Slashdot Mirror

Toolbar B does this for every website that user A visits with the express permission of user A.

- yeah, yeah, yeah, a bunch of BULL SHIT. Let's bring it down the actual facts: Microsoft managers are saying that you are full of shit right there, they are saying: we are not doing this. STOP. FULL. PERIOD. WHATEVER. Didn't you see this story?

MS is saying:

We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting.

Except you just answered to my comment with words that I do not understand what's happening while I clearly explained what Google did in their sting and that there is NO WAY for MS to be able to associate the content X with Page 3.

Well they ARE associating the content X with Page 3 and they ARE copying the Google search results to random queries. There is no way for them to associate a random content X to Page 3, because that content X is completely made up and leads to nowhere and is nowhere to be found on Page 3. Google came up with content X specifically so that it could never be found by any search engine.

--

Now, I am not saying it's WRONG to take results supplied by Google to the queries that users are typing in and use those key/value pairs to update MS index, whatever. But the MS management are even denying that they are doing this, so you are arguing against what the MS management is saying here while trying to support them, aren't you?

Because to us it is clear: MS management is lying. They are taking results from search queries and adding those indexes to their DB. They are lying that they are not doing it by giving out ridiculous statements like: we are not able to reverse engineer algorithm from the results. But they are not trying to reverse engineer algorithms, they are only interested in queries+results.

It is POSSIBLE that they are doing this generically, not just for Google searches but even for their own search engine searches to improve their results by looking at what the users are clicking on. Obviously Google is looking at what the Google users are clicking on, but they are looking at it on their own search, not at searches that were directed at OTHER SEARCH ENGINES.

So this is directed NOT ONLY at Bing, it is clearly directed at ALL search engines. So Bing maybe 'stealing' results from Google as well as from Yahoo or Altavista, etc.etc. Who cares? It's the DENIAL of the practice that is FUNNY here and another thing that's funny is you totally missing the point.

> easily accounted for by crawling Wikipedia

No, because in the search it was misspelled.

If it was misspelled somewhere inside Wikipedia, then it still shouldn't have shown up, because Microsoft supports the Robots exclusion standard and Wikipedia links have NOFOLLOW on them which prevents compliant engines from using those links to weigh results.

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2008/06/03/robots-exclusion-protocol-joining-together-to-provide-better-documentation.aspx

Captcha: indexed

Bing Travel has an interesting feature for tracking airline fares. In the short term it's pretty accurate and helps in the timing of buying airline tickets. Although, sometimes it'll say "wait fares steady or decreasing" and fares jump the next day. If you're traveling, you have to check at least twice a day - morning and night - to get an idea of the fares. The graph is handy to get an idea of what airlines do. For the route I fly during the Holiday's, I know the sweet spot is the first week of November for buying tickets.

Of course, extraordinary situations bring extraordinary prices - like in 2008 when Delta was going bankrupt. Their prices didn't follow any of the rules - they kept going down and down.

To be clear, we learn from all of our customers. What we saw in today’s story was a spy-novelesque stunt to generate extreme outliers in tail query ranking. It was a creative tactic by a competitor, and we’ll take it as a back-handed compliment. But it doesn’t accurately portray how we use opt-in customer data as one of many inputs to help improve our user experience.

Apparently Google's accusations are viewed by some as a backhanded compliment.

I'm pretty sure that what they did was at least a violation of Google's TOS. RTFA.

What they did:

Take a search which results in 0 results on both Google and Bing: the manufactured nonsense-word "hiybbprqag".

Then activate a feature they'd secretly built in to Google: a single, hand-picked page is artificially returned as the single and only search result for that term.

A few days/weeks/months later - oh look, there it is showing up on Bing. (In case you're wondering, it's The Wiltern seating chart and tickets to The Wiltern. Google no longer lists it as a result, rather Google has tons of other pages that have now cropped up mentioning that word. No surprise.)

It's basically the same as catching a cheater by writing wrong answers on the sheet you suspect they're copying answers from.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book

http://www.bing.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book

Google 1, Bing 0

Sorry Google. You must phrase your answer as a question.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book
http://www.bing.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book

The actual results for this parents search are especially hillarious. Google comes up with a link to the book, Bing comes up with: "Google Would Beat Bing At Jeopardy, Says Wolfram"

He needs to work harder. After all, it's his product that's providing structured answers in Bing!

That's PR gold right there.

