<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_29_1944208</id>
	<title>New Improvements On the Attacks On WPA/TKIP</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256845500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>olahau writes <i>"Two weeks ago, improvements to the  <a href="//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/06/1546245&amp;tid=76">previously reported attack on WPA/TKIP</a>, were presented at the <a href="http://nordsec2009.unik.no/">NorSec Conference</a> in Oslo, Norway. In their paper coined <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mSMsqoqufMoC&amp;pg=PA120&amp;source=gbs\_toc\_r&amp;cad=4#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false">'An Improved Attack on TKIP,'</a> Finn Michael Halvorsen and Olav Haugen describe the improvements, which enable an attacker to inject larger, maliciously crafted packets into a WPA/TKIP protected network, thus opening the probabilities for new and more sophisticated attacks against the well-established wireless security protocol."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>olahau writes " Two weeks ago , improvements to the previously reported attack on WPA/TKIP , were presented at the NorSec Conference in Oslo , Norway .
In their paper coined 'An Improved Attack on TKIP, ' Finn Michael Halvorsen and Olav Haugen describe the improvements , which enable an attacker to inject larger , maliciously crafted packets into a WPA/TKIP protected network , thus opening the probabilities for new and more sophisticated attacks against the well-established wireless security protocol .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>olahau writes "Two weeks ago, improvements to the  previously reported attack on WPA/TKIP, were presented at the NorSec Conference in Oslo, Norway.
In their paper coined 'An Improved Attack on TKIP,' Finn Michael Halvorsen and Olav Haugen describe the improvements, which enable an attacker to inject larger, maliciously crafted packets into a WPA/TKIP protected network, thus opening the probabilities for new and more sophisticated attacks against the well-established wireless security protocol.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915739</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>tolomea</author>
	<datestamp>1256808480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WEP - old very broken
WPA with TKIP encryption (aka WPAv1) - aging and showing it
WPA with AES encryption (aka WPAv2) - best currently available</htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP - old very broken WPA with TKIP encryption ( aka WPAv1 ) - aging and showing it WPA with AES encryption ( aka WPAv2 ) - best currently available</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP - old very broken
WPA with TKIP encryption (aka WPAv1) - aging and showing it
WPA with AES encryption (aka WPAv2) - best currently available</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921251</id>
	<title>You're one of the authors?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256934180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we please have a way to have secure \_anonymous\_ WiFi access?<br><br>Something like https/TLS? With https you don't need to give everyone passphrases or have them share the same passphrase. And the users can't decipher each other's traffic. Can we have something like that for WiFi please?<br><br>Combine it with something like ssh method: "WARNING! The AP's public key fingerprint has changed!". Then that's good enough, make the CA stuff optional.<br><br>Because, the CA system on browsers doesn't really improve security that much since there are tons of CAs bundled with browsers. And if one screws up and signs microsoft.com/somebank.com for the bad guy the browsers don't give a warning that the cert has changed, even if the original cert had years left before expiry. Whereas the SSH method will give you a warning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please have a way to have secure \ _anonymous \ _ WiFi access ? Something like https/TLS ?
With https you do n't need to give everyone passphrases or have them share the same passphrase .
And the users ca n't decipher each other 's traffic .
Can we have something like that for WiFi please ? Combine it with something like ssh method : " WARNING !
The AP 's public key fingerprint has changed ! " .
Then that 's good enough , make the CA stuff optional.Because , the CA system on browsers does n't really improve security that much since there are tons of CAs bundled with browsers .
And if one screws up and signs microsoft.com/somebank.com for the bad guy the browsers do n't give a warning that the cert has changed , even if the original cert had years left before expiry .
Whereas the SSH method will give you a warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please have a way to have secure \_anonymous\_ WiFi access?Something like https/TLS?
With https you don't need to give everyone passphrases or have them share the same passphrase.
And the users can't decipher each other's traffic.
Can we have something like that for WiFi please?Combine it with something like ssh method: "WARNING!
The AP's public key fingerprint has changed!".
Then that's good enough, make the CA stuff optional.Because, the CA system on browsers doesn't really improve security that much since there are tons of CAs bundled with browsers.
And if one screws up and signs microsoft.com/somebank.com for the bad guy the browsers don't give a warning that the cert has changed, even if the original cert had years left before expiry.
Whereas the SSH method will give you a warning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915887</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1256809140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would swap the positions of 3 and 4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would swap the positions of 3 and 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would swap the positions of 3 and 4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>tecker</author>
	<datestamp>1256808180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well. This attack is used on the less robust TKIP protocol. AES is much stronger. Here is the break down (from my memory weakest to strongest):<ol>
<li>WEP</li><li>WPA/TKIP</li><li>WPA/AES</li><li>WPA2/TKIP</li><li>WPA2/AES</li></ol><p>WEP Came first. It was one of those "oh we need security" bits. It's about what you would have on a wired network. Yea, no, not really. Broadcast != Hardwire so that quickly began being broken. Collisions were found. Time for something stronger</p><p>
WPA came next but it was a bit advanced and all of these older machines didn't have really good processing in them and AES was a bit to intensive so the came up with WPA/TKIP. Lighter encryption but the old devices could pull it. WPA/AES came out around the same time and was stronger but the encryption had a bigger processing overhead.</p><p>
Then WPA2 (802.11i) came about with further layers and was what really should have been from the start. Backwards compatibility was a problem here and key to adoption. TKIP stayed as some machines didn't take AES very well. WPA2+AES was the real place most will tell you to be. The whole multiple things was just getting protection out there on a technology that was rapidly falling apart.</p><p>Here is an analogy. US went to war with nearly unprotected Humvees (WEP). They worked well and they did their job. But attackers just blew right through it. So in an effort to get things locked down they welded plates of metal on the Humvee (WPA) some machines could handle more (AES) some less (TKIP). The military went back and developed a new technology similar to the quick field fix and came up with the Armored Humvee (WPA2) with good protection all around and made it standard (802.11i). Still defeatable but it can take a lot more. </p><p> There. I'm sure it would have been easier to find a wikipedia article and link to that but I was bored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well .
This attack is used on the less robust TKIP protocol .
AES is much stronger .
Here is the break down ( from my memory weakest to strongest ) : WEPWPA/TKIPWPA/AESWPA2/TKIPWPA2/AESWEP Came first .
It was one of those " oh we need security " bits .
It 's about what you would have on a wired network .
Yea , no , not really .
Broadcast ! = Hardwire so that quickly began being broken .
Collisions were found .
Time for something stronger WPA came next but it was a bit advanced and all of these older machines did n't have really good processing in them and AES was a bit to intensive so the came up with WPA/TKIP .
Lighter encryption but the old devices could pull it .
WPA/AES came out around the same time and was stronger but the encryption had a bigger processing overhead .
Then WPA2 ( 802.11i ) came about with further layers and was what really should have been from the start .
Backwards compatibility was a problem here and key to adoption .
TKIP stayed as some machines did n't take AES very well .
WPA2 + AES was the real place most will tell you to be .
The whole multiple things was just getting protection out there on a technology that was rapidly falling apart.Here is an analogy .
US went to war with nearly unprotected Humvees ( WEP ) .
They worked well and they did their job .
But attackers just blew right through it .
So in an effort to get things locked down they welded plates of metal on the Humvee ( WPA ) some machines could handle more ( AES ) some less ( TKIP ) .
The military went back and developed a new technology similar to the quick field fix and came up with the Armored Humvee ( WPA2 ) with good protection all around and made it standard ( 802.11i ) .
Still defeatable but it can take a lot more .
There. I 'm sure it would have been easier to find a wikipedia article and link to that but I was bored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well.
This attack is used on the less robust TKIP protocol.
AES is much stronger.
Here is the break down (from my memory weakest to strongest):
WEPWPA/TKIPWPA/AESWPA2/TKIPWPA2/AESWEP Came first.
It was one of those "oh we need security" bits.
It's about what you would have on a wired network.
Yea, no, not really.
Broadcast != Hardwire so that quickly began being broken.
Collisions were found.
Time for something stronger
WPA came next but it was a bit advanced and all of these older machines didn't have really good processing in them and AES was a bit to intensive so the came up with WPA/TKIP.
Lighter encryption but the old devices could pull it.
WPA/AES came out around the same time and was stronger but the encryption had a bigger processing overhead.
Then WPA2 (802.11i) came about with further layers and was what really should have been from the start.
Backwards compatibility was a problem here and key to adoption.
TKIP stayed as some machines didn't take AES very well.
WPA2+AES was the real place most will tell you to be.
The whole multiple things was just getting protection out there on a technology that was rapidly falling apart.Here is an analogy.
US went to war with nearly unprotected Humvees (WEP).
They worked well and they did their job.
But attackers just blew right through it.
So in an effort to get things locked down they welded plates of metal on the Humvee (WPA) some machines could handle more (AES) some less (TKIP).
The military went back and developed a new technology similar to the quick field fix and came up with the Armored Humvee (WPA2) with good protection all around and made it standard (802.11i).
Still defeatable but it can take a lot more.
There. I'm sure it would have been easier to find a wikipedia article and link to that but I was bored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919991</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1256830740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, either use a utility like KeePass or roll dice and use Diceware's password generation to make a 64 bit passphrase.  Essentially, you really don't need to remember it like you do your router password.  Then save the passphrase to a USB flash drive.  After pasting it into your router, take the USB flash drive from wireless box to wireless box, copy and paste it in their configs, then either encrypt the usb flash drive key file, or merely store it in a secure place.</p><p>This way, an attacker isn't dealing with a 10 character passphrase (might be tough), nor a 20 character passphrase (virtually uncrackable), but more than the 256 bits used in AES.  With using a passphrase that has upper/lower case, numbers, and symbols, and all 63 characters (the maximum length passphrase in WPA2-AES), now the door is stronger than the wall.</p><p>This is more of a matter of peace of mind, but it also doesn't hurt to change the AES key every so often.  I like changing the WPA2 keys out every three to six months, or when I remove a machine from the network to be safe.</p><p>Of course, the best security is having a RADIUS server that uses smart cards, and a WAP that can authenticate people from that.  This way, for someone to get access, they would have to get physical possession of a cryptographic token, and either know the passphrase, or guess it before the token permanently blocks access.</p><p>After you have your WPA2 key done right, you don't need to bother with hiding your SSID (doesn't protect against anything), and you can use an authorized MAC list if you want, but it really doesn't provide that much security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , either use a utility like KeePass or roll dice and use Diceware 's password generation to make a 64 bit passphrase .
Essentially , you really do n't need to remember it like you do your router password .
Then save the passphrase to a USB flash drive .
After pasting it into your router , take the USB flash drive from wireless box to wireless box , copy and paste it in their configs , then either encrypt the usb flash drive key file , or merely store it in a secure place.This way , an attacker is n't dealing with a 10 character passphrase ( might be tough ) , nor a 20 character passphrase ( virtually uncrackable ) , but more than the 256 bits used in AES .
