Slashdot Mirror

Google search does not dictate the terms by which people use it to search the web.

Huh? Yes it does.

http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.bing.com/

Do either of those links work for you? That is what is meant by dictating the terms. To draw a comparison to the Microsoft saga in the 90s you could not physically purchase a desktop computer without Windows on it, and you could not physically run a copy of Windows without IE. With Google you're free to come and go as you please.

Google search does not have a lack of viable competitors.

Really? Name one viable competitor then. Yahoo uses Google for a backend, bing is not viable in itself (it only exists as part of MS's anti-google strategy), and there's no-one else I can think of with any kind of marketshare in the west.

You just named two. What Yahoo uses in its back end is completely irrelevant. But by your own admission you've basically just said that Yahoo is the same as Google, so why not use it? You get an alternative homepage, alternative set of services, the same high quality results, and quite critical to the discussion of the GP you don't get an advert for Chrome.

As for Bing, depending on who's figures you read they have a 15-30% market share. So it seems to be quite a viable alternative to many people. Suppose just of the top of my head I want to find a website that deals IT news. The top set of results are similar (though not identical) to Google's. They are also quite relevant for my local with The Australia's IT section listed 3rd for me (7th on Google). A perfectly valid set of results. They also offer a news search, an image search, etc.

I won't use the service because I frigging hate Microsoft products, and their childish UI design, but that's my bias against the company and not a discredit to the results their search engine produces.

So again, Google Search is not a monopoly. You're free to try and use others if you want. If you LIKE Google Search more than the competition, well that's entirely your decision, and not Google's. If it were Google's decision then it would be a monopoly, but unless www.bing.com doesn't work for you...

Google search does not dictate the terms by which people use it to search the web.

Huh? Yes it does.

http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.bing.com/

Do either of those links work for you? That is what is meant by dictating the terms. To draw a comparison to the Microsoft saga in the 90s you could not physically purchase a desktop computer without Windows on it, and you could not physically run a copy of Windows without IE. With Google you're free to come and go as you please.

Google search does not have a lack of viable competitors.

Really? Name one viable competitor then. Yahoo uses Google for a backend, bing is not viable in itself (it only exists as part of MS's anti-google strategy), and there's no-one else I can think of with any kind of marketshare in the west.

You just named two. What Yahoo uses in its back end is completely irrelevant. But by your own admission you've basically just said that Yahoo is the same as Google, so why not use it? You get an alternative homepage, alternative set of services, the same high quality results, and quite critical to the discussion of the GP you don't get an advert for Chrome.

As for Bing, depending on who's figures you read they have a 15-30% market share. So it seems to be quite a viable alternative to many people. Suppose just of the top of my head I want to find a website that deals IT news. The top set of results are similar (though not identical) to Google's. They are also quite relevant for my local with The Australia's IT section listed 3rd for me (7th on Google). A perfectly valid set of results. They also offer a news search, an image search, etc.

I won't use the service because I frigging hate Microsoft products, and their childish UI design, but that's my bias against the company and not a discredit to the results their search engine produces.

So again, Google Search is not a monopoly. You're free to try and use others if you want. If you LIKE Google Search more than the competition, well that's entirely your decision, and not Google's. If it were Google's decision then it would be a monopoly, but unless www.bing.com doesn't work for you...

You put a LOT OF FAITH in Chrome's sandbox? Hey - Sandboxes CAN and HAVE BEEN BROKEN (you even alluded to that much)!

So - Do you want to REALLY be "sure" of Chrome? Cut down on the indiscriminate use of javascript everywhere (only use it where you ABSOLUTELY need it), because even javascripted adbanners have been found to house malware - & it's one of the MAIN avenues whereby infectors/malware-in-general make their entrance into a system from!

Until the way this thing is getting into systems IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (be it an app that poses as a legit one, ala a Trojan (hence, my TROY analogy here) OR via scripted websites or adbanners etc.)? It's a GOOD IDEA to cut off that possible avenue of infestation as well in indiscriminate javascript usage "everywhere" as well as just using "any app there is under the sun"

(Good job on cutting listening services with vulnerabities or not though, as well as patching on your end, it's much as I do on Windows, see below).

ALSO - You're also NOT accounting for the other parts of Linux that come in the distro itself that have bugs that are NOT SANDBOXED!

(Things like other browsers & programs, Windows Managers (possibly even the new UNITY itself because it's new & NEW THINGS USUALLY HAVE SECURITY ISSUES/BUGS that pop up eventually as well)), Shells (KDE/Gnome), etc./et al)

All those things that come in a Linux distro, that YES, have security bugs/issues themselves that CAN be taken advantage of (remote AND LOCAL ones).

Couple all THAT, together with the fact I noted in my last post that a rootkit/botnet "blended tech threat (uses both driver & bootsector style rootkit tech) HAULS IN OTHER MALWARES ONTOP OF ITSELF BEING THERE TOO?

Again - Once inside "the walls of Troy" (& I do salute you for doing what I do, cutting off other possible points of "ingress for infestation" ala my guides for securing Windows -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE )?

It can do what it wants - up to the creativity of the botnet makers...

* Including take advantage of local apps (ala my example with CoreFlood & Dr. Mark Russinovich's psexec.exe program, from my last post to you in regards to this, which this is an addendum to), OR LOCAL SECURITY BUGS UNPATCHED!

Period...

---

On that note?

Let's compare HOW MANY security issues remain unpatched on Windows (heck, ALL of what Microsoft gives you for business & development even) vs. THE LINUX 2.6x MAINSTREAM KERNEL ONLY:

This data's ALL from a respected source for known security vulnerabilities unpatched:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (07/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (07/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010: (07/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28234/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010: (07/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/29809/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010: (07/02/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34343/

"Sounds like you have a lot of fun maintaining your defenses." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

I do, & I only had to do it ONCE, & I don't EVER get "sick online" either because of it...

Here's a testimonial from another user who uses a portion of what I do for "layered security" (best thing we currently have vs. threats online) only, in HOSTS files usage, because you can't get BURNED if you don't go into the 'malware kitchen':

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

AND, here is the rest of my defense system (& yes, it REALLY WORKS):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

---

I'm amazed by the time and effort people spend to defend against malware when the best solution is so obvious. 'You can lead a horse to water..." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

That water?