He needs to work harder. After all, it's his product that's providing structured answers in Bing!

That's PR gold right there.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book

http://www.bing.com/search?q=stephen+wolfram+is+famous+for+this+self+aggrandizing+book

Google 1, Bing 0

Skip to 10:15.

"Guns are for self defence" is pure myth. Actually it's worse than that, it's idiocy.

Says the idiot?

Many, many examples of citizens carrying guns as being a plus
to the overburdened police department.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09wheelchair.html?_r=1 ]
[ http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/25792735-41/combs-barista-braziel-affidavit-dutch.csp ]
[ http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13865042/man-thwarts-robbery-by-shooting-at-suspect ]
[ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/anne-arundel/would-be-dunkin-donuts-robber.html ]

Just do your own googling and draw your own conclusions;
citizen gun shot perpetrator OR robber OR thief [ http://news.google.com/news/search?&q=citizen+gun+shot+perpetrator+OR+robber+OR+thief ]
^ fails hard in bing, no boolean? [ http://www.bing.com/search?q=citizen+gun+shot+perpetrator+OR+robber+OR+thief ]

-AI

Haskell (the language) and GHC (the compiler) were both already going before MS joined, yes. But since when do you have to start a project to innovate in it?

I did not say MS does not innovate at all, what I did say was "Almost nothing that is innovative comes from MS." I then went further and said MS either "bought, or like Steve Jobs, copied or stole then brought to the masses."

Other than new methods of limiting competition and spreading FUD, MS has not innovated much in-house.

More broadly, just go to Google Scholar and search for "Microsoft Research".

I did and got about 598,000 results. I next googled Google Research and got 3,120,000 results. To make it more balanced I'll try another search engine too.. Wow, Blekko returned 89M for Microsoft Research and 145M for Google Research. Ah, go ahead and try MS's Bing: Microsoft Research returns 73,100,000 whereas Google Research returns 70,800,000 results. On 2 on out of 3 search engines "Google Research", without the double quotes, returns more results than "Microsoft Research".

Now I'm not sure if searching for "X Research" means much. It's actually start-ups that do most of the innovating. Established incumbents then either try to buy them out or copies them. Just look at web browsers. After Internet Explorer (IE), licensed by Microsoft from Spyglass Inc (which is another story), won the browser war in the '90s MS stopped improving IE. Internet Explorer 6 was released on 27 August 2001. It wasn't until 18 October 2006, more than 5 years later, when Internet Explorer 7 was released. So it wasn't until open source Firefox started gaining marketshare before MS released a new browser itself.

Oh and about Spyglass Inc. MS licensed the source code to Mosaic and agreed to pay them a quarterly fee plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explorer revenue. By including it free with Windows though MS thought "they did not have to pay royalties to Spyglass Inc". So Spyglass sued Microsoft before MS finally agreed in a deal to pay Spyglass $20 Million.

Falcon

Haskell (the language) and GHC (the compiler) were both already going before MS joined, yes. But since when do you have to start a project to innovate in it?

I did not say MS does not innovate at all, what I did say was "Almost nothing that is innovative comes from MS." I then went further and said MS either "bought, or like Steve Jobs, copied or stole then brought to the masses."

Other than new methods of limiting competition and spreading FUD, MS has not innovated much in-house.

More broadly, just go to Google Scholar and search for "Microsoft Research".

I did and got about 598,000 results. I next googled Google Research and got 3,120,000 results. To make it more balanced I'll try another search engine too.. Wow, Blekko returned 89M for Microsoft Research and 145M for Google Research. Ah, go ahead and try MS's Bing: Microsoft Research returns 73,100,000 whereas Google Research returns 70,800,000 results. On 2 on out of 3 search engines "Google Research", without the double quotes, returns more results than "Microsoft Research".

Now I'm not sure if searching for "X Research" means much. It's actually start-ups that do most of the innovating. Established incumbents then either try to buy them out or copies them. Just look at web browsers. After Internet Explorer (IE), licensed by Microsoft from Spyglass Inc (which is another story), won the browser war in the '90s MS stopped improving IE. Internet Explorer 6 was released on 27 August 2001. It wasn't until 18 October 2006, more than 5 years later, when Internet Explorer 7 was released. So it wasn't until open source Firefox started gaining marketshare before MS released a new browser itself.

