not that many people take issue with it. If one trusts the company that distributes the spyware, it's not really a problem, in my opinion. If Valve were to ever violate that trust, it would severely harm their business.

I also strongly disagree with DRM, because it only harms other players while providing no benefits. In contrast, online cheaters can completely ruin the playing experience for online games, and have heavily contributed to the death of some games. I also have no issue if people decide to cheat when in single-player mode.

If you pay for the game you should be able to do whatever you want if you're not affecting others. It's only a problem when they're playing with other people over the Internet. PunkBuster and VAC only run when you're playing in online mode. It's not fine because, as is the case with Superfish, this type of software leaves gaping security holes that blackhats can exploit no matter how noble the vendor is. What security holes does PunkBuster introduce? El salvatorische klausel big ass like Superfish and game client modification detection like PunkBuster are very different kinds of software.

I do not support anything like Superfish. It's not just because they are a big company though. The "community", the industry and the government all share blame for the lack of liability for software. Edit: It's pretty bad form to downvote new accounts becuase you disagree. Imagine if I didn't know about hellbanning. The best hope here is that Lenovo explicitly promised someone something they didn't keep.

It certainly seems like unauthorised use of a computer system, on the face of it. You can bet sexy dameklr thai massasje sandvika if the NSA manages to use this to hoover up some tasty HTTPS, this scandal will be el salvatorische klausel big ass as a big boost to "national security" behind the scenes, and nobody will be punished. For all we know NSA had a hand in engineering this. Of course, if some government data is stolen as a result, then the whole thing will be thrown under the bus and deemed a threat to "national security".

I hope anyone who uses terms like "national security" does it in full awareness of what Orwell meant by newspeak and doublethink. The NSA doesn't need this amateur-hour backdoor. They surely have el salvatorische klausel big ass of one or more genuine certificate authorities already. Impersonating a CA is not transparent and risks losing that CA if anyone finds el salvatorische klausel big ass it's forging certs. They probably can do that, but it's a risky nuclear option.

This is a transparent dragnet that can easily be blamed away, which has been shown to be much more preferable in the NSA's M. The sad thing is we don't need to invoke the big el salvatorische klausel big ass NSA here. There is absolutely positively nothing about this that suggests it is anything other than bog-standard SSL incompetence.

And to be clear, I mean, absolutely nothing. This isn't a slightly unlikely thing that still leaves room to wonder about "plausible deniability" Somebody somewhere wanted to get in on the advertising gig because it looks like free money. Some techie was ordered to fix it. Said techie read a few things on a few sites and typed in the magic commands to "make it work" and probably literally didn't even know that they'd just annihilated security for all their users Ship it.

It does seem like this is more of an amateur hour screw-up. It isn't beyond the NSA to plant developers that can insert backdoors on el salvatorische klausel big ass behalf or set up front companies to sell vulnerable libraries but one would hope that they have enough sense not to leave cleartext passwords in a binary. Of course that could be an intentional misdirection so one never really knows.

I really don't agree. Most CAs are too big to fall anyway. So the chance of government data being stolen is minimal, so the chance of the US government caring much is unlikely. So I doubt this will wind up under that bus. Lenovo is a Chinese company, so it's possible, but you'd think they're more likely to be responsible. Isn't superfish or is it Phish? Some of the code inserted is pretty strange, including functions to checks for lenevo, bestbuy.

The code you linked is nothing out of the ordinary as far as adware in Chrome plug-ins etc. This is just one of many many Chrome plug-ins that is injecting ads and Google encourages this[4]. It should absolutely be illegal to do something like this.

I think what you meant to say is that the existing laws that make something like this illegal should be enforceable in a meaningful way against large manufacturers and retailers.

They merely try to sound oblivious because their laywers hope that will soften the legal and media repercussions. Honestly, I think that's unlikely. This is far too sloppy to have been intentional. There are much better ways to implement a backdoor when you control the OS image. This is just incompetence, plain and el salvatorische klausel big ass. Superfish looks like the kind of crapware that pays OEMs to include it in their bundle.

Lenovo took the cash and didn't bother to review the code. Superfish, for its part, probably doesn't have the best and brightest engineers working for them. They probably tasked a star trek, nichelle nichols nude programmer with working around SSL, who then committed the first solution that worked without ever thinking about security implications, and they shipped it.

WestCoastJustin on Feb 19, Cannot see how this could possibly be true. Having been privy to OS bundling for products, I can assure you there is lengthy contracts, and negotiations, about exactly what is happening.

You do no simply walk up to Lenovo and have your "software" installed into the OS without a very detailed contract and pay structure.

There also looks to be js injected into pages, which is serving up the ads, and a comment about Lenovo [1]. Think about what the means.

There was a project at this company, where they had meetings, project plans, testing to make sure it worked, and a very detailed idea of what was going on. Never mind all the ramping up capacity due to new Lenovo's boxes coming on-line. There is zero chance this was some low level junior programmer fly by night operation. Oh I'm sure they had lots of meetings about the contracts and pay structure, and they may have done testing to make sure it didn't break things, but apparently no one did a security review.

Sadly, this doesn't surprise me that much. If they did know about the problem, they could have fixed it. If the app simply generated a new key as part of first-time use, then it would just be run-of-the-mill crapware rather than a gaping security hole. Even if Lenovo has malicious intent, it would still have been in their best interests to do at least that, yet they didn't. Hence I assume it was incompetence.

Any engineer with even the slightest clue of how a browser and "the internet" works would have called this out during the first "How does this product work? Let's not pretend Lenovo el salvatorische klausel big ass staffed with monkeys. Which, possibly unfairly, is one el salvatorische klausel big ass I'm leaning more towards ansible than saltstack to this day -- I mean, if stuff like that got through The problem in Lenovo's situation is, calling it incompetence is the real stretch.

You could call Charles Manson incompetent saying he just didn't know what he was doing was wrong, but everyone knows he was just evil. Never falsely attribute to incompetence what is actually ascribable to malice. You can't come in here with a straight face and say that no one at Lenovo considered the security risk of including this software. If it was considered and they pushed ahead with it anyway, that's malice.


© 2020
nackt ungeschnittenen » On the internet sex video clips for real sex enthusiasts  arhicve