That is "layered security" here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

(1-2 hours of your time, for stable & secure uptime for YEARS into the distance.... it works, for Windows (the OS with more high quality drivers & software than Linux has by FAR (especially games)).

---

"Maybe the problem is that some people enjoy "the game" so much that they wouldn't know what to do if they stopped playing. - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

Oh, I "don't play" - see above, my last reply too (lol, "ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy" & below too (epsecially security info. on unpatched Linux vulerabilities in its KERNEL ONLY mind you, vs. nearly ALL of what MS gives you to do business & development with no less))!

---

"I remember keeping up with that sort of thing back in the day. Then in 2003 I switched to Debian and haven't had to worry about malware since." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

The ONLY thing protecting Linux users is "Security-By-Obscurity", or, isn't ANDROID (yes, it's a Linux variant that's actually getting a big share of market & usage by users on mobile phones).

Isn't THAT showing anyone anything by example? Does me!

NOW:

Some things you ought to know, on unpatched security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's near ENTIRE offering of what you need to do business & development, vs. THE LINUX 2.6x MAINSTREAM KERNEL ONLY:

This data's ALL from a respected source for known security vulnerabilities unpatched:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28234/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010:

"Sounds like you have a lot of fun maintaining your defenses." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

I do, & I only had to do it ONCE, & I don't EVER get "sick online" either because of it...

Here's a testimonial from another user who uses a portion of what I do for "layered security" (best thing we currently have vs. threats online) only, in HOSTS files usage, because you can't get BURNED if you don't go into the 'malware kitchen':

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

AND, here is the rest of my defense system (& yes, it REALLY WORKS):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

---

I'm amazed by the time and effort people spend to defend against malware when the best solution is so obvious. 'You can lead a horse to water..." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

That water?

That is "layered security" here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

(1-2 hours of your time, for stable & secure uptime for YEARS into the distance.... it works, for Windows (the OS with more high quality drivers & software than Linux has by FAR (especially games)).

---

"Maybe the problem is that some people enjoy "the game" so much that they wouldn't know what to do if they stopped playing. - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

Oh, I "don't play" - see above, my last reply too (lol, "ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy" & below too (epsecially security info. on unpatched Linux vulerabilities in its KERNEL ONLY mind you, vs. nearly ALL of what MS gives you to do business & development with no less))!

---

"I remember keeping up with that sort of thing back in the day. Then in 2003 I switched to Debian and haven't had to worry about malware since." - by gottabeme (590848) on Wednesday June 29, @11:58PM (#36618920)

The ONLY thing protecting Linux users is "Security-By-Obscurity", or, isn't ANDROID (yes, it's a Linux variant that's actually getting a big share of market & usage by users on mobile phones).

Isn't THAT showing anyone anything by example? Does me!

NOW:

Some things you ought to know, on unpatched security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's near ENTIRE offering of what you need to do business & development, vs. THE LINUX 2.6x MAINSTREAM KERNEL ONLY:

This data's ALL from a respected source for known security vulnerabilities unpatched:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010: (06/26/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/28234/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010:

And, per my last post to you? Like TestedDonut, whose testimonial I put up in my last post?? I don't get malware, ever, in the 1st place...

NOW/Additionally: IF you see my init. post & the guide in it - you have to get one first... I don't per that guide is why!

I.E.-> I mean, heck - Cutting off what I called "the harbinger of DOOM" there (javascript) & being judicious in its usage alone cuts off a good 90% of the probability of getting one online in the first place!

(Plus, other things like doing text only email, not HTML scriptable types, helps as well)...

* I do MUCH more too, for the concept of "layered security" (best thing we have going currently in fact, & I've done guides like that since 1997 for securing Windows - here's what NEOWIN thought of that one:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

Great rating, when they got ahold of it in 2001 (older less comprehensive than today's is since 2007)

* In fact? I suggest you read it the newer one in my guide link I put into my 1st post - here it is again for your reference (you sound like you know a "trick-or-two" though, but you MAY pickup something too, never overlook THAT much):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

From your DNS thing though? Though you have a point?? Well... sounds like you NEED to read that!

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER, in fairness? That's been the most challenging point I've heard here vs. my ideas on "layered security" - VERY good!

You did make a good point though, I will give you that (& sorry for calling you troll - I thought you were the other post here (DEFINITELY a "troll"))

... apk

Because all of its known sources are "blocked out" here, either by:

---

1.) NORTON DNS (& it's DNSBL vs. all forms of "malware-in-general")

---

2.) My custom HOSTS file which is currently as of this writing in its tempfile prior to commission back to the HOSTS file itself, @ 1,459,566++ blocked known bad sites strong, & more for speed (adbanners blocked)...

(AND, it updates every 15 minutes now from 17 different reliable sources for HOSTS file data, DNSBL's I convert, & also trackers of various botnets out there online, yes, including THIS one too(earlier variants & current build).

---

3.) System Security Hardening:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

(Which includes the "std. antivirus/antispyware/firewall toolsets in use, but also a HELL OF A LOT MORE like conscientious patching/updating the OS & apps, group & local security policies work, using javascript (the "harbinger of DOOM" @ times) judiciously/sparingly, etc./et al)

---

* Nice part about the "heart of it" in the HOSTS file + Norton DNS is that even IF I were to 'suck in' this beastie? As soon as they get its C&C servers, I get them... every 1/4 hour, & it won't be able to "talk back to HQ"...

(AND, Despite all the "hype" of "not being able to see its transmissions" due to encryption? An ISP/BSP can see it, & that's where the info. will come from, eventually - & every encryption, even QUANTUM lately, can be broken OR eavesdropped on... just a matter of TIME! Hey, if wind & water can blow down mountains, right?)

So, "that all said & aside", well... IF they're smart about it? They'll update their DNSBL's too (effectively blocking communications "back to HQ" for this thing!)

APK

P.S.=> Besides, there isn't a botnet (or even ROOTKIT) I can't deal with effectively for removal anyhow - & I don't use the same tools others do...

Well, @ first I do, & when those fail? Out come the "big guns" in Process Explorer & Recovery Console - & there's nothing I can't "dust" between them...

