Forwarded from Solidot
思科对其 VPN 设备发出紧急高危漏洞警告
思科对使用其网络安全设备和软件的客户发出高危漏洞警告。配置使用 WebVPN 的防火墙、安全设备和其它设备都容易受到网络攻击，允许攻击者绕过防御系统在设备上执行命令获得完整控制权限。该漏洞的 CVSS（Common Vulnerability Scoring System rating of Critical）评分为 10，即最高危险级。WebVPN 允许企业网络之外的人通过安全浏览器会话访问企业内网和其它网络资源，它不需要客户端软件或预先存在的证书。思科表示目前还没有发现该漏洞被活跃利用，鉴于漏洞的性质已经公布于众，漏洞利用预计会很快出现。Media
//www.solidot.org/story?sid=55413
思科对使用其网络安全设备和软件的客户发出高危漏洞警告。配置使用 WebVPN 的防火墙、安全设备和其它设备都容易受到网络攻击，允许攻击者绕过防御系统在设备上执行命令获得完整控制权限。该漏洞的 CVSS（Common Vulnerability Scoring System rating of Critical）评分为 10，即最高危险级。WebVPN 允许企业网络之外的人通过安全浏览器会话访问企业内网和其它网络资源，它不需要客户端软件或预先存在的证书。思科表示目前还没有发现该漏洞被活跃利用，鉴于漏洞的性质已经公布于众，漏洞利用预计会很快出现。Media
//www.solidot.org/story?sid=55413
Forwarded from 南琴浪's 新闻部 (deprecated)
[v2ray 官方博文]
https://steemit.com/cn/@v2ray/fjd2k
https://steemit.com/cn/@v2ray/fjd2k
Steemit
代理工具的安全性（一） — Steemit
目测本周的更新又双叒叕要黄了，如果不发一些什么东西，你们又该猜测喝茶的事情了，所以还是随便写点吧。 分析一个软件是否安全的过程称为“ Threat modeling… by v2ray
Forwarded from iVanilla 自然科学 & 神秘学实验研究部 (iVanilla)
Apple 从 App Store 全区下架 Telegram 及第三方客户端，原因暂时不清楚。
Forwarded from Solidot
富士 61 亿美元收购施乐
富士胶片以 61 亿美元收购了著名的施乐公司。施乐将并入两家公司的合资公司富士施乐，新公司的综合收入将达到 180 亿美元。作为交易的一部分，其中 25 亿美元将会返回给股东，此外富士将在亚洲裁掉 1 万个工作。施乐公司表示，在全球数字化程度越来越高之际，该公司可借助这桩合并交易加强与一个具有创新思想合作伙伴的关系，并打入高科技标签和工业打印等新领域。该交易还可使两家公司节省 17 亿美元成本，包括富士胶片将通过裁员 1 万人和关闭合资公司厂房所节省的 4.5 亿美元。该交易还必须获得施乐公司股东的批准。富士胶片将作价 61 亿美元出售所持该合资企业 75% 的股份，然后将所得资金用于买入新公司 50.1% 的股份。施乐的股东将持有新公司 49.9% 的股份，并获得 25 亿美元股息。Media
//www.solidot.org/story?sid=55420
富士胶片以 61 亿美元收购了著名的施乐公司。施乐将并入两家公司的合资公司富士施乐，新公司的综合收入将达到 180 亿美元。作为交易的一部分，其中 25 亿美元将会返回给股东，此外富士将在亚洲裁掉 1 万个工作。施乐公司表示，在全球数字化程度越来越高之际，该公司可借助这桩合并交易加强与一个具有创新思想合作伙伴的关系，并打入高科技标签和工业打印等新领域。该交易还可使两家公司节省 17 亿美元成本，包括富士胶片将通过裁员 1 万人和关闭合资公司厂房所节省的 4.5 亿美元。该交易还必须获得施乐公司股东的批准。富士胶片将作价 61 亿美元出售所持该合资企业 75% 的股份，然后将所得资金用于买入新公司 50.1% 的股份。施乐的股东将持有新公司 49.9% 的股份，并获得 25 亿美元股息。Media
//www.solidot.org/story?sid=55420
Forwarded from Gmail Bot
✉️ Senator Todd Young <contact@young.senate.gov>
A Response to Your Inquiry
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Since its inception, the internet has flourished with minimal government intervention and revolutionized our ability to share information and carry out commerce here at home and around the world. Today, Americans typically connect to the internet through a residential broadband service or through a wireless broadband service. Companies that provide these broadband services spend billions a year advancing and maintaining the infrastructure that has allowed the internet to thrive. As a result, internet speeds are thousands times faster than they were just a couple decades ago, and available to nearly 96% of the population.