Oh and about Spyglass Inc. MS licensed the source code to Mosaic and agreed to pay them a quarterly fee plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explorer revenue. By including it free with Windows though MS thought "they did not have to pay royalties to Spyglass Inc". So Spyglass sued Microsoft before MS finally agreed in a deal to pay Spyglass $20 Million.

Falcon

"Linux can do that a heck of a lot better than Windows can (e.g. if you have SELinux configured so that the 'Natalie Portman Hot Grits Screensaver' can't access files that a screensaver shouldn't be able to)" - by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday January 20, @01:08PM (#34942160)

I think not: After all - Linux didn't even HAVE SeLinux, initially & FOR YEARS (until the NSA "bolted it on" onto Linux distros later), & secondly? Windows NT-based OS, natively built in, already have most ALL of what SeLinux has, & before IT DID!

Now, additionally, IF you'd like to see more of what it can do, & how to use it? See here (any of the 15 or so forums sites that guide on securing Windows of modern varieties that I wrote are on, essentially):

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

---

"No OS can completely protect itself from dumb users installing trojans" - by 0123456 (636235)
on Thursday January 20, @01:08PM (#34942160)

That's true, especially if users disregard warning messages & "just click OK", but, that's what UAC in Windows, & Linux sudo are for... you can only hope that users pay heed to said warnings from those methods (or others like WOT in FireFox for another example, or from software firewalls rules etc./et al), & get used to "computing by 'least privelege'" as time passes...

APK

P.S.=> Lastly, in closing, per my subject-line above? See here:

Soundminder Android Trojan Hears Credit Cards:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/1534236/Soundminder-Android-Trojan-Hears-Credit-Cards

More exploits of ANDROID OS (a Linux variant) are on the way... you can BANK on it! apk

You're right, FOSS types never sue anyone for violating a license. Except when they do.

Violating a license from a developer, whether that license comes with a dollar tag or not, is not something responsible IT folks should encourage.

When I do your search on bing, I get this slashdot story as #1. When I do it on Google, I do not get this slashdot story on the first page.

Anecdotal evidence isn't very useful.. so with that in mind:

Compressed Compact Genetic Algorithm
Compressed Compact Genetic Algorithm

Both contain crap on the first page, both present links dealing with a different algorithm (Extended Compact Genetic Algorithm) and so forth.

More or less equal in usefulness.

So far I do not see an https://www.bing.com/

But I still don't know how to change the water filter on a Frigidaire Professional Series.

For some reason, they gave Bing 7 points for that query.

But the first result merely regurgitates the question, then has an ad link for Fixya.com.

The answer is interestingly in the second link on google, which returns the Frididaire product page with a "Guides/Manuals" tab to download/view the ACTUAL manufacturer instructions.

All I know is that when the Bing commercials first started hitting TV, they created a new buzzword: "Search Overload". It was identified as search engine's inability to detect the context of queries.

My computer is in the same room as my tv, so I went over to bing.com and typed in the query "Search Overload". The first result was a webpage for the Talking Heads' album Overload. Further down the page was a "search" button. I tried the same query in Google, and it brought up an article about Microsoft's advertising campaign.

The ironic result from Bing's search is merely circumstantial evidence, but it is enough to keep me from ever turning to it again.

That was definitely a problem early on. From what I can tell, they fixed it. E.g. http://www.bing.com/search?q=enumdisplaysettings&form=OSDSRC now properly returns the MSDN doc, when it used to give a lot of garbage from other sites.

But what google does really well is get current results. Search for "attorney tom brady" now and you will find TFA on google, but not on bing.

Funny you say that because when I search for "attorney tom brady slashdot" Bing's first result is this page, Google doesn't have it on the front page at all. ("attorney tom brady" turned up nothing on either's front page)

Search for a joke post I submitted anonymously on a somewhat obscure open source site (varlinux.org) ten years ago:

"Windows source code BASIC April Fool's Kollar-Kotelly"

Google: Produced post at bottom of page 1/top of page 2

Bing: post not in first five pages of results

I almost never ask a question in a search engine window. I use a combination of search terms, e.g., "change the water filter" "Frigidaire professional series."

Here's what you get with that query:

Google
Bing

It's worth noting that the string "Frigidaire professional" appears nowhere on the page in Bing's first search result.

But I still don't know how to change the water filter on a Frigidaire Professional Series.

For some reason, they gave Bing 7 points for that query.

But the first result merely regurgitates the question, then has an ad link for Fixya.com.

"Again, bypassed in less than one minute." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

Ahem - Bullshit:

I don't publish any shares!