... apk

NOW: IF I were a "malware maker/hacker-cracker"? I'd have to be the STUPIDEST one there is, because I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 400,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

APK

P.S.=> That's Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)

... apk

as well, based on what I *think* is what you're saying.

Simply because trying to stay "ontop" of them is as 'asymptotic of an approach' (lacking a better expression here) as what you're stating HOSTS files update maintenance is (this is what I drew from you, correct me IF I am off/wrong here & I am mistaken)...

However: AntiVirus/AntiSpyware technology? They're both LARGELY REACTIVE as well as far as keeping abreast of all threats possible via "mugshots of known offenders" so-to-speak, which is much like my efforts for decades now, in populating HOSTS files &/or Firewall rules tables are...

(In the end, much computer security, is - the truly only "proactive" (note the quotes, I lack a better expression here) types I know of for a local machine are system hardening guides -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE such as those & following them + their tips/tricks/techniques points, to the letter really)

APK

P.S.=> Anyways/anyhow - I wish you showed back up, you may have points I could or should think about... provided I did not cover them in my 1st reply to you (but, I think I did, via automation & updates constantly here to my HOSTS file from MANY reputable & reliable sources)

... apk

Came along for the ride, & guess what gents: It's about to get WORSE!

Case-in-point/e.g. is "MASS MESH ATTACKS":

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3935941/New-Injection-Attack-30000-Websites.htm

* Very nasty...

APK

P.S.=> Now - SQLInjection's fairly easy to stop (via Stored Procedures usage, BIND variables usage, & removal of business logic out of front ends in general (if not blocking out redirects as I do to over 1, 444, 444++ known bad sites/servers/domains-hosts as I do via a HOSTS file, or a firewall (or even a TPL for IE, Opera's URLFILTER.INI or FireFox's methods etc.))...

This type though? Quite a bit worse

So - I sort of hate to say "I told you so", but... it furthers the case for my stating to people to LIMIT THEIR USE OF JAVASCRIPT, or be judicious in its usage @ least, as I have said for YEARS here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

nd a decade before it here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [neowin.net]

Man - yes, I know: You NEED javascript for some sites (think e-commerce) but... the second I saw scriptable documents in say, Word & Excel docs + their macros being taken advantage of in VB-Script/VBA? I knew that scripting web HTML documents was going to be the same!

So, do take a read of the 1st URL I posted on Mass Mesh attack & its mechanics, be enlightened folks, & prepare yourselves!

... apk

They're nasty SOB's too:

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3935941/New-Injection-Attack-30000-Websites.htm

"Now we just need to hope that they don't breed better attackers that are all resistant." - by DanTheStone (1212500) on Thursday June 16, @01:32PM (#36465516)

Break out the "Zithromax" then... looks like we'll need it!

APK

P.S.=> Now - SQLInjection's fairly easy to stop (via Stored Procedures usage, BIND variables usage, & removal of business logic out of front ends in general (if not blocking out redirects as I do to over 1, 444, 345++ known bad sites/servers/domains-hosts as I do via a HOSTS file, or a firewall (or even a TPL for IE, Opera's URLFILTER.INI or FireFox's methods etc.))...

This type though? Quite a bit worse

So - Hate to say "I told you so", but... it furthers the case for my stating to people to LIMIT THEIR USE OF JAVASCRIPT as I have said for YEARS here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

nd a decade before it here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

Man - yes, I know: You NEED javascript for some sites (think e-commerce) but... the second I saw scriptable documents in say, Word & Excel docs + their macros being taken advantage of in VB-Script/VBA? I knew that scripting web HTML documents was going to be the same!

So, do take a read, be enlightened folks!

... apk

Legislations being proposed, & rather "suddenly" lately, in regards to "stopping online crime and hacker/crackers" etc.!

Addtionally, the typical way to "sway the masses/polarize them"?

Trumpet it from the rooftops in ALL media, yes, including online too & THEN CREATE AN "INCIDENT" or series of them (PRS - Problem/Reaction/Solution)...

Same as happened w/ 911 for instance (& I am pretty much sure that was all a setup, don't know about you though).

In fact, We had a discussion here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2231322&cid=36416026

About that VERY THING/CONCEPT, just a couple days ago here in fact... & yes, there are others that think as you do... and those that CLEARLY, don't!

Me? Well... Not sure.

APK

P.S.=> I only know I do my part to stop these "hacker/cracker" &/or "malware maker" types, & have since 1997 online http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text... AND, more recently, e.g., here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

... apk

See here, 3x in 1 day from your illiterate brain http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2231292&cid=36430548

LMAO!

Please: Get out of grade school first before posting here, ok?

Also, if apk is a malware writer, then how come he puts out the most viewed guide there is for securing a Windows NT-based OS utilizing computer:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Hmmm?

Where that guide's been put up since 2008 (and his first one goes back as far as 1997 which Neowin, a hugely travelled site rated highly as well?) it's been made:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) Most viewed in its category (usually security)
3.) 5/5 star rated
4.) Nearly 3/4 of a million views across 20 forums it's on
5.) Got him paid in January 2008 at the topmost result from the query on GOOGLE above.

---

Have you done the same, you illiterate troll? No. You're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll!

Fact is, APK's no more a malware maker than is Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft is!

A recent malware attack used Dr. Russinovich's wares too, here http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 but APK's work has never been used that way, ever.

It really can't be. He didn't put in argc/argv parameterizable abilities in it for scripting the way Dr. Russinovich has, unforunately.

So much for your trolling and libelous b.s. falconhell. You lose as usual, due to your own ignorance and stupidity.

I don't agree with what they do (as I don't do their "tactics" myself but I could easily (so could anyone with the right tools & know how because doing a DDoS or DoS as I noted earlier here? Cake. Same with finding sites vulnerable to SQL Injection (hell, even GOOGLE can find THAT for you, & rather easily, with the RIGHT type of query)).

However: They DO POINT OUT WHAT NEEDS FIXING! Just like malware makers do...

That's about ALL they do that is "good" (that's my way of being an "optimist" here is all - I don't like malware makers or hacker/crackers anymore than anyone else does, especially their victims - in fact, if you look below? I've spent a great deal of time helping others protect themselves from guys like them both).