This has all occurred under light-touch regulation from the federal government, and not under the heavy-handed rules of common carrier regulation, which has unfortunately become synonymous with the notion of ‘net neutrality’ today. While there is no single accepted definition of ‘net neutrality,’ most agree it is the notion that these broadband companies should not be allowed to favor or block any legal content on their network, or discriminate against any legal content providers.
On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted along party lines in favor of reclassifying the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act – effectively putting 1930s era regulations in charge of the modern day internet economy. While some have applauded this move as ensuring net neutrality concepts are protected, many others have expressed concerns that the FCC simply applied an already outdated regulatory framework to the most dynamic industry in human history.
On December 14, 2017, the FCC voted to return the classification of broadband service from a Title II telecommunications service to a Title I information service. I applaud the FCC for voting to return to the traditional light-touch framework that promoted Internet growth, transparency, and freedom for nearly 20 years before the 2015 reclassification.
I believe we must keep the internet ecosystem open and vibrant. I also believe that major decisions on how to regulate the internet ought to come from Congress, not unelected bureaucrats dreaming up how depression-era laws can regulate the internet. I believe it is imperative for Congress to work toward bipartisan, light-touch regulations that ensure the internet remains accessible and unrestricted by government intrusion for future generations.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator
A Response to Your Inquiry
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Since its inception, the internet has flourished with minimal government intervention and revolutionized our ability to share information and carry out commerce here at home and around the world. Today, Americans typically connect to the internet through a residential broadband service or through a wireless broadband service. Companies that provide these broadband services spend billions a year advancing and maintaining the infrastructure that has allowed the internet to thrive. As a result, internet speeds are thousands times faster than they were just a couple decades ago, and available to nearly 96% of the population.
This has all occurred under light-touch regulation from the federal government, and not under the heavy-handed rules of common carrier regulation, which has unfortunately become synonymous with the notion of ‘net neutrality’ today. While there is no single accepted definition of ‘net neutrality,’ most agree it is the notion that these broadband companies should not be allowed to favor or block any legal content on their network, or discriminate against any legal content providers.
On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted along party lines in favor of reclassifying the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act – effectively putting 1930s era regulations in charge of the modern day internet economy. While some have applauded this move as ensuring net neutrality concepts are protected, many others have expressed concerns that the FCC simply applied an already outdated regulatory framework to the most dynamic industry in human history.
On December 14, 2017, the FCC voted to return the classification of broadband service from a Title II telecommunications service to a Title I information service. I applaud the FCC for voting to return to the traditional light-touch framework that promoted Internet growth, transparency, and freedom for nearly 20 years before the 2015 reclassification.
I believe we must keep the internet ecosystem open and vibrant. I also believe that major decisions on how to regulate the internet ought to come from Congress, not unelected bureaucrats dreaming up how depression-era laws can regulate the internet. I believe it is imperative for Congress to work toward bipartisan, light-touch regulations that ensure the internet remains accessible and unrestricted by government intrusion for future generations.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator
Forwarded from Deleted Channel
之前用假地址抗议并用GV联系议员要求反对废除网络中立性的法案，今天和半个月前各收到一封回复。这封回复算是干货，特此贴出