Back in 2009, I saw the model of a vehicle with "full connectivity" during a presentation by an R&D bloke from Audi. Not a model of the car itself, but of the control software. It included a downlink to provide remote access for maintenance, troubleshooting and, most importantly, the reception of position and movement vectors for vehicles in your proximity "to improve safety and traffic flow".

That was before all the fucked up multimedia/social networking bonanza in cars went into high gear, providing an even easier access to the cars systems...

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.
Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.


How about reading what you fucking quote first. Tell yourself whatever you need to. ""Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly" -- it doesn't? of course it does. Do you expect the hijacker to land the plane so you can reprogram it?

Read the other quote from the former head of British Airways “suggested ... that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

It's part of the autopilot system. There's no need to hack into the system and "write complex programs correctly ... in mere minutes."

Why is that so hard to understand?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.


I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.

Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.


Are you purposely acting dense?

"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.


“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

>> ^Stormsinger:

@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.


What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.

On a side note, the NORAD computers probably were hacked.

Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

Since you're running a server anyway, have you considered things you can do with it when not at home? I mean things like Torrentflux, if you're into torrents, IRC shell, file storage for remote access, serving your media files outside your home (Knots2 is a mighty nice application for on-the-fly transcoding of media to be served over the Internet)... I suppose you're running Windows on that, so I can't say how much of this is easily done without installing some Linux distro, but if you have the time to mess around with it, there's a lot of pretty nifty stuff you can do.

Recently I've been toying with the idea of setting up a one-time-pad system for logging into webmail etc. from public computers that might be infested with keyloggers: Just create a webpage on the home server that asks for a random number from a pregenerated list and passes your login credentials to the webmail provider if you provide the correct number.

The case isn't about their use of the state-owned computers in the classroom. In the school, the administrators have every right to monitor the use of their computers. The students shouldn't HAVE to offer any personal information on sites that are to be used for classes, so the privacy issue is moot on school grounds. The case is about whether the school activated the webcams while the students were in their homes.

If the school was peeping on their students in their homes by ANY means, the school is some deep trouble. They could potentially be breaking some obvious and very serious laws whether on purpose or otherwise.

The administration claims the cams were only ever turned on remotely when laptops were lost or allegedly stolen to help locate them.

The only things in this case that I read anywhere said an "image on the student's hard drive" was the reason for the disciplinary action. It didn't say that the image was OF the student in his home, though of course everyone suspects that it was. It's possible, however, that the student WAS doing something inappropriate on the computer while at home and the school found out about it later, legally. It's possible the case against the school is to evade that issue by turning the focus to the obviously dubious potential actions of the school. If the agreement that the students and parents signed prohibited ANY inappropriate use whether in or out of school, and if the school found out about that use later (say while the student was IN the school using their laptop), and if the computer contained the evidence to prove it, than the webcam may never have been remote-accessed at any time off campus in the first place; if that is the case, the school may be within their rights as owners of the laptops. I say all this is "possible" because it IS a feasible explanation, even if it is boring. Honestly, what school administrator would openly come out with a picture of a student in their home taken remotely?! That's almost TOO stupid to believe likely.

The issue is creepy in the extreme, but the school may be innocent, even though they made the enormously monumental failure of judgment by allowing the possibility for abuse at the get go.

>> ^shole:
interesting
what would the practical application be, apart from creeping people out?


Just off the top of my head, remote access to places like extremely confined places like the rubble of crushed buildings (probably for reconnaissance), or any other place where wheeled/legged robots may have difficulty moving.

How do you fix that? Its easy, turn remote access off. Then buff your firewalls. IF you dont have at least 2 firewalls then you are asking for a screw up.

You could also set up a honey pot, with some nice logic bombs to destroy the computer that is attacking your personal computer.

If they claim that you broke a law, then you will have to fight for what you believe is right.

>> ^techoftheday:
I'm currently using a service called Techinline Remote Desktop (http://www.techinline.com) and have to say it's probably the best "bang for the buck" which I came across when evaluating remote access services. First of all, it's a fraction of what you would pay for a LogMeIn Rescue service, and although it's not as fully-featured, it's more than enough for straightforward remote support and screen sharing, and also has a file transfer (LogMeIn Free doesn't). Another great thing about it is the fact that it runs through the browser and nobody has to install anything on either end. I'd recommend it as a cost-effective alternative to most of the other services on the market these days.


Given that you signed up to Videosift today, may I ask if you have any commercial relationship with Techinline?

We just tested it in the office and I couldn't see the file transfer facility on the free trial. It was very laggy and we had to install a Firefox add-on (which seems reasonable really) and presume this would be the same for IE.

I'm currently using a service called Techinline Remote Desktop (http://www.techinline.com) and have to say it's probably the best "bang for the buck" which I came across when evaluating remote access services. First of all, it's a fraction of what you would pay for a LogMeIn Rescue service, and although it's not as fully-featured, it's more than enough for straightforward remote support and screen sharing, and also has a file transfer (LogMeIn Free doesn't). Another great thing about it is the fact that it runs through the browser and nobody has to install anything on either end. I'd recommend it as a cost-effective alternative to most of the other services on the market these days.

I work in a MS environment so I just remote access via mstsc.

Whats so different about LogMeIn and like VNC?

Hamachi is best for LAN games, every lan I had benefited from having Hamachi, it stopped any connectivity problems between users.

My colleagues and me couldn't live without it but I'm not sure the free version does those extra bits [edit - you do get the Magnify tool on the free account]. I have both free and Pro accounts but it's only my LogMeInRescue account that allows me to doodle on the target machine. With the Pro account you can share your screen with anyone else, get a file transfer tool and share specified files on your computer.

And sorry to say you do have to install software on the computer you wish to remotely access. This is visible in the system tray. With LogMeInRescue you only have to get the person you're helping to download and run a small applet file.

We pay *alot* for the functionality of LogMeInRescue but there are free alternatives like http://www.crossloop.com/ which is based on the VNC protocol.

Where the hell have you been!?!?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Your post, with the enclosed description, identifies you as a Spammer. You are free to contact the site administrators and make your case for reinstatement if you wish.

"Experience the Best Online Computer Repair & PC Repair with iYogi on 1-800-237-3901 and get Computer Repair, PC repair services, online computer repair technical support, it support services, over the phone and via remote access"


http://www.videosift.com/video/iYogi-Computer-Repair-PC-Repair-Support-Video