In my earlier posts here, however?

I do point out a time when "LulzSec" actually HELPED the NHS by pointing out their admin passwords were exposed here:

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/160624/20110610/lulzsec-lulz-security-nhs-health-service-cyber-attack-weak-hack-hackers-hacked-sony-nintendo-network.htm

AND, believe-it-or-not? LulzSec warned them, & how to fix it + where (rather than they taking advantage of it for "nefarious purposes")...

So, it seems they're not "all bad"! Fact is, from their point-of-view?? I don't believe they think they ARE "doing wrong". They believe in what they're doing is all.

Do I think they believe in what they're doing?

Yes, & perhaps especially in this case... but, it's still a BAD MOVE for them! They'll get traced & caught, & it's only a matter of time - & the kind of people they're messing with now in governments of nations? DUMB & DANGEROUS!

(Man... trust me on that much, I've seen it before, decades ago, with others like them)

APK

P.S.=> Now, personally? I've read extensively read about hacker/cracker types, and put out things to help "average joe" out there as best I could since 1997 (which Neowin picked up on in 2001 & rated highly http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text , & currently this version of that guide too:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE which wherever it was posted (almost) on 15/20 forums its on, was made either a:

---

1.) Sticky/Pinned thread
2.) Essential Guide
3.) Most Viewed
4.) 5/5 star rated
5.) & even got me PAID (quite unexpectedly, @ the topmost results in that query no less - "The Lord works in MYSTERIOUS ways" is all I can say about that)

---

Eventually though? These guys @ BOTH "LulzSec" and "Anonymous" (assuming they're not just puppets for some other organization that is) are making a BIG MISTAKE imo, because the worst thing a "criminal" can do??

UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER & KNOW-HOW OF THE LAW... they're already being tracked & caught for Pete's sake as is... apk

Otherwise? I know that governments (especially governments) FEAR dissent (because the BIGGEST FEAR OF THOSE IN POWER? LOSING THEIR POWER, of course)... I am just curious on these guys' "motivations" is all!

Like I showed in my posting though - you can see the "LulzSec" people doing something actually sort of "good" (in warning the NHS about exposed admin pwds)... but this "anonymous" faction? Who knows!

It's why I asked it (and you can almost BANK ON IT, they have people around here... this is rated by many places as "the #1 tech site online", E.G.-> http://www.topsite.com/best/tech )

APK

P.S.=> Trust me, I have read on this & everything like it I can find since 1995 or so, the ONLY time I was ever "hacked" & that was on IRC - where I learned about security really on the #Windows95 channel there, the "official help channel for Windows users" endorsed by K. Mardem Bey the creator of MIRC in those days - inspired me to TRY to help on the security front in fact (see below).

I've read extensively read about hacker/cracker types, and put out things to help "average joe" out there as best I could since 1997 (which Neowin picked up on in 2001 & rated highly http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text , & currently this version of that guide too:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE which wherever it was posted (almost) on 15/20 forums its on, was made either a:

---

1.) Sticky/Pinned thread
2.) Essential Guide
3.) Most Viewed
4.) & even got me PAID (quite unexpectedly, @ the topmost results in that query no less - "The Lord works in MYSTERIOUS ways" is all I can say about that)

---

In a way, I can see doing some of this stuff... but, eventually? These guys are making a BIG MISTAKE, because the worst thing a "criminal" can do?? UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER & KNOW-HOW OF THE LAW... apk

you are demonstrably incorrect.

You're demonstrably wrong.

What evidence? The fact is that checkpoints are the most effective method of preventing drunk driving. Not only because they catch the most offendors, but they are the greatest deterrent.

What evidence? The fact is that checkpoints are the most effective method of preventing drunk driving. Not only because they catch the most offendors, but they are the greatest deterrent.

What evidence? The fact is that checkpoints are the most effective method of preventing drunk driving. Not only because they catch the most offendors, but they are the greatest deterrent.

In terms of overall experience at ALL levels (Operating System security, programming & analysis, degrees & more? Boy, you're a NOOB compared to me... show me 1/10th of what I've done to YOUR credit, & before I did them especially then... ok? You can't and YOU KNOW IT!).

I've been at these things since 1982 little boy, and at ALL LEVELS noted above... how about you?

"Now go read a few security manuals, get a few years experience in OSes and security, then you can set your sights on one day being able to speak to me at the same intellectual level. Hell, I may even reach down and help pull you up those last few steps of your very tiring climb." - by pandrijeczko (588093) on Tuesday May 31, @03:52PM (#36300818)

You're a "BIG TALKER" & that's about it! I've done the "security consultant" bit for both camps (NIX & Windows) & know EXACTLY what I'm talking about!

In fact, so much so, that the guide I've written up for Windows security is the:

You MAY wish to refer to the link below that shows a security guide I did for Windows (from 1997-current) as it is:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008...

IMPORTANT:

So - Have YOU done better, troll? We want something we can SEE, not just your "alleged status" as a "security consultant", ok??

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)...

However, since we're on the subject of security, Linux vs. Windows? Ok... how about I "up the ante" & show nearly ALL of what MS makes for business & development, vs. the Linux kernel ALONE then?

Here we go:

Linux kernel 2.6x, vs. NOT just the OS either in Windows 7, but rather nearly the ENTIRE GAMUT of what comes from Microsoft has LESS KNOWN SECURITY ISSUES UNPATCHED than does the LINUX KERNEL!

(That's FACT! See below... & "eat your arrogant words" boy, now flavored with "the bitter taste of YOUR defeat", lol!)

Linux 2.6x kernel too ONLY mind you, NOT THE REST OF WHAT COMES IN THE DISTRO like Window managers, GUI shells, apps etc. which HUGELY COMPOUNDS it even more, and worse still, for Linux:

To wit/e.g.:

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft SQL Server 2008: (05/31/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21744/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 0 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.x: (05/31/2011)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010:

See this, & call me that (you done nothing with yourself NOBODY), because I am FAR from a malware author:

PSEXEC detected as Malware HKTL_PSEXEC.A:

http://forum.sysinternals.com/psexec-detected-as-malware-hktl-psexeca_topic661.html

OR

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1

Fact is, I'd have to be the STUPIDEST there is, considering I've written the most viewed & well rated guide for securing Windows there is, bar none, here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

"Poor old APK, well known malware author" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

How am I a "malware author" shit head? I'm no more a malware maker than is Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (& a recent malware attack used his wares too, here http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 )

I wrote an app that a company called Computer Associates (who sold off that division no less recently because their wares sucked) said 1 app of 40 or so I put out over time is a "malware" (one with zero threat levels and has YET to be used in a malware attack & good luck with that - it's NOT scriptable (which is WHY Mr. Russinovich's wares get abused that way, & I saw that ahead of time & why I didn't put in argc/argv possibles into my code for use as a malware))).