I deny all ports except 80 (which is where the browser/net level precautions took place & I don't get lured to sites either like some chump, ok).

I.E.-> You have nothing to get ahold of & good luck getting my IP in the first place. Even if you could? You have ZERO here to latch onto, because of that guide I wrote.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&first=1&FORM=PERE

---

"Your system works only because you are voluntarily using it. If I was on your network, it would be trivial to bypass your "protections", as long as I have control over the computer that I am using." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

Ahem, again: Bullshit!

Not only that above, but... Even IF you & I were on the same network?

You'd only be trying to find the "Ghost in the Machine", because again?

I leave NO LanMan/NetBIOS footprint or shares to latch onto under Windows

OR

Ports open

or

Services that solicit anything remotely.

(Good luck... lol!)

E.G.-> I had a guy on the job try it & he was like "where is your machine?" & yet, here I was, accessing ALL of that LAN/WAN's services, freely, "anonymously" vs. tools like WireShark, locally no less... LOL, you *THINK* that YOU could even SEE me? Lmao...

You're talking to the ORIGINAL "Ghost in the Machine" here... &, I am constantly shifting, let's put it THAT way - others here could tell you about that, lol...!

---

"ISPs won't be able to force any of your browser level addons listed." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

I use them, & one HELL of a lot more... again, refer to my guide.

I leave NOTHING anyone can see, & even IF they SOMEHOW could? Nothing to get ahold of anyhow... & I am, well, again: Let's put it THIS way - I am constantly "moving around" on top of all that.

It's quite a NICE setup I perfected here for that, I love it... it's VERY useful.

---

"All you have is firewall and blacklists left, which is a joke to work around." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

There's a LOT more to my setup than you think... you wouldn't even be able to see me... think "John Cena" on that note, lol! You're worse than blind - I am just on "inviso power" on any network I am on & shifting around ALL the time in fact.

---

"I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

More bullshit - show us how you'd even SEE me in the 1st place, for starters... lol! Good luck keeping track of me too, lol, as many here can attest to... again: "Ghost-In-The-Machine" here. The original.

---

"Even if you block every port except 80, and deny all protocols except TCP, it can be worked around in short order with just a little help on the outside, which would be flooding in." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

You'd have to be able to SEE me, first... & even IF you could? What could you "latch onto"?? Nothing. I publish nothing, & disallow everything + no services that do either... please: "Nobody Touches, My Hurricane..."

(Nobody DARES to even try!)

APK

P.S.=> Ah, yes, another "wannabe phool", easily SmoKeD! apk

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

I wrote it, it works. I can say this safely: Simply because of what's written above, & I apply it (along with probably 1 million others by now)? You're NOT getting into this system, no way, no how & I don't care WHO you are, or what you *THINK* you know, you're not even going to get close.

APK

P.S.=> That's in regards to your statement here, quoted again, for your reference:

"Again, bypassed in less than one minute. Your system works only because you are voluntarily using it. If I was on your network, it would be trivial to bypass your "protections", as long as I have control over the computer that I am using. ISPs won't be able to force any of your browser level addons listed. All you have is firewall and blacklists left, which is a joke to work around. I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here.

Even if you block every port except 80, and deny all protocols except TCP, it can be worked around in short order with just a little help on the outside, which would be flooding in." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)

Well, all I can tell you, again, is refer to the above, & then? Then, this:

"Nobody Touches, My Hurricane..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apOdWOK5Rh8

apk

"I've found by moving users away from IE I've had their rate of infection drop by a good 75% on fully patched XP machines tells me all I need to know in all honestly" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Monday January 03, @01:35AM (#34741562)

By using a custom HOSTS file, I've seen myself go to NO MALWARE INFESTATIONS for over 15++ yrs. now online, & others have been seeing the same results for over 5 yrs. now:

---

"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)

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122

---

Wait, because IT GETS BETTER (especially for this fellow, considering he runs Windows 2000 UNPATCHED, with no antivirus program & no antispyware program, or a firewall even (though we did substitute in PORT FILTERING, often called "the poor man's firewall" for him)):

---

""the use of the hosts file has worked for me in many ways. for one it stops ad banners, it helps speed up your computer as well. if you need more proof i am writing to you on a 400 hertz computer and i run with ease. i do not get 200++ viruses and spy ware a month as i use to. now i am lucky if i get 1 or 2 viruses a month. if you want my opinion if you stick to what APK says in his article about securing your computer then you will be safe and should not get any viruses or spy ware, but if you do get hit with viruses and spy ware then it will your own fault. keep up the good fight APK."

