What Hegel would have said about Closed Source Software

Hegel if you don't know was a man who invented profoundly unique and introspective ways of thinking that are still shaking the grounds we walk our ethics on today. In this post I'll talk about how you can appreciate one mode of thinking that was inspired by his writing called dialeticism and how it can show you the utter nonsense rhetoric that motivates non-open and free-ness of software.

Dialectical deconstruction and The Halting Problem
Dialtecticism for the most part is about understanding that everything that exists; can be argued as dependent on things that define its non-existence. Essentially all existence works like a donut; the part of the donut that is missing is also part of the donut - life is only in existence because death (its complete opposite and "unexistor" must also exist). Another way to wrap this up is to use (what will potentially become) a very popular dictum: every identity depends on the identification of non-identity too! In order for the i…

Software already runs inside your head!!

(Cross post from another blog - enjoy!)

Strung together some rhetoric/theories about why software must already exist in your head: Slavoj Zizek during an interview mentioned something about how things would probably change once we can truly interface software with brains. Here I produce some words on why I think that has actually always been true. Enjoy :)

I would have words about the reality of software not already existing in your head. I would argue that the very idea of what software does is evidence that the algorithm has already representatively been ran inside your head (this convoluted rendering of the software itself is entirely the practice of software. Since it is entirely a collection of such convolutions of instructions and patterns at every level of its existence therefore your head and your ideas of software do not escape this collection as part of the existence of the software).

This must be true (software is in your head what it is in the computer exactly) since if the…

Neo-Nietzschian Decadence of Choice in Closed Source Software

Lots of folks probably don't know who the Gnuru is (Richard Stallman). The dude who's code has been in every open source operating system since before most of the noobs running around musing themselves with nonsense rhetoric about why close source programs make sense for anyone besides the people who make money off of it. This man has been talking himself half to death trying to carefully explain very simple reasons why closed source programs do not benefit users; and of course his argument extends beyond security and into the realms of civil liberties and privacy.

Essentially Stallman's position is that close source non-open and free software has malicious features in them - these claims are not those of a man who has lost his mind or is being overly paranoid. People will think that maybe because they are deluded by his capability as a reverse engineer - I have no such delusions about his skill; pretty sure he can reverse engineer the shit outta anything; pretty sure he …

Public Disclosure Shaming SO HOT RIGHT NOW

Obviously I'm going to employ that very popular zoolander meme. Because i think InfoSec (not exempt unfortunately in its vulnerability to group think hypnosis) is becoming this meme.

Critically speaking:
The amazing culture that has taken over what seems to be a large section of the InfoSec community is to shame and lambast people who publicly report bugs. This is done with the notion that exposing potential attackers to knowledge of the bug somehow makes matters worse.  (If i understand it correctly)

Couple interesting questions:

Will lambasting and shaming cause more people to make us aware of the bugs?Does it really make things worse for users?How much worse is this worse for users? Can we argumentatively determine the weight of the worse-ness for users?Is it always always better to only report to the vendor?Is every bug when reported publicly immediately worse in effect before the vendor responds? Now that last question is the ringer for me. I'll start with this one: "…

[InfoSec Rant] "Unspecifying" vulnerabilities is a vulnerability for vulnerability specification.

There is a practice in the information security world in which vendors issuing statements about the vulnerabilities reported to them can withhold as much information as they like; reducing what is meant to be helpful identification and declaring of software errata as another place for companies to save face. It is literally like someone writing a book and lying about things they got wrong so the book keeps selling- given the strong language parallels I can make here this analogy is quite applicable! Essentially capitalizing not only on software but also on the errata of their software. Which is to say they make money from making mistakes in the way the have essentially declared they will make money i.e. "We said we would sell you this wonderful software, but it turns out is completely broken and possibly doesn't do anything we initially promised it does; so in order to preserve our rights to say it does the initial stuff we promised we are not really gonna tell you why the s…

I started a youtube channel!

Hi folks!  I started a youtube chanel; check it out in the link below ;) 

[Meta-Analysis] Rick n Morty S1E10 : Broken Authentication Joke

Hi folks! This is a continuation on the blog post I did before about Rick n Morty S1E10's analysis! Enjoy!

The allegorical reference I'd like to get into is the broken authentication protocol used by the Council of Rick's Security Officers in the restaurant. The scene happens after Rick has escaped the council's trail in which he was accused of murdering a bunch of Ricks. This is where he ends up after running through a number of universes to through them off his scent.

Council Of Rick's broken authentication 
In this scene the Rick's try to claim that they are to be securely identified by a simple "X"; a marking they to that the restaurant concierge doesn't confuse them for Rick C137. What is happening is an authority is claiming they are in charge of a given means of identification "they are the only one's with the right signatures (X's)".   In a way this is an expression of something governments do all the time; that is mark p…