Now, COMPUTER ASSOCIATES? LOL, true criminals - busted for ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-web.1103computer.3381368.html

You, however & in particular? You're a NOTHING, that's never done a damned thing with yourself... you limited little loser!

---

"just cant stand his own irrelevance" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

LOL, listen: The day you can show you've done more than this PARTIAL LIST of my favs. only of SOME of my accomplishments in the art & science of computing, and before I did? Is the day you can talk, bigshot:

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn'

HOT OFF THE PRESSES, these malware makers "upgraded" this malware apparently:

---

Mac malware authors release a new, more dangerous version:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/mac-malware-authors-release-a-new-more-dangerous-version/3385

---

So, the MacOS X security guide Apple puts out that I told other repliers here to look into & apply in my initial reply to they here:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2184872&cid=36240972

?

That now holds even more true NOW, than it did before.

---

"Windows being Windows was a problem and not just Windows being a majority" - by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Wednesday May 25, @11:52AM (#36239684)

To an extent, perhaps, because things like DEP, ASR, & UAC were not in place... but, you COULD secure Windows NT-based OS before VISTA, & very well (to the point users told me they had systems keeping going for YEARS after applying what's below that I wrote up since 1997), as long as you applied & followed the guidelines I listed here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Securing Windows better, 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Win7/Server 2008? It's doable - just like it is for MacOS X, & yes, even SeLinux bearing Linux distros.

(Worth doing & taking 1-2 hours of your time to do yourself, & do right - Because, after all: It's YOUR time & money folks!)

APK

P.S.=> Still, BOTTOM-LINE HERE:

Face it Mac Folks: Your time enjoying "security-by-obscurity" that MOST *NIX variants enjoy, is probably over, for MacOS X (and certainly for ANDROID, a Linux variant) - there'll be no more 'resting on your laurels' (not that they ever were, it was only lack of largescale usage that protected you)...

So, NOW?

NOW, we'll see how "secure & safe" vs. 'malware-in-general' MacOS X really is (it's not, & in fact, less so than Microsoft's Windows 7 is, not only because Win7 has ASRL built in & MacOS X does not in shipping models, but also because MS has had decades of experience fighting & patching vs. it, whereas the *NIX camp has not (even though the 1st worm was on *NIX (morris worm))... apk

http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/

Because that's VERY much like the guides for Windows I have done since 1997 for Windows NT-based OS users:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

That Apple version follows the same "generic guidelines", using "layered security techniques"...

Now - Because, without doing THAT guide's points? You're not as secured as possible vs. attack as you could be on MacOS X!

(Also/Additionally: Until MacOS X ships with ASRL too, which yes, Windows has? It's not as secured as Windows is, because MacOS X lacks that!).

APK

P.S.=> Same with Linux folks too, even with SeLinux bearing distros: They're NOT as secured as possible either, until SeLinux settings are "tightened"!

... apk

This article submission, based on words from Eugene Kaspersky tends to disagree with you, as do I (see my p.s. below later, where I ask you a VERY pertinent question based on YOUR STATEMENTS quoted there) where he even states Windows is as secure as Linux or moreso:

http://slashdot.org/submission/1568086/Windows-not-less-secure-than-LinuxOS-X

That was put up as a story for submission here, in the "recent section", but it never was put onto the main page... totally "blown off" & we ALL know why!

(The /. "Pro-*NIX slant" around here & the trolls that help promote it, knowing most folks are "sheeple" that 'follow the crowd' because they don't know enough about a tech topic to know better!)...

Yes - I've even had it to my posts here, & it's happened SO many times on security data I've put up in this regards that it's NOT funny!

E.G. #1 on ANDROID problems (a LINUX variant) ->

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2148646&cid=36106332

E.G. #2 on LINUX unpatched security vulnerabilities currently, having 3.5x as many as not only Windows 7 alone, but vs. nearly the ENTIRE suite of MS products for business & development as a platform ->

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2077414&cid=35776848

(Not even a technical justification was given for the "mod down", just off topic trolling b.s. & the -1 rating, even though I used VALID data from a REPUTABLE SITE for security vulnerabilities remaining unpatched in both Linux latest & Windows 7 + all of MS' latest wares!)

APK

P.S.=> And, do I have experience in this area? Yes, & since 1997 or so, on how to secure Windows variants (& yes, it CAN be done):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

QUESTION, vs. this statement from you quoted next:

the whole security model of UNIX/Linux/OS X (which is derived from UNIX) is generally better than Windows. - by insertwackynamehere (891357) on Wednesday May 25, @11:52AM (#36239684)

Question: Does ANY shipping version of MacOS X have ASRL (address space randomization) ? Not afaik... not yet, & it's omitted having it for YEARS now!

So much for your statement then!

... apk

http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/

For starters, @ least. That's CERTAINLY better than doing nothing, which avoiding questions basically, is.

However - doing that guide's points/tips/tricks/techniques?

That's up to the user, or a family member OR pal/friend perhaps, to help them with possibly.

I figure it THIS way:

Sometimes? If you want help, you HAVE to help yourself! It's not like Apple's "not helping" here, either... it's just that like with Microsoft Windows, and yes, EVEN LINUX SeLinux bearing distros?? They do NOT, by default, ship them as "security hardened" as is possible.

Which, imo @ least, speaking "seller to buyer", makes sense: However, guides like this one & others like it??

Sometimes "turns off" things some users want on by default, or wouldn't KNOW how to turn back on themself... from a seller to customer perspective @ least!

Personally, were I ANY of these OS vendors??