With using a passphrase that has upper/lower case , numbers , and symbols , and all 63 characters ( the maximum length passphrase in WPA2-AES ) , now the door is stronger than the wall.This is more of a matter of peace of mind , but it also does n't hurt to change the AES key every so often .
I like changing the WPA2 keys out every three to six months , or when I remove a machine from the network to be safe.Of course , the best security is having a RADIUS server that uses smart cards , and a WAP that can authenticate people from that .
This way , for someone to get access , they would have to get physical possession of a cryptographic token , and either know the passphrase , or guess it before the token permanently blocks access.After you have your WPA2 key done right , you do n't need to bother with hiding your SSID ( does n't protect against anything ) , and you can use an authorized MAC list if you want , but it really does n't provide that much security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, either use a utility like KeePass or roll dice and use Diceware's password generation to make a 64 bit passphrase.
Essentially, you really don't need to remember it like you do your router password.
Then save the passphrase to a USB flash drive.
After pasting it into your router, take the USB flash drive from wireless box to wireless box, copy and paste it in their configs, then either encrypt the usb flash drive key file, or merely store it in a secure place.This way, an attacker isn't dealing with a 10 character passphrase (might be tough), nor a 20 character passphrase (virtually uncrackable), but more than the 256 bits used in AES.
With using a passphrase that has upper/lower case, numbers, and symbols, and all 63 characters (the maximum length passphrase in WPA2-AES), now the door is stronger than the wall.This is more of a matter of peace of mind, but it also doesn't hurt to change the AES key every so often.
I like changing the WPA2 keys out every three to six months, or when I remove a machine from the network to be safe.Of course, the best security is having a RADIUS server that uses smart cards, and a WAP that can authenticate people from that.
This way, for someone to get access, they would have to get physical possession of a cryptographic token, and either know the passphrase, or guess it before the token permanently blocks access.After you have your WPA2 key done right, you don't need to bother with hiding your SSID (doesn't protect against anything), and you can use an authorized MAC list if you want, but it really doesn't provide that much security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918093</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Jasonv</author>
	<datestamp>1256818200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters.  [..snip]..Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.  Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.</p><p>Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing!  That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!"</p></div><p>I have my router set up without a password, and the SSID set to "Bring beer to Apt. 243".</p><p>Since then, I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of my neighbors and drinking beer with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for the love of Pete , switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers , letters ( upper and lower ) and a few special characters .
[ ..snip ] ..Seriously secure password , and you 're going to remember the hell out of it .
Of course , it helps if you use something memorable to you.Then you 'll never go around saying " Amazing !
That 's the exact same combination I have on my luggage !
" I have my router set up without a password , and the SSID set to " Bring beer to Apt .
243 " .Since then , I 've had the pleasure of meeting a few of my neighbors and drinking beer with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters.
[..snip]..Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.
Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing!
That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!
"I have my router set up without a password, and the SSID set to "Bring beer to Apt.
243".Since then, I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of my neighbors and drinking beer with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919645</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right.  Some people think it is.  Some people also think MAC address filtering is.  Both sets of people are wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Some people think it is .
Some people also think MAC address filtering is .
Both sets of people are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Some people think it is.
Some people also think MAC address filtering is.
Both sets of people are wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916791</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>mrcaseyj</author>
	<datestamp>1256812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written</p><p>TLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd suggest just using the whole sentence. It would have at least as much entropy and would be more resistant to simple brute force breakage.</p><p>And I'm considering giving up on upper case in passwords. The lower case alphabet requires about 5 bits to encode, while adding uppercase only requires one more bit. I suspect that just making the password 25\% longer would be about as easy to remember, and a lot faster to type.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Example : The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever WrittenTLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password , you 've got decent length , 11 characters , and some upper/lower goodness.I 'd suggest just using the whole sentence .
It would have at least as much entropy and would be more resistant to simple brute force breakage.And I 'm considering giving up on upper case in passwords .
The lower case alphabet requires about 5 bits to encode , while adding uppercase only requires one more bit .
I suspect that just making the password 25 \ % longer would be about as easy to remember , and a lot faster to type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever WrittenTLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.I'd suggest just using the whole sentence.
It would have at least as much entropy and would be more resistant to simple brute force breakage.And I'm considering giving up on upper case in passwords.
The lower case alphabet requires about 5 bits to encode, while adding uppercase only requires one more bit.
I suspect that just making the password 25\% longer would be about as easy to remember, and a lot faster to type.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915701</id>
	<title>Black History Month</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256808240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>HOW TO BE A WORTHLESS, VILE, AMERICAN YARD-APE!!!!</b> <ul>
<li>Slink around, shuffling your feet and bobbing your neck like the lazy retard you are.</li><li>Walk down the middle of the street because you don't know what a sidewalk is for.</li><li>Hang out at carwashes and mini-marts because everybody knows these are the best places to be a dope, I mean dope.</li><li>If you're a nigger bitch, shit three nigger babies into the world before 17 years of age. This assures that welfare money will support you, so
your nigger men have more time to commit crimes.</li><li>And give REAL honest black people a bad name.</li><li>Oh yes, make sure each nigger baby has a different father.</li><li>Bastardize the English language in the name of nigger culture.</li><li>Make sure that several terms have multiple meanings and others have ambiguous meanings and that only 50\% of nigger words are even complete
words.  Real niggers will know what you're trying to say.</li><li>As a culture, make sure there are always more blacks in prison than in college at any given time.</li><li>Hang out in packs of 10 to 15 and make sure everyone acts as annoying as possible. This helps to promote nigger individuality.</li><li>Always talk loud enough so everyone in the 'hood can fucking hear you, and if they are niggers, they will know what your saying, bro.</li><li>Wear clothes that are 10 sizes too big, making sure the pants hang off your ass.</li><li>Park at least 5 junk cars in your yard while being careful not to use the driveway. It's OK to abandon them in the street as long as it's
in front of someone else's crib.</li><li>Exaggerate every motion, every tonal inflection and grab your dick a lot.</li><li>Do drugs, sell drugs, make drugs.  Okay, don't REALLY do this, but it IS what niggers do.</li><li>Turn your backyard into a junk yard. If you don't have a backyard, turn your mother's into a junk yard.</li><li>Travel around leaching off relatives, friends, salvation armies.</li><li>Drink cheap wine and malt liquor every day, forgetting that "malt liquor" is just fortified cheap beer.</li><li>If you're a nigger buck: fuck anything that moves, no matter how ugly she is. After two 40oz, even the ugliest, fattest nigger bitch will look
good.</li><li>Be charitable and covet fat, ugly white chicks. After all, they're niggers too. They can't help being so undesirable to white men that they have
to fraternize with black dudes on a 20/20 trip. And white ho's are a special trophy too, especially the not so ugly ones.</li><li>Spray paint everything in sight with scribbles that mean nothing to white people but mean things to fellow niggers (except niggers from another
hood who will probably go after you for tresspassing on their turf).</li><li>Use the term "motherfucker" in every sentence. It's one of the most versatile words in the nigger language, being a noun, verb, adjective
and complete mini-sentence in event you run out of thoughts.</li><li>Stop in the middle of the street, blocking all traffic to converse with fellow niggers and have complete disregard for everyone else.</li><li>Overcharge customers at Taco Bell and pocket the difference.</li><li>Drive your car while slouched so low that you can barely see over the wheel (gangsta drivin').</li><li>Get a job under affirmative action. Then sit around all day pretending that you earned the position and that the other co-workers respect you.
Whenever you fuck up, scream "racism!" &amp; hope you get enough Generation X liberals in the jury.</li><li>Never, I mean NEVER, take any responsibility for your actions. Always blame others including Asians, Latinos, Mexicans, and especially
Whites for your sorry ass stupid lives.</li><li>Be sure to get a dog, tie it up in the cold and mud and neglect it until it dies. Then start all over again. Cash must be used because you long
ago fucked up your credit and checking account.</li><li>Cram 5 generations into a two room government apartment and still be able to neglect your kids.</li></ul><p>
Then you too can be a true nigger, and anyone who finds any fault with anything yo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HOW TO BE A WORTHLESS , VILE , AMERICAN YARD-APE ! ! ! !
Slink around , shuffling your feet and bobbing your neck like the lazy retard you are.Walk down the middle of the street because you do n't know what a sidewalk is for.Hang out at carwashes and mini-marts because everybody knows these are the best places to be a dope , I mean dope.If you 're a nigger bitch , shit three nigger babies into the world before 17 years of age .
This assures that welfare money will support you , so your nigger men have more time to commit crimes.And give REAL honest black people a bad name.Oh yes , make sure each nigger baby has a different father.Bastardize the English language in the name of nigger culture.Make sure that several terms have multiple meanings and others have ambiguous meanings and that only 50 \ % of nigger words are even complete words .
Real niggers will know what you 're trying to say.As a culture , make sure there are always more blacks in prison than in college at any given time.Hang out in packs of 10 to 15 and make sure everyone acts as annoying as possible .
This helps to promote nigger individuality.Always talk loud enough so everyone in the 'hood can fucking hear you , and if they are niggers , they will know what your saying , bro.Wear clothes that are 10 sizes too big , making sure the pants hang off your ass.Park at least 5 junk cars in your yard while being careful not to use the driveway .
It 's OK to abandon them in the street as long as it 's in front of someone else 's crib.Exaggerate every motion , every tonal inflection and grab your dick a lot.Do drugs , sell drugs , make drugs .
Okay , do n't REALLY do this , but it IS what niggers do.Turn your backyard into a junk yard .
If you do n't have a backyard , turn your mother 's into a junk yard.Travel around leaching off relatives , friends , salvation armies.Drink cheap wine and malt liquor every day , forgetting that " malt liquor " is just fortified cheap beer.If you 're a nigger buck : fuck anything that moves , no matter how ugly she is .
After two 40oz , even the ugliest , fattest nigger bitch will look good.Be charitable and covet fat , ugly white chicks .
After all , they 're niggers too .
They ca n't help being so undesirable to white men that they have to fraternize with black dudes on a 20/20 trip .
And white ho 's are a special trophy too , especially the not so ugly ones.Spray paint everything in sight with scribbles that mean nothing to white people but mean things to fellow niggers ( except niggers from another hood who will probably go after you for tresspassing on their turf ) .Use the term " motherfucker " in every sentence .
It 's one of the most versatile words in the nigger language , being a noun , verb , adjective and complete mini-sentence in event you run out of thoughts.Stop in the middle of the street , blocking all traffic to converse with fellow niggers and have complete disregard for everyone else.Overcharge customers at Taco Bell and pocket the difference.Drive your car while slouched so low that you can barely see over the wheel ( gangsta drivin ' ) .Get a job under affirmative action .
