This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - systwo
1
« on: February 03, 2012, 02:04:07 am »
You could try repairing the MBR with the windows install disk or equivalent (like Hiren's Boot CD). I think what you want is a completely portable installation of Ubuntu, like the one on this page http://www.pendrivelinux.com/creating-an-ubuntu-live-usb-from-cd/ The version in the link does not save your work but there is another version with persistence (for external HDD and such, as flash memory wears out quicker) on the website somewhere. I've done it before and it works out quite well. Unfortunately, this is as much as I can help you with because I did this a few years ago. This would be the version you want if you don't want the boot menu to show every time, but boot Ubuntu when your external drive is plugged in
2
« on: January 27, 2012, 02:55:15 am »
Sorry for double posting, but I have a question relating to this topic. If the RAM did get corrupted (like my first version of the program) on a real calc, what would happen, and is it recoverable? I would assume that things there are not critical (apart from personal unarchived programs...)
3
« on: January 26, 2012, 02:02:59 pm »
libgcc_s_sjilj-1.dll should present somewhere in the mingw folder (bin/ probably). Just copy that to the folder of your compiled executable and it should work. If it doesn't you can try grabbing it from the net (no guarantees if it works)
4
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:53:46 am »
Wouldn't step 2 be check the lsb then? Or is this an endian thing? Also wouldn't shifting the running total left result in the backwards answer? Sorry if these questions are simple, I'm still getting the hang of bitwise operations.
Edit: Oops, didn't see your edit there ZippyDee!
5
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:33:00 am »
Hmm... That never occurred to me. So its like reverse multiplication for me(I usually start on the right). Thank you so much for this! I have been thinking of how to do multiplication with just arithmetic on the a register and it drove me insane!
6
« on: January 22, 2012, 03:27:43 pm »
Hello everyone!
I've been looking into some 16 bit multiplication but I've come across with few problems. I could not understand much of the bitwise based multiplication and I'm guessing I need to do something like them in order to perform math with a 16 bit answer. Is there anyone who may be able to enlighten me?
Thanks!
7
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:09:20 pm »
That's pretty cool! The white fire idea would be a good idea because it would look like more of a fire, as fire is usually brighter. Just a question from a beginning programmer, what does the "3:" and "6:" do?
8
« on: January 21, 2012, 03:05:04 pm »
You could try using just ffmpeg, the engine that SUPER wraps around. Mencoder may work as well (I'm not sure about this because I haven't use this as much). Both of them are command line though.
If both of them don't work, you can try importing the video to blender then have it render out some bmps.
9
« on: January 21, 2012, 01:11:04 am »
Are you planning to make programs runnable online in the future? That would be great for me when I need to show other people asm programming.
10
« on: January 15, 2012, 10:08:37 pm »
Specifying a protocol by implementation in any computer language is generally a bad idea. There are reasons every major specification is in a human language, the primary ones being that it makes differing implementations of the spec possible.
This is a good point. If anyone is interested, RFCs are out there and are an excellent template on how to make specifications.
11
« on: January 15, 2012, 10:01:41 pm »
@Qwerty.55
Of course, I am not proposing that we go and invert the ciphers and systems needed, but rather to combine existing ones.
On the topic of secure networking, I too am also interested, perhaps we may discuss about this topic in the future?
12
« on: January 15, 2012, 09:41:16 pm »
I don't think that legally, they can do anything about what you say here. There's the Freedom of Speech thing, right? 
13
« on: January 15, 2012, 09:24:11 pm »
Um, what's an FBI honeypot?
Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_%28computing%29Basically it is a trap that a third party will set. They will make a node/user/whatever look like a valid user, but they will use it to gain insight and catch people. They can also attempt to take down the network "from the inside" Edit: OMG 1 second ninja'd!
14
« on: January 15, 2012, 09:20:19 pm »
So, to apply it to this new protocol thing I can give a few tips:
1. If you invent something to keep the government out, you are inviting pirates and similar folk in.
2. From point 1, the FBI, NSA and other alphabet agencies are going to invest more to crack it. If you do manage to keep them out, then they may appear at your doorstep (if they haven't done so already)
3. You could still be shut from the internet with a couple of letters to your ISP (unless you are doing this over a really big WiFi network or equivalent)
4. The content that would appear there would be limited.
It's already been invented and it's called the http secure protocol. The entire point of encryption is to prevent third parties from being able to read your data and https is a well known, well supported, and well tested way of doing that. Those third parties can still most likely see where the traffic is coming and going from, but they can't tell what the actual data being transmitted is.
Also, the FBI/NSA could really care less about most individuals. Any reasonably knowledgeable person can already prevent them from reading their data.
Thirdly, your ISP can shut you down no matter what. There are very few large router stations in the US (or even abroad). Two or three requests at most could ban a location from connecting to the internet.
As for the fourth thing, every site that has the proper certification can use the https protocol. Not many sites invest in it, but enough do.
I do agree with this what you say, but I'm just giving some advice. HTTPS is a recommended way to do things, and it has a large community supporting it, but if our community wishes to create another protocol, I'm all for it. On your first point, we could make it better by not showing where the traffic is going and where it is from. See "The Onion Router" (TOR) for a similar system. It works but it is very slow. Improvements can always be made On your point about individuals, yes the FBI will not go looking for one person, but what if this person was the creator and distributor of the software to make things secure? On the third point: Uh, that is what I said... Addressing your fourth point, HTTPS is a very expensive (CPU-wise) way of encrypting. That is one of the major reasons that not many people use it. Also it is expensive in the financial sense as you do need to buy a certificate. I don't think that all the webmasters can pay for it every year. Yes, you can make your own but users get a suspicious "This certificate is not valid and can be a malicious phishing site" warning, which will deter many users. Again, I'm not trying to oppose you or the community, just trying to give a few points (also I like to debate too) By the time I make this post I think there will be 10 posts between when I started typing Edit: @jwalker Who is right?
15
« on: January 15, 2012, 09:11:52 pm »
So do we actually have the ability and tools to successfully battle this if need be?
Well... Kindof. For the first phase (from project start until it is slashdotted) you probably will be successful. I know there are a lot of great minds here in this community and I do not doubt that a client using this secure protocol with none of the HTTP overhead can be created. To ISPs and governments at this point, it would look like another game or sharing software has appeared. To the RIAA, MPAA, etc., it would be a waste of their time. For us, it would mean slightly faster internet (it wouldn't be a huge boost to speed, as the security protocols would take more time to process, possibly balancing the low overhead). The second phase (slashdot to the end of the internet) is a bit more in the grey area. As soon as this project is shown to all the geeks and nerds out there, they will start using it. People with illegal content will see this as another way to store their data and release it without being caught (this will set the red flag for the FBI). But the nerds and geeks may be people like Bruce Schneier or the folks at EFF, who will support this if they see it as successful. If this is the case then we may have a good working protocol that will prevent snooping from people who use their powers maliciously. Oh and also, FBI honeypots may appear as well. So, you will need to take that into account when making this protocol. Tl;dr If you make this system, then you will need to take into account everything I said in the last post and make sure it is secure enough that 'honeypots' cannot exist. And you will need to get the attention of privacy and security advocates to support this.
|
Show Posts