FROM -> http://forums.theplanet.com/index.php?showtopic=89123&st=60&start=60

---

That's a GIGANTIC & MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DECREASE IN MALWARE INFESTATIONS, far more than 75% that moving away from IE gave you per your quoted statements... & it's also on a totally unpatched system + otherwise unsecured system via antivirus/antispyware programs, OR even a typical firewall program

(Where the user removed SOME ENTRIES in the hosts file himself (he likes "certain kinds of sites" is why, you fill that in yourself), & even thinks that is where he got his infection from & how - we'd spoken via email before, & he wanted to see just how effective a hosts file can be, for added layered security, & there was nobody offering a BETTER WAY TO TEST IT, than he had, from those I correspond in email with regarding that much either... so, we tried it, & those were the results)).

APK

P.S.=> So, overall? Well - That's better results, using a custom HOSTS file, than you're saying by moving away from IE alone!

Even though I'd recommend that myself, & I do, here http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE for added "layered security" (more like added layered common-sense)... apk

the STUPIDEST one in existence... how/why? Well, in addition to my other reply to you here:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34718682

This "seals the deal" on you, troll:

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

(It is THE most viewed online security guide for Windows, bar none, in fact, over 750,000 views worldwide last time I looked in 2008 in fact & shows up "TOPS" on searching it - when Markus Janson's model (a copy of one I did even before it at NTCompatible.com, but not a bad on on his end mind you) used to on the SAME search!)

On 15 forums its on currently, it's been:

---

1.) 5/5 star rated
2.) Most viewed
3.) Sticky/Pinned Thread
4.) An "Essential Guide"

---

& even won me $100 for writing it, @ PCPitStop.com no less -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ SEE JANUARY 2008...

Nuff said...

APK

P.S.=> So, IF I am a "malware maker" like you are libelling me as now? Why the HELL would I put out a very comprehensive post on securing Windows, or even my init. post here on HOW TO STOP THIS MALWARE EASILY? apk

Simple: Secure yourselves against it, & the single easiest ways are the following:

1.) Limit javascript usage to ONLY sites you trust or, absolutely NEED it running on (this is doable via NoScript in FireFox, or, Opera's "by site preferences", where you can set exceptions to javascript running, but otherwise, leave it OFF for all sites, globally (you can make exceptions as you need to, for say, ecommerce sites doing database access)).

2.) Use a custom HOSTS file, for added "layered security" (and, more speed too: BONUS)!

(This works, as a "blacklist" of KNOWN BAD SITES, because what you can't touch, can't touch YOU, online, this way)...

Hosts files offer a LOT more than say, adblock &/or DNS do (& hosts also overcome & "shore up" both those programs' "short-comings" in security bugs, or lack of abilities in certain cases (see list below in my P.S.)).

---

Others here have also, for example, found the same as I have:

"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)

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122

---

So, in combining the usage of HOSTS files & limiting javascript (see SECUNIA.COM, it'll show you that MOST of what infests people is malscripted sites & malscripted adbanners (evidences of that are below, very current too)), & this security guides' points -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

You can dismiss the possibility of botnets OR malware, "getting to you" (along with using GOOD "common-sense" & safety online)!

E.G.-> I haven't had a malware get to my systems in more than 15++ yrs. in fact, because of the above... &, I go MUCH FASTER online too! Plus, as you can see? I am NOT the only person enjoying this... others are also.

APK

P.S.=> 20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you v

See subject-line, & it's not "b.s." - you can "security-harden" Windows NT-based OS' far, Far, FAR beyond the "std. oem-stock shipping default" is how/why you I can state that.

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

That url contains the links to the techniques I use to get the result my subject-line above states.

(It works for the results I get, as well as others who have used it's tricks/tips/techniques (& I can produce testimonials to that effect IF you like, easily!))

No LINUX required... though I use KUbuntu 10.10.x here myself in "dual boot" via GRUB.

APK

P.S.=> That layered security guide for Windows of mine's the MOST READ/MOST VIEWED THERE IS ONLINE for securing Windows... at well over 750,000 views worldwide by now, & it was at that viewcount last time I checked, back in 2008 or so. On the 15 forums its' featured on, it was made either a:

---

1.) Sticky/Pinned thread
2.) Essential Guide
3.) 5/5 star rated
4.) Most viewed status

---

& even GOT ME PAID @ PCPitStop.com for writing it, because it actually works!