I'd ship the OS' "super-hardened" & secured by default ( & let the user assume responsibility for opening up any doors after that, themself!)

(Personally? I think that IF you want to do a job right?? Educate yourself, thoroughly & from reputable sources FIRST, & DO IT YOURSELF! That guide above's a great starting point for Mac freaks imo!)

APK

P.S.=> I've been doing guides like this for Windows since 1997, & yes, they do help/work! See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

The MacOS X guide's pretty good, & pretty much fairly along the same "generic lines" as what MY guides for Windows espouse (layered security techniques)

... apk

http://www.apple.com/support/security/guides/

For starters, @ least. That's up to the user, or a family member OR pal/friend perhaps, to help them with. Sometimes? If you want help, you HAVE to help yourself! It's not like Apple's "not helping" here, either... it's just that like with Microsoft Windows, and yes, EVEN LINUX SeLinux bearing distros?? They do NOT, by default, ship them as "security hardened" as is possible.

Which, imo @ least, speaking "seller to buyer", makes sense: However, guides like this one & others like it??

Sometimes "turns off" things some users want on by default, or wouldn't KNOW how to turn back on themself... from a seller to customer perspective @ least!

Personally, were I ANY of these OS vendors??

I'd ship the OS' "super-hardened" & secured by default ( & let the user assume responsibility for opening up any doors after that, themself!)

(Personally? I think that IF you want to do a job right?? Educate yourself, thoroughly & from reputable sources FIRST, & DO IT YOURSELF! That guide above's a great starting point for Mac freaks imo!)

APK

P.S.=> I've been doing guides like this for Windows since 1997, & yes, they do help/work! See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

The MacOS X guide's pretty good, & pretty much fairly along the same "generic lines" as what MY guides for Windows espouse (layered security techniques)

... apk

they can't use Google to search for it, conflict of interest. Anyone want to e-mail them the http://www.bing.com/ link?

Don't think that will help either.

Oracle doesn't understand open source. Why are you surprised they subpoenaed Apache for Apache code (open) related to Android (open) about Java (open)? Obviously, they can't use Google to search for it, conflict of interest. Anyone want to e-mail them the http://www.bing.com/ link?

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

AND... IF I am a "malware maker" as you say? I'd have to be the DAMN DUMBEST ON THE PLANET!

Why? This:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)

APK

P.S.=> So much for that, tomhudson... lol! Because YOU, by way of comparison, to myself? ARE A BOTNET MAKER!

Proof? Ok & again, I'll let tomhudson speak for himself:

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage Journal

FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35688796

and

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798

Doing what though? Building botnets?? Evidently so!

I have ALSO asked to see work you've done, & you show nothing, no proof. I have showed you mine with letters from users this & last month still using wares I wrote nearly 20 yrs. ago that still do the job better than competitors (CCleaner).

Well - I also blew that away on your "design of your botnet" & showed HOW TOO EASY IT IS TO STOP TOO, which you RAN FROM, here:

---

"SEE TOM RUN:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2084000&cid=35823050

---

Which you ran from... lol!

I rest my case!

... apk

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

QUOTED VERBATIM FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

AND... IF I am a "malware maker" as you say? I'd have to be the DAMN DUMBEST ON THE PLANET!

Why? This:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)

APK

P.S.=> So much for that, tomhudson... lol! Because YOU, by way of comparison, to myself? ARE A BOTNET MAKER!

Proof? Ok & again, I'll let tomhudson speak for himself:

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage Journal

FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35688796

and

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798

Doing what though? Building botnets?? Evidently so!

I have ALSO asked to see work you've done, & you show nothing, no proof. I have showed you mine with letters from users this & last month still using wares I wrote nearly 20 yrs. ago that still do the job better than competitors (CCleaner).

Well - I also blew that away on your "design of your botnet" & showed HOW TOO EASY IT IS TO STOP TOO, which you RAN FROM, here:

---

"SEE TOM RUN:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2084000&cid=35823050

---

Which you ran from... lol!

I rest my case!

... apk

very. hopefully people will discover osm and "upgrade" from google - with osm, you can get entire dataset and do nearly anything with it.

several other mapping companies are contributing to osm - http://open.mapquest.com/, even http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/08/02/bing-maps-adds-open-street-maps-layer.aspx (although the link in the latter seems to be broken right now :) )

you can find other interesting uses of osm data here : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services

of course, there's always the fact that "map maker" was available in multiple other countries before "opening" it for usa. which means others have had a chance to ask "why do this if there's osm" already ;) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Kompa/diary/10047

so i would like to invite everybody to join http://osm.org/ :)

"Now, why is that? What are you so afraid of my debunking your hosts file for?" - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @07:17PM (#35843768) Homepage

QUESTION #1: What EXACTLY, have you debunked?

First of all, I think that YOU *think* that all I say is "a hosts file is enough for perfect security"??

QUESTION #2: SHOW ME A QUOTE OF MYSELF EVER SAYING I EVER SAID THAT MUCH, VERBATIM...

(I'll be waiting, lol, for that "12th of never"...)

---

No, instead I "preach" layered security, & have since 1997-1998 with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

---

"Is it because anyone using it is open to certain attacks" - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday April 16, @07:17PM (#35843768) Homepage

Ahem: Again, layered security put THAT away as I showed you, AND YOU RAN FROM (lmao) here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2084000&cid=35823050

Because I STILL don't see you turning aside the SPECIFIC POINTS I MADE THERE on how to stop your "botnet", which they do on my points on how EASY it is to stop and why in detail, of which you said you designed...

APK

P.S.=>

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage Journal

FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35688796

and

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798

Doing what though? Building botnets??

Evidently so!

Fact is - I have asked to see work you've done, & you show nothing, no proof. I have showed you mine with letters from users this & last month still using wares I wrote nearly 20 yrs. ago that still do the job better than competitors (CCleaner)...

Plus, & if you've eaten @ Boston Market, McDonalds, or Burger King in your LIFE? You've used my wares, albeit indirectly, for the bump bar system for their kitchens... apk

It's good. But Bing travel is better and they have the fare predictor.