Then sit around all day pretending that you earned the position and that the other co-workers respect you .
Whenever you fuck up , scream " racism !
" &amp; hope you get enough Generation X liberals in the jury.Never , I mean NEVER , take any responsibility for your actions .
Always blame others including Asians , Latinos , Mexicans , and especially Whites for your sorry ass stupid lives.Be sure to get a dog , tie it up in the cold and mud and neglect it until it dies .
Then start all over again .
Cash must be used because you long ago fucked up your credit and checking account.Cram 5 generations into a two room government apartment and still be able to neglect your kids .
Then you too can be a true nigger , and anyone who finds any fault with anything yo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HOW TO BE A WORTHLESS, VILE, AMERICAN YARD-APE!!!!
Slink around, shuffling your feet and bobbing your neck like the lazy retard you are.Walk down the middle of the street because you don't know what a sidewalk is for.Hang out at carwashes and mini-marts because everybody knows these are the best places to be a dope, I mean dope.If you're a nigger bitch, shit three nigger babies into the world before 17 years of age.
This assures that welfare money will support you, so
your nigger men have more time to commit crimes.And give REAL honest black people a bad name.Oh yes, make sure each nigger baby has a different father.Bastardize the English language in the name of nigger culture.Make sure that several terms have multiple meanings and others have ambiguous meanings and that only 50\% of nigger words are even complete
words.
Real niggers will know what you're trying to say.As a culture, make sure there are always more blacks in prison than in college at any given time.Hang out in packs of 10 to 15 and make sure everyone acts as annoying as possible.
This helps to promote nigger individuality.Always talk loud enough so everyone in the 'hood can fucking hear you, and if they are niggers, they will know what your saying, bro.Wear clothes that are 10 sizes too big, making sure the pants hang off your ass.Park at least 5 junk cars in your yard while being careful not to use the driveway.
It's OK to abandon them in the street as long as it's
in front of someone else's crib.Exaggerate every motion, every tonal inflection and grab your dick a lot.Do drugs, sell drugs, make drugs.
Okay, don't REALLY do this, but it IS what niggers do.Turn your backyard into a junk yard.
If you don't have a backyard, turn your mother's into a junk yard.Travel around leaching off relatives, friends, salvation armies.Drink cheap wine and malt liquor every day, forgetting that "malt liquor" is just fortified cheap beer.If you're a nigger buck: fuck anything that moves, no matter how ugly she is.
After two 40oz, even the ugliest, fattest nigger bitch will look
good.Be charitable and covet fat, ugly white chicks.
After all, they're niggers too.
They can't help being so undesirable to white men that they have
to fraternize with black dudes on a 20/20 trip.
And white ho's are a special trophy too, especially the not so ugly ones.Spray paint everything in sight with scribbles that mean nothing to white people but mean things to fellow niggers (except niggers from another
hood who will probably go after you for tresspassing on their turf).Use the term "motherfucker" in every sentence.
It's one of the most versatile words in the nigger language, being a noun, verb, adjective
and complete mini-sentence in event you run out of thoughts.Stop in the middle of the street, blocking all traffic to converse with fellow niggers and have complete disregard for everyone else.Overcharge customers at Taco Bell and pocket the difference.Drive your car while slouched so low that you can barely see over the wheel (gangsta drivin').Get a job under affirmative action.
Then sit around all day pretending that you earned the position and that the other co-workers respect you.
Whenever you fuck up, scream "racism!
" &amp; hope you get enough Generation X liberals in the jury.Never, I mean NEVER, take any responsibility for your actions.
Always blame others including Asians, Latinos, Mexicans, and especially
Whites for your sorry ass stupid lives.Be sure to get a dog, tie it up in the cold and mud and neglect it until it dies.
Then start all over again.
Cash must be used because you long
ago fucked up your credit and checking account.Cram 5 generations into a two room government apartment and still be able to neglect your kids.
Then you too can be a true nigger, and anyone who finds any fault with anything yo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916287</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Brianwa</author>
	<datestamp>1256810280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You found someone kind enough to share their internet connection, so you wasted their ink and paper.  Nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You found someone kind enough to share their internet connection , so you wasted their ink and paper .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You found someone kind enough to share their internet connection, so you wasted their ink and paper.
Nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915901</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So nice to see that someone else uses this method.</p><p>Another method i use for passwords is a sentence with a number sequence as the spacers.<br>I1Am2A3Fruitcake as a simple example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So nice to see that someone else uses this method.Another method i use for passwords is a sentence with a number sequence as the spacers.I1Am2A3Fruitcake as a simple example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So nice to see that someone else uses this method.Another method i use for passwords is a sentence with a number sequence as the spacers.I1Am2A3Fruitcake as a simple example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915939</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>64-bit keys are NOT trivially brute-forceable. Even if you've got a botnet of decent computers, you're probably still looking at weeks. The attacks on WEP, real attacks on severe flaws, typically take about five minutes to produce the key.</htmltext>
<tokenext>64-bit keys are NOT trivially brute-forceable .
Even if you 've got a botnet of decent computers , you 're probably still looking at weeks .
The attacks on WEP , real attacks on severe flaws , typically take about five minutes to produce the key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64-bit keys are NOT trivially brute-forceable.
Even if you've got a botnet of decent computers, you're probably still looking at weeks.
The attacks on WEP, real attacks on severe flaws, typically take about five minutes to produce the key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031</id>
	<title>Antisocial</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1256812980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I leave my wireless connection "unsecured". Sure, the neighbours use it, and people needing iPod Touch location services.</p><p>I figure it's just good social behaviour. If I need network access when I'm "out and about", I will use someone else's wifi.</p><p>Just don't be a 'leet hacker asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I leave my wireless connection " unsecured " .
Sure , the neighbours use it , and people needing iPod Touch location services.I figure it 's just good social behaviour .
If I need network access when I 'm " out and about " , I will use someone else 's wifi.Just do n't be a 'leet hacker asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I leave my wireless connection "unsecured".
Sure, the neighbours use it, and people needing iPod Touch location services.I figure it's just good social behaviour.
If I need network access when I'm "out and about", I will use someone else's wifi.Just don't be a 'leet hacker asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916141</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently broke a WEP protected network. It was rather easy.<br>Stick with WPA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently broke a WEP protected network .
It was rather easy.Stick with WPA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently broke a WEP protected network.
It was rather easy.Stick with WPA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922807</id>
	<title>Re:AM or FM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256912400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WKRP</p><p>NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WKRPNOW GET OFF MY LAWN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WKRPNOW GET OFF MY LAWN!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915813</id>
	<title>Re:AM or FM?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256808900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As God is my witness, I thought packets could fly!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As God is my witness , I thought packets could fly !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As God is my witness, I thought packets could fly!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917693</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256815740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perfect! That's a great password! I'm using that for everything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect !
That 's a great password !
I 'm using that for everything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfect!
That's a great password!
I'm using that for everything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915671</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256808120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did it because the existing router hardware and wireless network card hardware was not capable of AES.  It was a temporary solution that no one should be using any longer.  WPA2 is the current established secure protocol, and it uses AES which is not a specialized algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did it because the existing router hardware and wireless network card hardware was not capable of AES .
It was a temporary solution that no one should be using any longer .
WPA2 is the current established secure protocol , and it uses AES which is not a specialized algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did it because the existing router hardware and wireless network card hardware was not capable of AES.
It was a temporary solution that no one should be using any longer.
WPA2 is the current established secure protocol, and it uses AES which is not a specialized algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29923673</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Proteus Child</author>
	<datestamp>1256917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You got me curious, so I fired up my copy of <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/" title="fourmilab.ch" rel="nofollow">ENT</a> [fourmilab.ch] and ran those two strings through it to see exactly how much entropy is contained therein.
<br> <br>
'The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written': 3.898965 bits of entropy per byte.  Chi square distribution for 58 samples is 1238.79, and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.01 percent of the time (typo in the output corrected).  Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 89.8448 (where 127.5 would be considered random).  The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 (error 27.32 percent).  The serial correlation coefficient is -0.096773 (where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0).
<br> <br>
'TLotRitGSER': 3.251629 bits of entropy per byte.  Chi square distribution for 12 samples is 329.33, and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.12 percent of the time (typo in the output corrected again).  Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 83.7500 (where 127.5 would be considered random).  The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 (error 27.32 percent).  The serial correlation coefficient is 0.109522 (where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0).
<br> <br>
So, if you're going by bits of entropy in the passphrase alone, go with the full sentence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You got me curious , so I fired up my copy of ENT [ fourmilab.ch ] and ran those two strings through it to see exactly how much entropy is contained therein .
'The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written ' : 3.898965 bits of entropy per byte .
Chi square distribution for 58 samples is 1238.79 , and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.01 percent of the time ( typo in the output corrected ) .
Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 89.8448 ( where 127.5 would be considered random ) .
The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 ( error 27.32 percent ) .
The serial correlation coefficient is -0.096773 ( where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0 ) .
'TLotRitGSER ' : 3.251629 bits of entropy per byte .
Chi square distribution for 12 samples is 329.33 , and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.12 percent of the time ( typo in the output corrected again ) .
Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 83.7500 ( where 127.5 would be considered random ) .
The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 ( error 27.32 percent ) .
The serial correlation coefficient is 0.109522 ( where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0 ) .
So , if you 're going by bits of entropy in the passphrase alone , go with the full sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got me curious, so I fired up my copy of ENT [fourmilab.ch] and ran those two strings through it to see exactly how much entropy is contained therein.
'The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written': 3.898965 bits of entropy per byte.
Chi square distribution for 58 samples is 1238.79, and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.01 percent of the time (typo in the output corrected).
Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 89.8448 (where 127.5 would be considered random).
The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 (error 27.32 percent).
The serial correlation coefficient is -0.096773 (where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0).
'TLotRitGSER': 3.251629 bits of entropy per byte.
Chi square distribution for 12 samples is 329.33, and randomly would exceed this value less than 0.12 percent of the time (typo in the output corrected again).
Arithmetic mean value of the data bytes is 83.7500 (where 127.5 would be considered random).
The Monte Carlo value for Pi is 4.0000000000 (error 27.32 percent).
The serial correlation coefficient is 0.109522 (where being totally uncorrelated would equal 0.0).
So, if you're going by bits of entropy in the passphrase alone, go with the full sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915487</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I agree!  Everyone should have just stuck with WEP.  Damn the consequences!  The first product available is <i>always</i> the best there will ever be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I agree !
Everyone should have just stuck with WEP .
Damn the consequences !
The first product available is always the best there will ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I agree!
Everyone should have just stuck with WEP.
Damn the consequences!
