Comment Re: They probably would've made more 18 yrs ago. (Score 2) 151
14.5 million is nothing for IBM. Not even a rounding error. This is a cheap way to kill SCO once and for all.
14.5 million is nothing for IBM. Not even a rounding error. This is a cheap way to kill SCO once and for all.
IT WAS SIX DAYS AGO
Site is hosed, Bro.
Find out how many times you can ghost dub an augmented cyberbrain before the owner becomes catatonic.
remake 2 & 3. They were garbage.
Reliability doesn't simply mean older kernels. In addition to the usual requirements of not having the thing throw a fit under normal conditions, reliability also means consistency and longevity of API and ABI. In other words, not only do you want the thing not to break itself, you don't want it to break other applications. Because of Red Hat's commitments to API and ABI stability, it requires them to backport newer features and fixes into older versions.
This whole article smacks of some CISSP pouring over BGP looking glass router logs and having a sophomore Eureka moment. BGP MITM is not practically possible because of the return path problem: the last router that dumped you the traffic believes you are the legitimate endpoint for that traffic and therefore is not going to forward it to the ACTUAL target once you're done doing nefarious things to it. The article tries to explain this away with the following:
"The traffic was likely examined and then returned on a “clean path” to its destination—all of this happening in the blink of an eye."
If the 'clean path' of the internet thinks Mallory is Bob, Mallory's theoretical egress 'Clean Path' will make the same assumption. Perhaps Alice's first hop AS was compromised? If so this is an isolated vendor network problem, not an 'internet at large' problem. Maybe Mallory's 'clean path' is a point to point to Bob? If so Bob's an idiot for signing a peering agreement with a known Hooligan.
This was likely a misconfigured customer router connected to an irresponsible ISP that doesn't filter the routes it accepts, just like the Pakistan/Youtube Incident. The author either doesn't understand the technical impossibility of the attack they're dreaming about or does and is willing to lose credibility in exchange for ad traffic.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
The system was down for backups from 5am to 10am last Saturday.