Here you go. Every time you click on that Bing searches for Padova Maria Luisa nude with pony. :)

"I also personally consider it a public service to point people to solutions [superantispyware.com] that actually [comodo.com] work [malwarebytes.org] instead of relying on magical woobies and anecdotes" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 01, @02:27PM (#35689938)

The effectiveness of those solutions is FAR from perfect & everyone knows it... but, in case they do NOT? See here:

---

MULTIPLE EVIDENCES OF ANTIVIRUS &/or ANTISPYWARE PROGRAM FAILURES + SHORTCOMINGS:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/win_2000_virus_tests/

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/11/07/1545238.shtml

---

From COMPLETELY VALID & RESPECTED SOURCES no less, as is per my usual!

APK

P.S.=> No, single solutions (even HOSTS, which I have NEVER ONCE said is "the end all/be all" of security - just a great layered added part vs. known malicious sites &/or servers (botnet C&C ones etc.) for security, and SPEED (blockout adbanners & hardcode your favs for reliability vs. DNS poisoning, DNSBL, & DNS request logs etc.) too + more - it's VERY "versatile", free, & you can get them from reputable sources like this one -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

As to my "know how" & experience in security for a PC (as well as in the real world where I was the manager for a couple years in THAT VERY CAPACITY)? Ok:

I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)... apk

"oh yeah STATIC, just like your HOPES file, but really you are just kinda pathetic." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Friday April 01, @02:27PM (#35689938)

Let's have "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" of the PRESTIGIOUS "ITT Tech" tell you ALL his lesson on "static vs. dynamic" address based ad banners (lol, put your mental seatbelts on folks - it's a wild-ride that will have you laughing your asses off):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

LMAO!

---

I also don't put my "entire faith" in HOSTS files, so you can cut the lies already - though I *do* consider them to be a VALUABLE part of an arsenal of the MOST effective thing you can do for online security:

"LAYERED" security!

So - How can I speak of THAT & as an authority?

Ok - Well, I'm actually one of the main "sources"/authorities for it, for nearly 15 yrs. now online & unlike YOU? I can prove it!

To wit/E.G.:

I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) 2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" with "std. troll disinformation protocol", because it falls apart in the light of FACTS... easily! Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" in fact!)... apk

Oh, really? Then, I'd have to be the DUMBEST THERE IS then, because I've been showing the PLANET how to secure vs. that on Windows for 14++ years, to EXCELLENT ratings!

To wit/E.G.:

"He is a known troll and malware writer" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:45PM (#35683144)

So, does THIS link I showed here before, which was + 5 INFORMATIVE rated no less here:

---

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102

---

NOT prove that much? Sure does!

In a way? Thanks - You're only allowing me to expose my false accusers publicly once again for the slime they are, & to vindicate myself of your libel... thank you!

Also - CA & others like they have done the same to Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft, and Nir Sofer of NIRSOFT as well - calling THEIR wares, malware too, & they're KNOWN in this field as decent... so, I suppose I am in TRULY, "good company" on this account no less!

Again, IF I were a "malware maker/hacker-cracker"? I'd have to be the STUPIDEST one there is, because I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

AND, more currently, the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Which has well over 300,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... have YOU done better, troll?

No, obviously.

(So much for your attempts @ "discrediting me" which ALWAYS FALLS APART IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTED, CONCRETE & VERIFIABLE facts!)

APK

P.S.=>

"There is a reason why everyone abandoned HOSTS files" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:45PM (#35683144)

LOL, again: Oh, really? See here:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

MANY 1,000's use them for better layered security, speed, & even ANONYMITY (vs. DNS request logs) & vs. DNSBL too!

HOW ABOUT MR. OLIVER DAY & SECURITYFOCUS.COM TOO?

E.G./to wit:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Dated from 2009 no less... that doesn't look like the 1990s!

(You've never even DISPROVED the 20 points I post that HELP USERS here either... lol!)

(SO - How stupid do you wish to keep appearing, hairyfeet?)

Apparently, even STUPIDER than HERE already:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

LMAO - It appears that you don't even KNOW the diff. between the word STATIC (IP addressed) or DYNAMIC (domain/hostname based)... and yet YOU claim to be a TECH? Please.

---

"while giving NO protection from malware" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:45PM (#35683144)

Again, see Mr. Day's article above, AND mvps.org (the most highly rated HOSTS file on the planet & BOTH are NOT from the 1990's OR abandoned!)

OR my highly rated & W

I tried to find some evidence to back up Microsoft claims regarding this matter using Bing, but sadly no results were available.

Oddly enough, google yields something when same term is entered.

Your Bing link is incomplete (I'm sure it was just a mistake). Mayhaps you meant to link this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22Find+me+some+evidence+that+back+up+claims%2C+that+google+has+monopoly+in+search+engine+business.%22&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

"You made the extravagant claims, back them up with the math" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:09AM (#35675892)

Here, I am GUARANTEED 100% protected now currently vs. 944,397 KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS (C&C & other types) that these hacker/crackers use, & because of a HOSTS file...

Can YOU say the same? No, certainly not. See below!

(Especially about the tools you "merely use" like the "trained chimp" (lol) that you are, as a mere TECHIE, "ITT Tech Boy"... lmao!)

Proof? Ok:

---

MULTIPLE EVIDENCES OF ANTIVIRUS &/or ANTISPYWARE PROGRAM FAILURES + SHORTCOMINGS:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/win_2000_virus_tests/

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/11/07/1545238.shtml

---

From COMPLETELY VALID & RESPECTED SOURCES no less, as is per my usual!

APK

P.S.=> Hairyfeet: You came in here, as per your usual, libelling me & trolling me, OFF TOPIC as usual -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35667932

& got yourself SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES on each "so-called point" you tried making, lol!

Why? Because unlike yourself, I am MORE than able to "run with the best"...

People like Dr. Mark Russinovich, who has also been called a "malware maker" unfairly as I have been, of which I showed the source in CA are a pack of criminals (busted for accounting fraud).

(Yes, that's right - ask him yourself! Dr. Mark Russinovich of MS, whose work I have even corrected before AND HAD TO TELL HIM how/when/where/why to do so no less, & yes, I have even gotten the best of in technical debates as well @ Windows IT Pro forums, shown in the URL above no less)...

We used to do work for the SAME company ITT Tech Boy... have you worked with the likes of he as a peer? No!