The first product available is always the best there will ever be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919419</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1256826240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I said here:</p><p><a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29919403" title="slashdot.org">http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29919403</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>The most likely people to try to break into the router are people who have physical access and little technical knowledge. Like kids and employees.</p><p>The second most likely group is random people who are close by and want to mooch some free internet but they on average are less tech savy than your kids and any form of security will keep them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I said here : http : //mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1423971&amp;cid = 29919403 [ slashdot.org ] The most likely people to try to break into the router are people who have physical access and little technical knowledge .
Like kids and employees.The second most likely group is random people who are close by and want to mooch some free internet but they on average are less tech savy than your kids and any form of security will keep them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I said here:http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29919403 [slashdot.org]The most likely people to try to break into the router are people who have physical access and little technical knowledge.
Like kids and employees.The second most likely group is random people who are close by and want to mooch some free internet but they on average are less tech savy than your kids and any form of security will keep them out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921281</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256934780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But how do you know they are intentionally sharing their internet connection?<br>And how do you know they aren't intentionally sharing their printer?<br><br>Because people don't normally share their printer? If that's the case, then it's a good thing he told them right? I don't think he printed an entire book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how do you know they are intentionally sharing their internet connection ? And how do you know they are n't intentionally sharing their printer ? Because people do n't normally share their printer ?
If that 's the case , then it 's a good thing he told them right ?
I do n't think he printed an entire book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how do you know they are intentionally sharing their internet connection?And how do you know they aren't intentionally sharing their printer?Because people don't normally share their printer?
If that's the case, then it's a good thing he told them right?
I don't think he printed an entire book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915131</id>
	<title>Year of the Linux desktop is upon us!</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1256849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oombooboo 9.10 Lactating Llama is going to take the desktop by storm! It's got a brand new shit-brown theme and it's got a superior combination of FSpot, Tomboy, Firefox, OOo than any of it's predecessor versions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oombooboo 9.10 Lactating Llama is going to take the desktop by storm !
It 's got a brand new shit-brown theme and it 's got a superior combination of FSpot , Tomboy , Firefox , OOo than any of it 's predecessor versions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oombooboo 9.10 Lactating Llama is going to take the desktop by storm!
It's got a brand new shit-brown theme and it's got a superior combination of FSpot, Tomboy, Firefox, OOo than any of it's predecessor versions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915937</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was in college and the residential network was very new, I was snooping around and I found an unsecured c: drive shared. So I left a very sternly worded text file on his desktop telling him what he had better do to secure his system. A couple of days later I read in the campus newspaper about how someone had experienced a hacker leaving a harassing and malicious message on his computer, and reminding everyone that if such hacking was caught it would be bad news for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was in college and the residential network was very new , I was snooping around and I found an unsecured c : drive shared .
So I left a very sternly worded text file on his desktop telling him what he had better do to secure his system .
A couple of days later I read in the campus newspaper about how someone had experienced a hacker leaving a harassing and malicious message on his computer , and reminding everyone that if such hacking was caught it would be bad news for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was in college and the residential network was very new, I was snooping around and I found an unsecured c: drive shared.
So I left a very sternly worded text file on his desktop telling him what he had better do to secure his system.
A couple of days later I read in the campus newspaper about how someone had experienced a hacker leaving a harassing and malicious message on his computer, and reminding everyone that if such hacking was caught it would be bad news for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915199</id>
	<title>Re:Year of the Linux desktop is upon us!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disgruntled goats, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.</p><p>At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.</p><p>Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disgruntled goats , what you 've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.At no point in your rambling , incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it .
I award you no points , and may God have mercy on your soul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disgruntled goats, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917843</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>cjb658</author>
	<datestamp>1256816580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WPA basically generates a new WEP key for each packet.  It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously (there must be a pattern that the AP and client can follow).</p><p>I've also found a <a href="http://code.google.com/p/pyrit/" title="google.com">tool</a> [google.com] that lets you run WPA cracks with CUDA or Stream for about a 20-50x speed increase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WPA basically generates a new WEP key for each packet .
It 's a bit more complicated than that , obviously ( there must be a pattern that the AP and client can follow ) .I 've also found a tool [ google.com ] that lets you run WPA cracks with CUDA or Stream for about a 20-50x speed increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WPA basically generates a new WEP key for each packet.
It's a bit more complicated than that, obviously (there must be a pattern that the AP and client can follow).I've also found a tool [google.com] that lets you run WPA cracks with CUDA or Stream for about a 20-50x speed increase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917655</id>
	<title>Re:AM or FM?</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1256815500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html" title="faqs.org">They</a> [faqs.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP\_over\_Avian\_Carriers" title="wikipedia.org">can.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They [ faqs.org ] can .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They [faqs.org] can.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29927315</id>
	<title>Re: WHY would you "secure" a WLAN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256932680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me cynical, but I am not as trusting as you are.</p><p>First, people have been convicted (or found culpable) about activity done on IP addresses assigned to them.  This by itself should get individuals to lock down their wireless routers.</p><p>Second, with someone clued enough to spoof their MAC address, by leaving an open AP, it gives them an untraceable base to actively hack from, with the onus of the attacks hitting the AP owner's shoulders.  Almost all ISP contracts say that it is the responsibility of the subscriber for any security issues.  Let an aspiring black hat go somewhere else.</p><p>Third, my ISP also has a contract that they can shitcan me off their network if I allowed open access.  It might be worded differently, but it is there.  It might be not enforced right now, but as audit tools and other items get better, it might be something an ISP can easily catch.</p><p>Fourth, unless I have two APs, or a VPN system, by not locking down my AP, I would be allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry access to my LAN.  This means they are a username and password away from a lot of juicy things such as an Exchange server, my Linux samba server, and so on.  They can also try attacks on systems without any worry about being caught if they have any clue at all, even if they can't immediately guess my network topology (I have DHCP service turned off and a nonstandard address range, but that doesn't mean much to any clued attacker)</p><p>Fifth, and this is purely selfish.  I don't feel like putting an AP that can do throttling or QoS.  Usually someone hopping on someone else's wireless will end up doing high bandwidth P2P stuff.  Where I live, they will be charging by the bit.  I don't feel like paying for some freeloader's P2P session so they can download the latest pr0n sequel.</p><p>Almost everyone has an iPhone.  Want to have a solid (but fairly low bandwidth) Internet connection?  Jailbreak and tether your iPhone via Bluetooth or hard wiring to your PC.  A lot of Windows Mobile PocketPCs even support tethering as a menu option without requiring any type of futzing to get it running.  Or buy a Sprint or Verizon MiFi, chuck it on a table and connect your clients to that.</p><p>Until I am sure I have legal protection from criminal or civil offenses for people on my wireless, I'm not charged for their bits, and I feel like installing a system like NoCatAuth, I'm keeping my APs locked down (and usually turned off when I am not using a laptop.)  Let other people who are naiive get sued for large sums of cash or face prison time because a blackhat paid their LAN a visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me cynical , but I am not as trusting as you are.First , people have been convicted ( or found culpable ) about activity done on IP addresses assigned to them .
This by itself should get individuals to lock down their wireless routers.Second , with someone clued enough to spoof their MAC address , by leaving an open AP , it gives them an untraceable base to actively hack from , with the onus of the attacks hitting the AP owner 's shoulders .
Almost all ISP contracts say that it is the responsibility of the subscriber for any security issues .
Let an aspiring black hat go somewhere else.Third , my ISP also has a contract that they can shitcan me off their network if I allowed open access .
It might be worded differently , but it is there .
It might be not enforced right now , but as audit tools and other items get better , it might be something an ISP can easily catch.Fourth , unless I have two APs , or a VPN system , by not locking down my AP , I would be allowing any Tom , Dick , or Harry access to my LAN .
This means they are a username and password away from a lot of juicy things such as an Exchange server , my Linux samba server , and so on .
They can also try attacks on systems without any worry about being caught if they have any clue at all , even if they ca n't immediately guess my network topology ( I have DHCP service turned off and a nonstandard address range , but that does n't mean much to any clued attacker ) Fifth , and this is purely selfish .
I do n't feel like putting an AP that can do throttling or QoS .
Usually someone hopping on someone else 's wireless will end up doing high bandwidth P2P stuff .
Where I live , they will be charging by the bit .
I do n't feel like paying for some freeloader 's P2P session so they can download the latest pr0n sequel.Almost everyone has an iPhone .
Want to have a solid ( but fairly low bandwidth ) Internet connection ?
Jailbreak and tether your iPhone via Bluetooth or hard wiring to your PC .
A lot of Windows Mobile PocketPCs even support tethering as a menu option without requiring any type of futzing to get it running .
Or buy a Sprint or Verizon MiFi , chuck it on a table and connect your clients to that.Until I am sure I have legal protection from criminal or civil offenses for people on my wireless , I 'm not charged for their bits , and I feel like installing a system like NoCatAuth , I 'm keeping my APs locked down ( and usually turned off when I am not using a laptop .
) Let other people who are naiive get sued for large sums of cash or face prison time because a blackhat paid their LAN a visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me cynical, but I am not as trusting as you are.First, people have been convicted (or found culpable) about activity done on IP addresses assigned to them.
This by itself should get individuals to lock down their wireless routers.Second, with someone clued enough to spoof their MAC address, by leaving an open AP, it gives them an untraceable base to actively hack from, with the onus of the attacks hitting the AP owner's shoulders.
Almost all ISP contracts say that it is the responsibility of the subscriber for any security issues.
Let an aspiring black hat go somewhere else.Third, my ISP also has a contract that they can shitcan me off their network if I allowed open access.
It might be worded differently, but it is there.
It might be not enforced right now, but as audit tools and other items get better, it might be something an ISP can easily catch.Fourth, unless I have two APs, or a VPN system, by not locking down my AP, I would be allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry access to my LAN.
This means they are a username and password away from a lot of juicy things such as an Exchange server, my Linux samba server, and so on.
They can also try attacks on systems without any worry about being caught if they have any clue at all, even if they can't immediately guess my network topology (I have DHCP service turned off and a nonstandard address range, but that doesn't mean much to any clued attacker)Fifth, and this is purely selfish.
I don't feel like putting an AP that can do throttling or QoS.
Usually someone hopping on someone else's wireless will end up doing high bandwidth P2P stuff.
Where I live, they will be charging by the bit.
I don't feel like paying for some freeloader's P2P session so they can download the latest pr0n sequel.Almost everyone has an iPhone.
Want to have a solid (but fairly low bandwidth) Internet connection?
Jailbreak and tether your iPhone via Bluetooth or hard wiring to your PC.
A lot of Windows Mobile PocketPCs even support tethering as a menu option without requiring any type of futzing to get it running.
Or buy a Sprint or Verizon MiFi, chuck it on a table and connect your clients to that.Until I am sure I have legal protection from criminal or civil offenses for people on my wireless, I'm not charged for their bits, and I feel like installing a system like NoCatAuth, I'm keeping my APs locked down (and usually turned off when I am not using a laptop.