(The getting paid part? It was completely unexpected, but welcome - & in January 2008 it won me a $100 prize there for its content)...

That's the "total gamut" of "layered security" I use in addition to the HOSTS file!

(Which I consider IT (a custom hosts file) my "arc reactor core" of that security guide, since it currently has 915,000 unique entries of KNOWN bad sites/servers/host-domain names blocked out in it - & what I can't touch, can't touch me, online)... apk

And anyway, IPv6 addresses are ugg-ly.

Learn DNS. You should only be looking at a IPv6 address if you are a network engineer.

Saying "only," you and many others sound pretty sure that real users NEVER see ip address in the clear, though Vista and Ubuntu show you both v4 and v6 on wireless connection status and ifconfig lines --forum users asked to post theirs for troubleshooting are not all network engineers, either. Was DNS was created not for IPv4's sake, but for some not-yet-foreseen future IPv6 tech? DNS is perfect for the disaster that is writing out an IPv6 location... It isn't as dependable as some think even in our mature, saturated, well understood IPv4 world, and thus your argument falls apart. Look closer:

Remember that less than a 10 months ago in our supposedly mature year 2010 in IPv4, we all still saw IP addresses in the browser address bar for google cache pages. Of all organizations, geeks have the most respect for them, but if Google were fueled by cash from geeks alone, it would not be #2 in Netcraft's survey of most visited sites*

That alone means that a lot of people have been seeing naked IP's in their web searches. From hundreds of millions of yearly searches, even a tiny made up number like 1% is millions of individuals using a cache and finding this weird thing in their location bar called a naked IP address. In 2010. Oh, sorry, that must mean they are all certified network engineers, no? The dns domain they are using is only 2 years old, yet google caches with this "network-engineer" IP glitch in our address-bars is probably as old as google, a domain registered 12 years ago.

Now your focus will shift to "ooh, an honest 12 year mistake", or "only network engineers ever bookmark/e-mail/tweet/link address bar links with google's highlighted search keyworks," but a nobody and a never proven wrong once show dubiousness to the reliability of your thinking. Right, you said IPv6. I'm not a network engineer, but like thousands of sixx.net's tunnel users, I need to enter long, annoying sequences of IPv4 and IPv6 naked gateway and DNS server addresses into my router or tunnel. Without being an engineer, there are websites built for me and others to enter that world with sites on "free IPv6 only pr0n." Oh, so they must have meant this pr0n to network admins only... : )

Anyway, if IPv4 blunders can last for 12 years, rest assured that our fear is that IPv6 and bad *real* network admins will be lazy, like Google's were --or much, MUCH worse because IPv6 is annoying to deal with and retraining courses are few and far between. The problem will be a pest for the next decade or more. The naked IP problems of today worseing for tomorrow will bring you lots of IPv6 links when sc/pammers start targetting the IPv6-only users thanks to the relative inconvenience of hiding somewhere in IPv6 space. Proof of concept later later becomes a reality exploited by few, then more, and then all.

* Bested only by facebook, with 500 million active users.

"I've never much minded internet advertisements as long as they weren't popups, popovers, or popunders." - by colinnwn (677715) on Wednesday December 08, @04:29PM (#34493126)

How about malware laden attacks hidden in ad banners as well:

MICROSOFT APOLOGIZES FOR SERVING MALWARE:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm

?

That's no first, & that's from as far back as 2007 (NYTimes had the same thing happen, & I've even seen it over at widely travelled forums like majorgeeks.com in their banners also (this one I actually have a screenshot of it to this day on this one as I used to go there & my browser refused to visit that particular site that day due to antivirus/antispyware warnings (the source of that one was canlimuzik.org iirc))

---

"But if I have to start paying for every bit delivered to me, my hosts file is gonna get big fast" - by colinnwn (677715) on Wednesday December 08, @04:29PM (#34493126)

Heh, since 1997, mine's gone from 27,000 entries up to 912,000 as of today, from reputable sites for that type of information listed in below...

However, I also haven't gotten a virus in more than 15++ yrs. online because of the use of such a large HOSTS file (in part, the rest is due to "system hardening" on any OS' I used in that timeframe + patching & more in "layered security fashion", ala -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE ).

HOSTS files as blacklists, work in this capacity (you can't get burned by what you cannot touch, in other words).