Suggestion: Get a better education than "ITT Tech" (you need it if you're going to try to "get the better of me" which to date, despite your constant trolling of myself, you have YET to do, and you never will - you aren't intelligent or educated enough to do so, period!).

Heck, on security, especially for the most attacked OS family there is, because it's MOST USED? For guides, I wrote the VERY FIRST ONE, highly rated no less, for Windows NT-based OS out there back in 1997-2001 in that edition:

PROOF:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text [neowin.net]

So, you're trolling a "source"/authority on the subject, & for more than 14++ yrs. now no less, per what others have done with my posts on that subject (see below, across 15/20 forums currently & more from the past) right here...

That's from 2001, but the original they took it from was from 1998 @ NTCompatible.com!

(more comprehensive by far, & for more current MS OS'):

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

At over 300,000++ views strong (actually near 400,000++ because 1 site it was on 'went down' & had 75,000++ views more than 1 yr. back in fact), that's usually:

---

1.) Made an "Essential Guide"

2.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID)

3.) Is in their TOP 10-20 MOST viewed posts

4.) Is usually 5

Why? YouTube is owned by Google and they can do what they want, the same as the New York Times is free to put a paywall.

Because to put it in simple terms for you, "with great power comes great responsibility". The Sherman Antitrust Act and related laws in the U.S. and Europe say that restraint of trade (among other things) is not legal when done by a monopoly, even though the same actions are perfectly legal when you are not a monopoly. Note that having a monopoly isn't illegal... but screwing competitors over using your monopoly is. The reason behind it is to prevent local maxima caused by barriers to compete.

The New York Times is not a monopoly source of news, and if it were then forcing ink producers to not sell to other news organizations would be illegal under antitrust.

I find it a sad commentary that this thread is full of comments with childish, uninformed, ill-conceived rants, such as your posts, and that moderators upvote them is a double indictment of slashdot readers.

I tried to find some evidence to back up Microsoft claims regarding this matter using Bing, but sadly no results were available.
Oddly enough, google yields something when same term is entered.

Heck I got over 8,000 hits for unethical behaviour by aussie bob

I'll admit to about 7,000 of them, The rest were a frame-up.

Wow, I was too quick to judge! I've just checked and it seems that 845,000 of the 8,000 charges are indeed unjust as you say. My bad!
H.

(And cheers for being a good sport and the laugh :)

http://www.bing.com/search?q=unethical+behaviour+by+google
About 437,000 results.

Number of hits by a search engine is not a good mode of argument! Heck I got over 8,000 hits for unethical behaviour by aussie bob ;)

http://www.bing.com/search?q=unethical+behaviour+by+google
About 437,000 results.

Number of hits by a search engine is not a good mode of argument! Heck I got over 8,000 hits for unethical behaviour by aussie bob ;)

Aah, thought experiments: How deep would the router tree be? Let's raffle it so "every nth guest brings a 4 port router". For a base four tree we have about 8.30 levels of depth, so 4 ^8.30 approaches 100,000. (4 port routers, mean binary-like trees but with branches of four at each node)

If using 16-port routers, the tree would be slightly over 4.15 levels . Those routers are expensive, but we'll save on cabling, admin time and power costs. This way we can get to the actual gameplay quickly... instead of troubleshooting what slightly drunk slashdotter inevitably misrouted a few of the runs at the last minute)

I'm leaving to someone else the hard work of figuring out what is the number of routers to be purchased. I, um, forgot how to work that out. It goes without saying that in the real world the routers would need to be switches, and DHCP overheads, collisions, broadcasts, factoring in wireless routers, bridges and whether we'll allow them and their own interference/collisions ... and all that jazz would make this current topology prohibitive, but it's still fun to think about. After all, we always talk about infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare or valid OSs randomly. But SOMEONE has practice designing their LAN unless you'd rather "sneakernet" to each screen and find who's actually got the winning file!

Oh, and... parent poster told me he's bringing all the cat 5 and power strips, even if it's just monkeys there ;)

Aah, thought experiments: How deep would the router tree be? Let's raffle it so "every nth guest brings a 4 port router". For a base four tree we have about 8.30 levels of depth, so 4 ^8.30 approaches 100,000. (4 port routers, mean binary-like trees but with branches of four at each node)

If using 16-port routers, the tree would be slightly over 4.15 levels . Those routers are expensive, but we'll save on cabling, admin time and power costs. This way we can get to the actual gameplay quickly... instead of troubleshooting what slightly drunk slashdotter inevitably misrouted a few of the runs at the last minute)

I'm leaving to someone else the hard work of figuring out what is the number of routers to be purchased. I, um, forgot how to work that out. It goes without saying that in the real world the routers would need to be switches, and DHCP overheads, collisions, broadcasts, factoring in wireless routers, bridges and whether we'll allow them and their own interference/collisions ... and all that jazz would make this current topology prohibitive, but it's still fun to think about. After all, we always talk about infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare or valid OSs randomly. But SOMEONE has practice designing their LAN unless you'd rather "sneakernet" to each screen and find who's actually got the winning file!

Oh, and... parent poster told me he's bringing all the cat 5 and power strips, even if it's just monkeys there ;)

I love Google than Bing! Hurry up Bing!

That would be even worse, then, because the referrer URL contains the search term differently in each search engine -- which would mean that Microsoft would have had to explicitly code it to strip search terms from Google search URLs, rather than simply having the browser watch what people type into *any* search field

Wholly incorrect, and shows you really don't know what you are talking about. Here's a URL from Google search:
www.google.com.au/search?q=swine+flu
And here's one from Bing search:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=foo
They both have the search query in the URL argument "q".
And here's Ask.com:
http://www.ask.com/web?q=foo&search=&qsrc
Still has the search query in the "q" argument, and the word "search" in the URL...
I could keep going if you like, but I think I've embarrassed you enough....

Could Google do the same thing with Analytics? Yes, but they aren't.

Says whom? They're FAQ says they do use the shared information to "improve the services they provide". They have claimed not to use the click-stream data from the Google toolbar, but so far as I am aware they've carefully avoided saying they don't use data from Analytics and all their FAQs and legal materials suggest that they do use that data.

The Google Entry
The Bing Entry