)  Let other people who are naiive get sued for large sums of cash or face prison time because a blackhat paid their LAN a visit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922337</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256908320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That pass phrase is based on a lie my precious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That pass phrase is based on a lie my precious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That pass phrase is based on a lie my precious</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919101</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>QuestionsNotAnswers</author>
	<datestamp>1256823900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now to you or I, this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measure</p></div><p>You are advocating walking into a woman's house while she is gardening out the back, and leaving a note in her knicker drawer explaining why her knickers are insecure.</p><p>There is a social norm of not invading privacy, even when it is possible to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now to you or I , this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measureYou are advocating walking into a woman 's house while she is gardening out the back , and leaving a note in her knicker drawer explaining why her knickers are insecure.There is a social norm of not invading privacy , even when it is possible to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now to you or I, this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measureYou are advocating walking into a woman's house while she is gardening out the back, and leaving a note in her knicker drawer explaining why her knickers are insecure.There is a social norm of not invading privacy, even when it is possible to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256811420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even read the paper or take the time to understand the attack?</p><p>I'm one of the authors of IEEE 802.11i.  I did, and it's not good.</p><p>This is a significant advance in attack technique on TKIP.  Get off of TKIP as quickly as you can.  NOW.</p><p>On one hand, as the paper's authors point out, we got seven years of life out of a band-aid fix that was designed to buy us five.  I'm pretty happy with that.</p><p>On the other hand, the Beck and Tews attack opened some cracks in the walls, this latest paper wedges  that crack further open by a factor of 14, and provides some practical real-world exploit scenarios.  The bad guys will come up with more, trust me.</p><p>This is bad.</p><p>Migrate off of TKIP NOW.</p><p>Your advice for the length of a passphrase is off as well, BTW.  IEEE 802.11i CLEARLY states that a passphrase of less that 20 characters in length does not offer adequate security.</p><p>Use a strategy to choose a LONG, STRONG passphrase.  Type it into notepad.  Cut and paste it wherever it needs to go to eliminate typo errors.</p><p>Cheers.....</p><p>Red</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even read the paper or take the time to understand the attack ? I 'm one of the authors of IEEE 802.11i .
I did , and it 's not good.This is a significant advance in attack technique on TKIP .
Get off of TKIP as quickly as you can .
NOW.On one hand , as the paper 's authors point out , we got seven years of life out of a band-aid fix that was designed to buy us five .
I 'm pretty happy with that.On the other hand , the Beck and Tews attack opened some cracks in the walls , this latest paper wedges that crack further open by a factor of 14 , and provides some practical real-world exploit scenarios .
The bad guys will come up with more , trust me.This is bad.Migrate off of TKIP NOW.Your advice for the length of a passphrase is off as well , BTW .
IEEE 802.11i CLEARLY states that a passphrase of less that 20 characters in length does not offer adequate security.Use a strategy to choose a LONG , STRONG passphrase .
Type it into notepad .
Cut and paste it wherever it needs to go to eliminate typo errors.Cheers.....Red</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even read the paper or take the time to understand the attack?I'm one of the authors of IEEE 802.11i.
I did, and it's not good.This is a significant advance in attack technique on TKIP.
Get off of TKIP as quickly as you can.
NOW.On one hand, as the paper's authors point out, we got seven years of life out of a band-aid fix that was designed to buy us five.
I'm pretty happy with that.On the other hand, the Beck and Tews attack opened some cracks in the walls, this latest paper wedges  that crack further open by a factor of 14, and provides some practical real-world exploit scenarios.
The bad guys will come up with more, trust me.This is bad.Migrate off of TKIP NOW.Your advice for the length of a passphrase is off as well, BTW.
IEEE 802.11i CLEARLY states that a passphrase of less that 20 characters in length does not offer adequate security.Use a strategy to choose a LONG, STRONG passphrase.
Type it into notepad.
Cut and paste it wherever it needs to go to eliminate typo errors.Cheers.....Red</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29926581</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256929440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice. Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence?</i></p><p>Yeah, so route your wireless to the public Internet only and VPN into your corporate LAN.  Software is easier to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice .
Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence ? Yeah , so route your wireless to the public Internet only and VPN into your corporate LAN .
Software is easier to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice.
Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence?Yeah, so route your wireless to the public Internet only and VPN into your corporate LAN.
Software is easier to fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915373</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WEP is better? Has it always been better?</p></div><p>Sure, keep using WEP. 128-bit WEP takes a very long time to break. Somewhere on the order of 15-30 minutes, in my experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP is better ?
Has it always been better ? Sure , keep using WEP .
128-bit WEP takes a very long time to break .
Somewhere on the order of 15-30 minutes , in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP is better?
Has it always been better?Sure, keep using WEP.
128-bit WEP takes a very long time to break.
Somewhere on the order of 15-30 minutes, in my experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918615</id>
	<title>Re: WHY would you "secure" a WLAN?</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1256821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there were not evil people in the world and laws that will get you in hot water should that evil person use your network in a bad way, I'd agree.  That's not the world we live in.</p><p>Yes from your LAN to the internet is wide open, all email from your ISP to another ISP is in the open (GPG if you care), but for me that's not the point of securing my WLAN.  It's securing who accesses my internet connection which is tied to me personally, and without physically being in my home/office, WLAN is the only way to do so, so that's why I secure it.</p><p>I have a longer reply about this and the reasoning here:<br><a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29918555" title="slashdot.org">http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29918555</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were not evil people in the world and laws that will get you in hot water should that evil person use your network in a bad way , I 'd agree .
That 's not the world we live in.Yes from your LAN to the internet is wide open , all email from your ISP to another ISP is in the open ( GPG if you care ) , but for me that 's not the point of securing my WLAN .
It 's securing who accesses my internet connection which is tied to me personally , and without physically being in my home/office , WLAN is the only way to do so , so that 's why I secure it.I have a longer reply about this and the reasoning here : http : //mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1423971&amp;cid = 29918555 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were not evil people in the world and laws that will get you in hot water should that evil person use your network in a bad way, I'd agree.
That's not the world we live in.Yes from your LAN to the internet is wide open, all email from your ISP to another ISP is in the open (GPG if you care), but for me that's not the point of securing my WLAN.
It's securing who accesses my internet connection which is tied to me personally, and without physically being in my home/office, WLAN is the only way to do so, so that's why I secure it.I have a longer reply about this and the reasoning here:http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1423971&amp;cid=29918555 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</id>
	<title>Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WEP is better? Has it always been better? I used WEP for the longest time until I figured I could set my own (short &amp; easy) password with WPA.<br>Should I switch back? Not that I expect my neighbours to be leet hackers...</p><p>But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network (no idea who owned it) and noticed they had a printer on the network. So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless, and a website to show them how.</p><p>Now to you or I, this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measures, but everyone else (meaning not computer people) thought that this was an outright invasion of privacy and advised me "Never to attempt that kind of stunt again" (not that I'll listen to them).</p><p>Anyways, ever since then I've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP is better ?
Has it always been better ?
I used WEP for the longest time until I figured I could set my own ( short &amp; easy ) password with WPA.Should I switch back ?
Not that I expect my neighbours to be leet hackers...But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network ( no idea who owned it ) and noticed they had a printer on the network .
So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless , and a website to show them how.Now to you or I , this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measures , but everyone else ( meaning not computer people ) thought that this was an outright invasion of privacy and advised me " Never to attempt that kind of stunt again " ( not that I 'll listen to them ) .Anyways , ever since then I 've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP is better?
Has it always been better?
I used WEP for the longest time until I figured I could set my own (short &amp; easy) password with WPA.Should I switch back?
Not that I expect my neighbours to be leet hackers...But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network (no idea who owned it) and noticed they had a printer on the network.
So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless, and a website to show them how.Now to you or I, this would seem like a noble act in educating people on good security measures, but everyone else (meaning not computer people) thought that this was an outright invasion of privacy and advised me "Never to attempt that kind of stunt again" (not that I'll listen to them).Anyways, ever since then I've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29920437</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256835540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WOW That was one crazy way to come up with a password that I for one would never remember.  How about something like "Frod@LordOfTheRings.com"  Thats 24 characters long instead of your 17 contains mixed case and non-word characters and is way easier to remember.  You can use variations on different systems bilbo@ or gandalf@ and be able to remember them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WOW That was one crazy way to come up with a password that I for one would never remember .
How about something like " Frod @ LordOfTheRings.com " Thats 24 characters long instead of your 17 contains mixed case and non-word characters and is way easier to remember .
You can use variations on different systems bilbo @ or gandalf @ and be able to remember them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WOW That was one crazy way to come up with a password that I for one would never remember.
How about something like "Frod@LordOfTheRings.com"  Thats 24 characters long instead of your 17 contains mixed case and non-word characters and is way easier to remember.
You can use variations on different systems bilbo@ or gandalf@ and be able to remember them all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916789</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I set up a wifi router for someone I always simply generate a random string of letters numbers and special characters then I write it down and stick it to the router.</p><p>I figure that you can't get more secure and its not exactly something they need to remember because they type it every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I set up a wifi router for someone I always simply generate a random string of letters numbers and special characters then I write it down and stick it to the router.I figure that you ca n't get more secure and its not exactly something they need to remember because they type it every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I set up a wifi router for someone I always simply generate a random string of letters numbers and special characters then I write it down and stick it to the router.I figure that you can't get more secure and its not exactly something they need to remember because they type it every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917955</id>
	<title>Re: WHY would you "secure" a WLAN?</title>
	<author>cjb658</author>
	<datestamp>1256817180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSL doesn't always mean secure either.</p><p>See the third video here: <a href="http://www.defcon.org/#earlyVids" title="defcon.org">http://www.defcon.org/#earlyVids</a> [defcon.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSL does n't always mean secure either.See the third video here : http : //www.defcon.org/ # earlyVids [ defcon.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSL doesn't always mean secure either.See the third video here: http://www.defcon.org/#earlyVids [defcon.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917291</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1256814060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Dude! TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d is the combination I have on my luggage!</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude !
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b ! 7d is the combination I have on my luggage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude!
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d is the combination I have on my luggage!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915879</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1256809140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I recall correctly, WPA/TKIP was an "interim" solution intended to be more secure than WEP but compatible with most WEP hardware.  As such it had to leverage some of the low-level components of WEP, of which TKIP was one of them.</p><p>So effectively, WPA/TKIP has vulnerabilities because it inherited them from WEP.</p><p>WPA2/AES eliminates all "WEP heritage cruft".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , WPA/TKIP was an " interim " solution intended to be more secure than WEP but compatible with most WEP hardware .
As such it had to leverage some of the low-level components of WEP , of which TKIP was one of them.So effectively , WPA/TKIP has vulnerabilities because it inherited them from WEP.WPA2/AES eliminates all " WEP heritage cruft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, WPA/TKIP was an "interim" solution intended to be more secure than WEP but compatible with most WEP hardware.
