John Le Carre’s “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”and Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” were constant companions for me on road trips (sadly no English unabridged “Foucault’s Pendulum” exists)
Even that interpretation would be be wrong because it can and it does and the circumstances are very clearly described. Every inverter worth considering for a home installation has this capability. Only really old ones are not able to disconnect from the HV side when things are about to go pear shaped. If I had an inverter without that capability I'd get rid of it immediately because that's an accident waiting to happen.
To add a little detail, Objective C was created by Brad Cox and Tom Love who formed PPI/Stepstone, with NeXT becoming a customer when Steve Naroff left Stepstone for NeXT to add support in GCC
Windsurf users can still plug their own Anthropic key and continue using the models. It’s Windsurf subscribers (eg OpenAI customers) that use the models through the Windsurf service (through their servers as proxy, that’s now OpenAI) are getting cut off
I don’t see how this is irrelevant. Windsurf is a first party product of their most direct competitor. Imagine a car company integrating the cloud tech of a different manufacturer
Burroughs was also one of the great comic monologuists, in March 1975 he was asked by Harper’s Magazine (along with others including Ronald Reagan, who had just finished his last term as governor of California) to contribute an essay on the topic “When Did You Stop Wanting to be President”, it’s a funny essay but delivered best as a monologue: https://youtu.be/ir0JDok2TDE?si=W7JExK7VeMbL9Ky-
Which is exactly why humans are a terrible tool for the job of space exploration. Really a political sacrificial lamb more than something useful. A robot doesn’t need to sleep. It can take radiation. It doesn’t need to develop some long term farming system. It doesn’t need to come back home either.
That is not true. DDT as a tool was preserved by the environmental movement not eliminated, it is pure propaganda to say that it has zero tolerance, it has been used as much as it has been necessary for it to be useful in public health.
The people who claim that it became a “Chemical Hitler” wanted it used excessively in areas like agriculture which would have eliminated its usefulness in reducing malaria and similar disease vectors.
I first encountered Electronic Data Interchange in the early 90's. The small shop I worked for at the time had no idea and just wanted to make the parts they quoted and send them when done.
The EDI request came in a box, with external modem, a paper with phone number and directions and then a smaller box with PROGRESS database software for MSDOS in side and a handful of disks containing the EDI system.
Good lord that was painful! I just plowed through it and all that pain completed a check box at Honeywell, who then sent us jobs electronically!
Yes, via FTP.
The CAD they were sending was Computer Vision and it was a full on solid model representation! At the time we were running CAD from the early enlightenment, CADKEY 3.5 for MSDOS!
Our best micro computer lacked the storage to handle the uncompressed file, which arrived on another handful of floppies that formed a multi part. Zip file, which uncompressed totaled about 40 megabytes and change! Entire systems only had 20!
The CAD system failed to translate the data too. 16bit pointers lacked the range needed. They had me fetch a patch a day or two later and it took a few hours to do.
300 kilobytes of wireframe CAD, and the parts we made were basically 5 percent of that data!
FTP can be as secure as any other protocol. Enabling encryption on the server side is generally as simple as installing a certificate and turning on an option. And most FTP clients will default to using encryption if it is available; for the clients that don’t do that, it’s just another server option to require clients to use encryption.
> And when companies say they use FTP to exchange data, they don't tend to mean SFTP. They really do mean FTP.
Because SFTP is a different and entirely unrelated protocol. The encrypted version of FTP is sometimes known as FTPS, but it’s really just a variant of FTP. So it would be inaccurate to call it SFTP, but referring to it as simply FTP doesn’t imply a lack of security.
> The AUTH command is generally sent before encryption of the connection is made.
So…? What is the danger of negotiating an encryption protocol over plaintext? No credentials or sensitive information are sent via the AUTH command, and a server that disallows unencrypted connections will simply refuse to go any further with a client that doesn’t support encryption.
> It’s also vulnerable to a huge swathe of timing and weak hash attacks.
Gonna need a source on that. And even if such attacks potentially exist, in the use case you mentioned above I’m still not seeing how encryption combined with, for example, IP whitelisting can’t effectively be as secure as anything else you could use.
I mean, if they’re really not using encryption then yeah, that’s stupid and all bets are off. But there’s nothing inherently insecure about the FTP protocol.
Negotiation over plaintext is a vulnerability, yes.
Neither side of the pipe is secured, so absolutely everyone inbetween is a MITM waiting to happen. Someone else can negotiate what encryption gets used. Such as the still supported MD5 signing-only.
Which also means your IP whitelisting does bupkus, unless you trust every single interchange of your, and your clients, telcos.
It’s only a vulnerability if you’re using vulnerable encryption methods, at which point you’ve already introduced a vulnerability. You could make the exact same argument about STARTTLS vs implicit TLS, but it’s generally understood that, as long as the only allowable protocols are themselves secure, there is no difference in security between the two.
No, the negotiation is in plaintext. You don't get to choose whether or not you use a vulnerable encryption method.
That same problem in STARTTLS is how we ended up with CVE-2011-0411.
> The TLS protocol encrypts communication and protects it against modification by other parties. This protection exists only if a) software is free of flaws, and b) clients verify the server's TLS certificate, so that there can be no "man in the middle" (servers usually don't verify client certificates).
There's no certificate verification in FTPS - it's too early - so you're screwed. [1]
FTPS is the vulnerable encryption method. It's the reason that SFTP is recommended, and FTPS is not. [2]