As such it had to leverage some of the low-level components of WEP, of which TKIP was one of them.So effectively, WPA/TKIP has vulnerabilities because it inherited them from WEP.WPA2/AES eliminates all "WEP heritage cruft".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no.  Actually, let me rephrase that... "NO!!!!!!"</p><p>WEP has been broken.  Terribly, horribly, and completely broken.  Not only are attacks possible, they are out there, and they are the data-intercept type.  It's somewhat more secure than running Open and hiding your SSID, but not a lot more.</p><p>WPA/TKIP has a vulnerability that malformed packets may be inserted in to the data stream.  This opens the door for possible attacks.  That does not mean attacks are currently possible, nor does it necessarily mean that data-intercept attacks will be possible near-term.  You are "nearly safe" running WPA/TKIP.  WPA/TKIP uses the same encryption methodologies as WPA but encrypts more data and is a lot harder to break.</p><p>WPA/AES has, to my knowledge, no presently-known attack vector vulnerabilities.  That can (and probably will) change.</p><p>But if your gear is capable of WPA/AES, switch to that.  If not, leave it as WPA/TKIP.</p><p>And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters.  10 total characters should do it if you use the prefix of some phrase and replace a few letters with special characters.</p><p>Example:  The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written</p><p>TLotRitGSER  This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.</p><p>Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&amp;1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end.  TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d</p><p>Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.  Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.</p><p>Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing!  That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no .
Actually , let me rephrase that.. .
" NO ! ! ! ! ! ! " WEP has been broken .
Terribly , horribly , and completely broken .
Not only are attacks possible , they are out there , and they are the data-intercept type .
It 's somewhat more secure than running Open and hiding your SSID , but not a lot more.WPA/TKIP has a vulnerability that malformed packets may be inserted in to the data stream .
This opens the door for possible attacks .
That does not mean attacks are currently possible , nor does it necessarily mean that data-intercept attacks will be possible near-term .
You are " nearly safe " running WPA/TKIP .
WPA/TKIP uses the same encryption methodologies as WPA but encrypts more data and is a lot harder to break.WPA/AES has , to my knowledge , no presently-known attack vector vulnerabilities .
That can ( and probably will ) change.But if your gear is capable of WPA/AES , switch to that .
If not , leave it as WPA/TKIP.And for the love of Pete , switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers , letters ( upper and lower ) and a few special characters .
10 total characters should do it if you use the prefix of some phrase and replace a few letters with special characters.Example : The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever WrittenTLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password , you 've got decent length , 11 characters , and some upper/lower goodness.Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book , ( &amp;1b ) , and not about the 7 dwarves ( ! 7d ) to the end .
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b ! 7dSeriously secure password , and you 're going to remember the hell out of it .
Of course , it helps if you use something memorable to you.Then you 'll never go around saying " Amazing !
That 's the exact same combination I have on my luggage !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.
Actually, let me rephrase that...
"NO!!!!!!"WEP has been broken.
Terribly, horribly, and completely broken.
Not only are attacks possible, they are out there, and they are the data-intercept type.
It's somewhat more secure than running Open and hiding your SSID, but not a lot more.WPA/TKIP has a vulnerability that malformed packets may be inserted in to the data stream.
This opens the door for possible attacks.
That does not mean attacks are currently possible, nor does it necessarily mean that data-intercept attacks will be possible near-term.
You are "nearly safe" running WPA/TKIP.
WPA/TKIP uses the same encryption methodologies as WPA but encrypts more data and is a lot harder to break.WPA/AES has, to my knowledge, no presently-known attack vector vulnerabilities.
That can (and probably will) change.But if your gear is capable of WPA/AES, switch to that.
If not, leave it as WPA/TKIP.And for the love of Pete, switch to a longer password with some nice scrunchy numbers, letters (upper and lower) and a few special characters.
10 total characters should do it if you use the prefix of some phrase and replace a few letters with special characters.Example:  The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever WrittenTLotRitGSER  This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&amp;1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end.
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7dSeriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.
Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.Then you'll never go around saying "Amazing!
That's the exact same combination I have on my luggage!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919961</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d<br> <br>Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.  Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.</p></div><p>
Lame<br>
<br>
Every few weeks I do the following:<br>
<br>
aaron@hoth:~$ pwgen -cny <br>
Ui:jae5i She9tah) ki3Ou;p3 phah`Gh8 aiR&amp;aeW2 Aif2ye\%i Ae0ieT?i ieng0Ep~<br>
paa\%qu6A ahCaa^l7 gai3Mai+ Egh\ee1u eg$eeM4l Joo4Oh[e Ve"o1Ain suX|ae3c<br>
Qua;c6Vo Ohng^iL5 Yie,m5Wu Ezee'sh7 eek]aiT1 Ahch*ei3 fe9AiT'i dae(M3ee<br>
ei2Wei^j uY$eiv2o Eip:ee6c Beiy*oo8 aRieg-u7 eeg#ae6O ik3Bu:o6 au8Pa[i4<br>
&lt;snip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&gt;<br>
Us`e5Aed OhB@oa9A Theeng7 thee^D3u ANa/ng5o bo\_Feo5m Cha#a0ee Aiv+aa3J<br>
aaron@hoth:~$ <br>
<br>
Pick one or more of the passwords from the output, mash them together and paste them into gedit.<br>
<br>
Spend 3 minutes repeatedly retyping the password into gedit.<br>
Lock your screen, go to bed, and the next morning retype the password for another three minutes.<br>
Change your password.<br>
<br>
<br>
When you do this every few weeks, replace a different password group.  For example:<br>
Week 1 - Change root password on all home machines<br>
Week 2 - Change root password on all machines for client x<br>
Week 3 - Change eBay and bank password<br>
Week 4 - Change 'throwaway' password for sites like slashdot, mailman mailing lists (Why the f*ck are these sent in plain text every month.  Dumbass admins.)<br>
Week 5 - If you haven't gotten the point by now, providing a week 5 example is useless.<br>
etc...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TLotRitGSER&amp;1b ! 7d Seriously secure password , and you 're going to remember the hell out of it .
Of course , it helps if you use something memorable to you .
Lame Every few weeks I do the following : aaron @ hoth : ~ $ pwgen -cny Ui : jae5i She9tah ) ki3Ou ; p3 phah ` Gh8 aiR&amp;aeW2 Aif2ye \ % i Ae0ieT ? i ieng0Ep ~ paa \ % qu6A ahCaa ^ l7 gai3Mai + Egh \ ee1u eg $ eeM4l Joo4Oh [ e Ve " o1Ain suX | ae3c Qua ; c6Vo Ohng ^ iL5 Yie,m5Wu Ezee'sh7 eek ] aiT1 Ahch * ei3 fe9AiT'i dae ( M3ee ei2Wei ^ j uY $ eiv2o Eip : ee6c Beiy * oo8 aRieg-u7 eeg # ae6O ik3Bu : o6 au8Pa [ i4 / &gt; Us ` e5Aed OhB @ oa9A Theeng7 thee ^ D3u ANa/ng5o bo \ _Feo5m Cha # a0ee Aiv + aa3J aaron @ hoth : ~ $ Pick one or more of the passwords from the output , mash them together and paste them into gedit .
Spend 3 minutes repeatedly retyping the password into gedit .
Lock your screen , go to bed , and the next morning retype the password for another three minutes .
Change your password .
When you do this every few weeks , replace a different password group .
For example : Week 1 - Change root password on all home machines Week 2 - Change root password on all machines for client x Week 3 - Change eBay and bank password Week 4 - Change 'throwaway ' password for sites like slashdot , mailman mailing lists ( Why the f * ck are these sent in plain text every month .
Dumbass admins .
) Week 5 - If you have n't gotten the point by now , providing a week 5 example is useless .
etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d Seriously secure password, and you're going to remember the hell out of it.
Of course, it helps if you use something memorable to you.
Lame

Every few weeks I do the following:

aaron@hoth:~$ pwgen -cny 
Ui:jae5i She9tah) ki3Ou;p3 phah`Gh8 aiR&amp;aeW2 Aif2ye\%i Ae0ieT?i ieng0Ep~
paa\%qu6A ahCaa^l7 gai3Mai+ Egh\ee1u eg$eeM4l Joo4Oh[e Ve"o1Ain suX|ae3c
Qua;c6Vo Ohng^iL5 Yie,m5Wu Ezee'sh7 eek]aiT1 Ahch*ei3 fe9AiT'i dae(M3ee
ei2Wei^j uY$eiv2o Eip:ee6c Beiy*oo8 aRieg-u7 eeg#ae6O ik3Bu:o6 au8Pa[i4
 /&gt;
Us`e5Aed OhB@oa9A Theeng7 thee^D3u ANa/ng5o bo\_Feo5m Cha#a0ee Aiv+aa3J
aaron@hoth:~$ 

Pick one or more of the passwords from the output, mash them together and paste them into gedit.
Spend 3 minutes repeatedly retyping the password into gedit.
Lock your screen, go to bed, and the next morning retype the password for another three minutes.
Change your password.
When you do this every few weeks, replace a different password group.
For example:
Week 1 - Change root password on all home machines
Week 2 - Change root password on all machines for client x
Week 3 - Change eBay and bank password
Week 4 - Change 'throwaway' password for sites like slashdot, mailman mailing lists (Why the f*ck are these sent in plain text every month.
Dumbass admins.
)
Week 5 - If you haven't gotten the point by now, providing a week 5 example is useless.
etc...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922181</id>
	<title>Re:Antisocial</title>
	<author>danieltdp</author>
	<datestamp>1256906220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should leave your house's door open too, just in case someone gets thirsty or need to use the toilet..</p><p>You ideas are pretty nice, but they are a little naive too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should leave your house 's door open too , just in case someone gets thirsty or need to use the toilet..You ideas are pretty nice , but they are a little naive too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should leave your house's door open too, just in case someone gets thirsty or need to use the toilet..You ideas are pretty nice, but they are a little naive too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29928127</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bull. All you need to do is create a strong password that's not in your average dictionary. The hack is a dictionary hack, simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bull .
All you need to do is create a strong password that 's not in your average dictionary .
The hack is a dictionary hack , simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bull.
All you need to do is create a strong password that's not in your average dictionary.
The hack is a dictionary hack, simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915579</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>salahx</author>
	<datestamp>1256807760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WEP is "Wired Equivalent Privacy". It wasn't supposed to be very strong - about a secure a regular wired network. However, it wasn't known back then just HOW weak it was. As a stopgap measure, WPA PSK (TKIP) was created. Since it uses the same algorithm as WEP, (RC4), existing equipment could be easily upgraded with just a firmware/software update. A long-term solution WPA2 PSK (AES) was created as well.</p><p>WPA-PSK (TKIP) is still far, far better than WEP by many order of magintude, but WPA2-PSK is better, and if all you wireless devices support it (in particular the Nintendo DS DOES NOT, The DSi does, but not for DS games), then that preferred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP is " Wired Equivalent Privacy " .
It was n't supposed to be very strong - about a secure a regular wired network .
However , it was n't known back then just HOW weak it was .
As a stopgap measure , WPA PSK ( TKIP ) was created .
Since it uses the same algorithm as WEP , ( RC4 ) , existing equipment could be easily upgraded with just a firmware/software update .
A long-term solution WPA2 PSK ( AES ) was created as well.WPA-PSK ( TKIP ) is still far , far better than WEP by many order of magintude , but WPA2-PSK is better , and if all you wireless devices support it ( in particular the Nintendo DS DOES NOT , The DSi does , but not for DS games ) , then that preferred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP is "Wired Equivalent Privacy".
It wasn't supposed to be very strong - about a secure a regular wired network.
However, it wasn't known back then just HOW weak it was.
As a stopgap measure, WPA PSK (TKIP) was created.
Since it uses the same algorithm as WEP, (RC4), existing equipment could be easily upgraded with just a firmware/software update.
A long-term solution WPA2 PSK (AES) was created as well.WPA-PSK (TKIP) is still far, far better than WEP by many order of magintude, but WPA2-PSK is better, and if all you wireless devices support it (in particular the Nintendo DS DOES NOT, The DSi does, but not for DS games), then that preferred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263</id>
	<title>Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1256849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did they invent a (well, multiple) new encryption algorithm(s) for WiFi? Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice. Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence? Not Invented Here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they invent a ( well , multiple ) new encryption algorithm ( s ) for WiFi ?
Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice .
Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence ?
Not Invented Here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they invent a (well, multiple) new encryption algorithm(s) for WiFi?
Any competent security specialist will tell you that using an established encryption algorithm is always the wise choice.
Did the people behind WiFi simply lack competence?
Not Invented Here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918137</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1256818380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This password seems too short.  For AES256 much longer passwords are recommended by security-specific programs; for example, Truecrypt complains if the password has anything less than 20 characters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This password seems too short .
For AES256 much longer passwords are recommended by security-specific programs ; for example , Truecrypt complains if the password has anything less than 20 characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This password seems too short.
For AES256 much longer passwords are recommended by security-specific programs; for example, Truecrypt complains if the password has anything less than 20 characters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915433</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyways, ever since then I've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony.</p></div><p>They certainly will if you move back to WEP. WEP isn't just "under attack," it's very, very broken. If you're lucky, WEP makes an attacker wait 15 minutes more than they would have on an unsecured network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyways , ever since then I 've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony.They certainly will if you move back to WEP .
WEP is n't just " under attack , " it 's very , very broken .
If you 're lucky , WEP makes an attacker wait 15 minutes more than they would have on an unsecured network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyways, ever since then I've had this itching feeling that someones going to break into my wireless and show me whats what in a sort of karmic irony.They certainly will if you move back to WEP.
WEP isn't just "under attack," it's very, very broken.
If you're lucky, WEP makes an attacker wait 15 minutes more than they would have on an unsecured network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916795</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1256812080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"you've got decent length, and some upper/lower goodness."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that's what she said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" you 've got decent length , and some upper/lower goodness .
" ...that 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"you've got decent length, and some upper/lower goodness.
" ...that's what she said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917353</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have often mused that, if one had a low bandwidth trojan on someone's system, the most interesting memory to watch would be the copy and paste buffer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have often mused that , if one had a low bandwidth trojan on someone 's system , the most interesting memory to watch would be the copy and paste buffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have often mused that, if one had a low bandwidth trojan on someone's system, the most interesting memory to watch would be the copy and paste buffer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035</id>
	<title>Re: WHY would you "secure" a WLAN?</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1256812980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network (no idea who owned it) and noticed they had a printer on the network. So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless, and a website to show them how.</i>
<br> <br>
I run my WLAN open, or "unsecured", intentionally and encourage everyone to do the same. Your neighbors are good people who leave their network open, so why would you be rude and abuse their printer?<br> <br>
The Internet DOES NOT MAGICALLY BECOME SECURE by using encryption on a local wireless network. No. If you are talking https then you have end-to-end encryption. If you are talking http then you do not. These are the facts regardless of you using encryption 10 feet between your laptop and your router.<br> <br>
If you want real security then use end-to-end encryption. If you do that then it no longer matters if that end-to-end encrypted connection goes encrypted or unencrypted through the air locally. "Securing" wireless networks in pointless and rude. It provides no security beyond your local network and it makes it harder for those good folks next door or folks who happen to park their car within range who want to update their facebook status or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network ( no idea who owned it ) and noticed they had a printer on the network .
So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless , and a website to show them how .
I run my WLAN open , or " unsecured " , intentionally and encourage everyone to do the same .
Your neighbors are good people who leave their network open , so why would you be rude and abuse their printer ?
The Internet DOES NOT MAGICALLY BECOME SECURE by using encryption on a local wireless network .
No. If you are talking https then you have end-to-end encryption .
If you are talking http then you do not .
These are the facts regardless of you using encryption 10 feet between your laptop and your router .
If you want real security then use end-to-end encryption .
If you do that then it no longer matters if that end-to-end encrypted connection goes encrypted or unencrypted through the air locally .
" Securing " wireless networks in pointless and rude .
It provides no security beyond your local network and it makes it harder for those good folks next door or folks who happen to park their car within range who want to update their facebook status or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But one time not too long ago I logged into my one of my neighbours unsecured network (no idea who owned it) and noticed they had a printer on the network.
So I downloaded the drivers off of HP and then sent a message to their printer telling them they should secure their wireless, and a website to show them how.
I run my WLAN open, or "unsecured", intentionally and encourage everyone to do the same.
Your neighbors are good people who leave their network open, so why would you be rude and abuse their printer?
The Internet DOES NOT MAGICALLY BECOME SECURE by using encryption on a local wireless network.
No. If you are talking https then you have end-to-end encryption.
If you are talking http then you do not.
These are the facts regardless of you using encryption 10 feet between your laptop and your router.
If you want real security then use end-to-end encryption.
If you do that then it no longer matters if that end-to-end encrypted connection goes encrypted or unencrypted through the air locally.
"Securing" wireless networks in pointless and rude.
It provides no security beyond your local network and it makes it harder for those good folks next door or folks who happen to park their car within range who want to update their facebook status or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919913</id>
	<title>Re:Antisocial</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1256830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sharing is un-capitalistic thus evil. You'll be re-educated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharing is un-capitalistic thus evil .
You 'll be re-educated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharing is un-capitalistic thus evil.
You'll be re-educated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919719</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the famous beer encryption algorithm. Get your attackers so drunk they won't even be able to read the plaintext.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the famous beer encryption algorithm .
Get your attackers so drunk they wo n't even be able to read the plaintext .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the famous beer encryption algorithm.
Get your attackers so drunk they won't even be able to read the plaintext.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WEP has always been less secure than WPA, especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.</p><p>Stick with WPA2 and you'll be alright for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP has always been less secure than WPA , especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.Stick with WPA2 and you 'll be alright for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP has always been less secure than WPA, especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.Stick with WPA2 and you'll be alright for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918581</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone know...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US military went back and bought old tech from 1980's South Africa's used during bush wars.<br>
They did a MS and innovated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
As for WPA2/AES, my only thought is cat6/5 or optical your house if you want networking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US military went back and bought old tech from 1980 's South Africa 's used during bush wars .
They did a MS and innovated : ) As for WPA2/AES , my only thought is cat6/5 or optical your house if you want networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US military went back and bought old tech from 1980's South Africa's used during bush wars.
They did a MS and innovated :)
As for WPA2/AES, my only thought is cat6/5 or optical your house if you want networking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29946406</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use a pass phrase? "The Lord of the Rings is the Worst Series Ever Written" is a perfectly good one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use a pass phrase ?
" The Lord of the Rings is the Worst Series Ever Written " is a perfectly good one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use a pass phrase?
"The Lord of the Rings is the Worst Series Ever Written" is a perfectly good one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917469</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WEP has always been less secure than WPA, especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.</p></div><p>That's not the problem. You can brute force a WPA-TKIP password if you capture the handshake as someone connects, it just takes a really long time so it's not practical to do anything except a dictionary attack (and that would still take a loooong time). The problem with WEP is that you don't need to brute force the password, you can figure it out by collecting enough data packets. The only think slowing you down is the speed of the network. To give you an idea, I downloaded the example packets from aircrack-ng (basically simulating collecting enough packets from a WEP network), and my computer cracked the password in less than 15 seconds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WEP has always been less secure than WPA , especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.That 's not the problem .
You can brute force a WPA-TKIP password if you capture the handshake as someone connects , it just takes a really long time so it 's not practical to do anything except a dictionary attack ( and that would still take a loooong time ) .
The problem with WEP is that you do n't need to brute force the password , you can figure it out by collecting enough data packets .
The only think slowing you down is the speed of the network .
To give you an idea , I downloaded the example packets from aircrack-ng ( basically simulating collecting enough packets from a WEP network ) , and my computer cracked the password in less than 15 seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WEP has always been less secure than WPA, especially because you can just brute-force a WEP password.That's not the problem.
You can brute force a WPA-TKIP password if you capture the handshake as someone connects, it just takes a really long time so it's not practical to do anything except a dictionary attack (and that would still take a loooong time).
The problem with WEP is that you don't need to brute force the password, you can figure it out by collecting enough data packets.
The only think slowing you down is the speed of the network.
To give you an idea, I downloaded the example packets from aircrack-ng (basically simulating collecting enough packets from a WEP network), and my computer cracked the password in less than 15 seconds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918095</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1256818200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSID hiding is NOT security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSID hiding is NOT security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSID hiding is NOT security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915409</id>
	<title>Re:AM or FM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you like tkips?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you like tkips ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you like tkips?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918555</id>
	<title>Re:Antisocial</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1256821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While that might seem nice, it's actually pretty stupid, on both parts (sharing, and using "shared" resources).</p><p>Two points, first is that you're opening yourself up to having all your gear seized by the police when you leave things open.  How/why?  How 'bout your neighbor has an interest in child porn?  How 'bout your neighbor uses your internet to send death threats to the President of the United States and guess what, the Secret Service will have your address from your ISP in no time and you'll probably have fun, again with your gear taken and sitting in jail until it all gets sorted.  What if your neighbor shares movies/music non-stop and your ISP decides to cut you off?  Most likely sharing your internet outside of your household violates their ToS.</p><p>At the very least, you should require users to create accounts and use those and that you log access times (and perhaps dns queries or some proof of where they went).  When I used to run an open AP, I did that with NoCatAuth (some form of that project is still around).  Then should any of these things happen, you could at least have some "proof" that it wasn't you.  Granted, your equipment is still seized while you fight this, or you're still offline until you promise to shutdown/limit your access.</p><p>Ok, the second point is that, at least here in the US, you're actually committing theft of computer services and unauthorized access when you use someone's "shared" AP without permission.  Yeah, I know it's really lame.  Unless you have written proof somewhere (like on a sign at a college or in a hotel lobby), or at least connecting to an SSID labelled "somesite-public" so you can say it was open to the public, you're asking for it legally.</p><p>A final thought of how stupid it is to use any old open AP is that you're ripe for a M-i-t-M attack and giving up all your account info.  You can disagree all you want, all you have to do is look and see all the security issues that come up with this and how SSL really isn't a solution as it is constantly found to be broken.</p><p>What I do to prevent such problems is to use a "Guest" firefox profile to login to the ToS or whatever a public place may have and "sign in" to their system if I have to auth somehow.  Once that is up, iptables blocks all outbound traffic from my laptop except to my remote proxy server which I SSH to and forward all my traffic.  No M-i-t-M attack is possible here since I already have my SSH server's public key stored and that server had my public key, and the only traffic they see is AES-256bit SSH.  Nothing else can even leave/leek out of my box thanks to iptables blocking it (dns likes to leak from a lot of apps, and SOCKS proxying will not do DNS and always leak unless you use something like privoxy).</p><p>Anyway, I just don't have time to deal with the police or my ISP should someone else do something stupid.  I have "PRIVATE" in my SSID string (no excuses for unauthorized access) use WPA2/AES, have MAC address filtering, and only allow SSH access into my host server from my AP to my LAN.  Again, I don't trust wireless, even at home.  Should WPA2/AES found to be broken and someone spoofs my MAC address, they cannot get anywhere but to my hardened SSH host.  A little bit of protection and security mindset goes a long way.  This works in a corp setting as well, replacing SSH with VPNs (only allow access from the wireless to your VPN server/firewall, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While that might seem nice , it 's actually pretty stupid , on both parts ( sharing , and using " shared " resources ) .Two points , first is that you 're opening yourself up to having all your gear seized by the police when you leave things open .
How/why ? How 'bout your neighbor has an interest in child porn ?
How 'bout your neighbor uses your internet to send death threats to the President of the United States and guess what , the Secret Service will have your address from your ISP in no time and you 'll probably have fun , again with your gear taken and sitting in jail until it all gets sorted .
What if your neighbor shares movies/music non-stop and your ISP decides to cut you off ?
Most likely sharing your internet outside of your household violates their ToS.At the very least , you should require users to create accounts and use those and that you log access times ( and perhaps dns queries or some proof of where they went ) .
When I used to run an open AP , I did that with NoCatAuth ( some form of that project is still around ) .
Then should any of these things happen , you could at least have some " proof " that it was n't you .
Granted , your equipment is still seized while you fight this , or you 're still offline until you promise to shutdown/limit your access.Ok , the second point is that , at least here in the US , you 're actually committing theft of computer services and unauthorized access when you use someone 's " shared " AP without permission .
Yeah , I know it 's really lame .
Unless you have written proof somewhere ( like on a sign at a college or in a hotel lobby ) , or at least connecting to an SSID labelled " somesite-public " so you can say it was open to the public , you 're asking for it legally.A final thought of how stupid it is to use any old open AP is that you 're ripe for a M-i-t-M attack and giving up all your account info .
You can disagree all you want , all you have to do is look and see all the security issues that come up with this and how SSL really is n't a solution as it is constantly found to be broken.What I do to prevent such problems is to use a " Guest " firefox profile to login to the ToS or whatever a public place may have and " sign in " to their system if I have to auth somehow .
Once that is up , iptables blocks all outbound traffic from my laptop except to my remote proxy server which I SSH to and forward all my traffic .
No M-i-t-M attack is possible here since I already have my SSH server 's public key stored and that server had my public key , and the only traffic they see is AES-256bit SSH .
Nothing else can even leave/leek out of my box thanks to iptables blocking it ( dns likes to leak from a lot of apps , and SOCKS proxying will not do DNS and always leak unless you use something like privoxy ) .Anyway , I just do n't have time to deal with the police or my ISP should someone else do something stupid .
I have " PRIVATE " in my SSID string ( no excuses for unauthorized access ) use WPA2/AES , have MAC address filtering , and only allow SSH access into my host server from my AP to my LAN .
Again , I do n't trust wireless , even at home .
Should WPA2/AES found to be broken and someone spoofs my MAC address , they can not get anywhere but to my hardened SSH host .
A little bit of protection and security mindset goes a long way .
This works in a corp setting as well , replacing SSH with VPNs ( only allow access from the wireless to your VPN server/firewall , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While that might seem nice, it's actually pretty stupid, on both parts (sharing, and using "shared" resources).Two points, first is that you're opening yourself up to having all your gear seized by the police when you leave things open.
How/why?  How 'bout your neighbor has an interest in child porn?
How 'bout your neighbor uses your internet to send death threats to the President of the United States and guess what, the Secret Service will have your address from your ISP in no time and you'll probably have fun, again with your gear taken and sitting in jail until it all gets sorted.
What if your neighbor shares movies/music non-stop and your ISP decides to cut you off?
Most likely sharing your internet outside of your household violates their ToS.At the very least, you should require users to create accounts and use those and that you log access times (and perhaps dns queries or some proof of where they went).
When I used to run an open AP, I did that with NoCatAuth (some form of that project is still around).
Then should any of these things happen, you could at least have some "proof" that it wasn't you.
Granted, your equipment is still seized while you fight this, or you're still offline until you promise to shutdown/limit your access.Ok, the second point is that, at least here in the US, you're actually committing theft of computer services and unauthorized access when you use someone's "shared" AP without permission.
Yeah, I know it's really lame.
Unless you have written proof somewhere (like on a sign at a college or in a hotel lobby), or at least connecting to an SSID labelled "somesite-public" so you can say it was open to the public, you're asking for it legally.A final thought of how stupid it is to use any old open AP is that you're ripe for a M-i-t-M attack and giving up all your account info.
You can disagree all you want, all you have to do is look and see all the security issues that come up with this and how SSL really isn't a solution as it is constantly found to be broken.What I do to prevent such problems is to use a "Guest" firefox profile to login to the ToS or whatever a public place may have and "sign in" to their system if I have to auth somehow.
Once that is up, iptables blocks all outbound traffic from my laptop except to my remote proxy server which I SSH to and forward all my traffic.
No M-i-t-M attack is possible here since I already have my SSH server's public key stored and that server had my public key, and the only traffic they see is AES-256bit SSH.
Nothing else can even leave/leek out of my box thanks to iptables blocking it (dns likes to leak from a lot of apps, and SOCKS proxying will not do DNS and always leak unless you use something like privoxy).Anyway, I just don't have time to deal with the police or my ISP should someone else do something stupid.
I have "PRIVATE" in my SSID string (no excuses for unauthorized access) use WPA2/AES, have MAC address filtering, and only allow SSH access into my host server from my AP to my LAN.
Again, I don't trust wireless, even at home.
Should WPA2/AES found to be broken and someone spoofs my MAC address, they cannot get anywhere but to my hardened SSH host.
A little bit of protection and security mindset goes a long way.
This works in a corp setting as well, replacing SSH with VPNs (only allow access from the wireless to your VPN server/firewall, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075</id>
	<title>AM or FM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New Improvements On the Attacks On WPA/TKIP</p></div><p>... in Cincinatti!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Improvements On the Attacks On WPA/TKIP... in Cincinatti !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Improvements On the Attacks On WPA/TKIP... in Cincinatti!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917201</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>MadFarmAnimalz</author>
	<datestamp>1256813640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever <b>W</b>ritten TLotRitGSE<b>R</b> This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness. Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&amp;1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end. TLotRitGSE<b>R</b>&amp;1b!7d Seriously secure password</i>
<p>
Except you actually got it wrong.
</p><p>
<i>and you're going to remember the hell out of it.</i>
</p><p>
Sure doesn't look like it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Example : The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written TLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password , you 've got decent length , 11 characters , and some upper/lower goodness .
Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book , ( &amp;1b ) , and not about the 7 dwarves ( ! 7d ) to the end .
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b ! 7d Seriously secure password Except you actually got it wrong .
and you 're going to remember the hell out of it .
Sure does n't look like it .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example: The Lord of the Rings is the Greatest Series Ever Written TLotRitGSER This is actually a decent-security password, you've got decent length, 11 characters, and some upper/lower goodness.
Now add the concepts that it was originally actually one book, (&amp;1b), and not about the 7 dwarves (!7d) to the end.
TLotRitGSER&amp;1b!7d Seriously secure password

Except you actually got it wrong.
and you're going to remember the hell out of it.
Sure doesn't look like it.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918569</id>
	<title>Re:Does that mean...</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1256821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 characters? That's an entropy of 244 bits if it is completely random (using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/only/ upper- and lower case characters). That's a bit much for a complex password like the one mentioned. If the password consists of much easier to guess characters, than 20 characters is probably on the low side. I can understand such a recommendation from some point of view (we'll at least let them choose a long passphrase), but I think it is a bit over the top for well chosen passwords...</p><p>And I would recommend to write down the password and put it in a drawer. Chances are that you only need to type it in after your system went fubar, and if that happens, you may have lost your password. Drawers are also very difficult to hack from the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 characters ?
That 's an entropy of 244 bits if it is completely random ( using /only/ upper- and lower case characters ) .
That 's a bit much for a complex password like the one mentioned .
If the password consists of much easier to guess characters , than 20 characters is probably on the low side .
I can understand such a recommendation from some point of view ( we 'll at least let them choose a long passphrase ) , but I think it is a bit over the top for well chosen passwords...And I would recommend to write down the password and put it in a drawer .
Chances are that you only need to type it in after your system went fubar , and if that happens , you may have lost your password .
Drawers are also very difficult to hack from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 characters?
That's an entropy of 244 bits if it is completely random (using /only/ upper- and lower case characters).
That's a bit much for a complex password like the one mentioned.
If the password consists of much easier to guess characters, than 20 characters is probably on the low side.
I can understand such a recommendation from some point of view (we'll at least let them choose a long passphrase), but I think it is a bit over the top for well chosen passwords...And I would recommend to write down the password and put it in a drawer.
Chances are that you only need to type it in after your system went fubar, and if that happens, you may have lost your password.
Drawers are also very difficult to hack from the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29923673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29927315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29946406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29920437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29926581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29928127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1944208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1944208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1944208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1944208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29926581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1944208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916789
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29920437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29922337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29921251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29928127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916791
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29923673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29946406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29916795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29919991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29927315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29918615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29915939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1944208.29917843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