---

"adblock and javascript blocking will become required addons for all my web browsers." - by colinnwn (677715) on Wednesday December 08, @04:29PM (#34493126)

They should be as well, for "layered security" (especially javascript blocks with by NoScript, or the way Opera does it, which is "BY SITE PREFERENCES" (leave javascript off globally, by default, & then turn it on for sites you CANNOT USE PERIOD, WITHOUT IT (such as say, online tests, or e-commerce related sites that use javascript for database accesses etc./et al)), only)

Even though HOSTS do just a better job than AdBlock does (see it below) here, because they cover more than just certain browsers only, & their built-in email programs, but NOT external to them email programs that are widely used such as Outlook Express/FULL MS Office Outlook for example (where HTML + scripted email can be a potential hazard for infestation also).

---

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw ->

"I'd be interested in seeing how Google would react if someone drove into their parking lot, hauled out a camera and started photographing their campus"

What? you mean like this... http://chrisonstad.blogspot.com/2007/02/my-trip-to-google-with-photos.html

More: http://www.bing.com/search?q=my+photos+of+google+campus

haha! you used bing!

Actually, I'm curious: why did you use bing? Plugging your bing search into google yields much better results -- the google search actually turns up mostly photos of google campuses (with your first link as the first hit!), whereas the bing results seem to all be just photos of various college campuses that happen to be hosted on google sites....

"I'd be interested in seeing how Google would react if someone drove into their parking lot, hauled out a camera and started photographing their campus"

What? you mean like this...
http://chrisonstad.blogspot.com/2007/02/my-trip-to-google-with-photos.html

More: http://www.bing.com/search?q=my+photos+of+google+campus

Okay, that's a bit off-topic, but not that much when we discuss virtual globes and the likes. Here's a dismissed submission last week that I think worthy of sharing: "It's a dream come true. After MapQuest and Yahoo actively supporting the Wikipedia-like map initiative OpenStreetMap.org. Microsoft announced that they hired OpenStreetMap's founder Steve Coast for their Bing Maps team. But there's more, they committed providing orthorectified aerial imagery and more to the project. From the official announcement: "Continuously innovating and improving our map data is a top priority and a massive undertaking at Bing. That's why we're excited to announce a new initiative to work with the OpenStreetMap project, a community of more than 320,000 people who have built high quality maps for every country on earth. Microsoft is providing access to our Bing Aerial Imagery for use in the OpenStreetMap project, and we have hired industry veteran Steve Coast to lead this effort. [...] As a first step in this engagement, we plan to enable access to Bing's global orthorectified aerial imagery, as a backdrop of OSM editors. Also, Microsoft is working on new tools to better enable contributions to OSM." Microsoft already added the OpenStreetMap layer to Bing Maps last August."

Clearly, this means to me that open data has won that round and that Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ are in deeper trouble today than a few months ago.

Now to go back to Google, at the moment, but it could change anytime, they're going on a different road away from OpenStreetMap with their Google Map Maker.

Okay, that's a bit off-topic, but not that much when we discuss virtual globes and the likes. Here's a dismissed submission last week that I think worthy of sharing: "It's a dream come true. After MapQuest and Yahoo actively supporting the Wikipedia-like map initiative OpenStreetMap.org. Microsoft announced that they hired OpenStreetMap's founder Steve Coast for their Bing Maps team. But there's more, they committed providing orthorectified aerial imagery and more to the project. From the official announcement: "Continuously innovating and improving our map data is a top priority and a massive undertaking at Bing. That's why we're excited to announce a new initiative to work with the OpenStreetMap project, a community of more than 320,000 people who have built high quality maps for every country on earth. Microsoft is providing access to our Bing Aerial Imagery for use in the OpenStreetMap project, and we have hired industry veteran Steve Coast to lead this effort. [...] As a first step in this engagement, we plan to enable access to Bing's global orthorectified aerial imagery, as a backdrop of OSM editors. Also, Microsoft is working on new tools to better enable contributions to OSM." Microsoft already added the OpenStreetMap layer to Bing Maps last August."

Clearly, this means to me that open data has won that round and that Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ are in deeper trouble today than a few months ago.

Now to go back to Google, at the moment, but it could change anytime, they're going on a different road away from OpenStreetMap with their Google Map Maker.

It's not just that. For example, one of the complainants was ciao.co.uk, a Microsoft subsidiary which is integrated into Bing search results in exactly the same fashion as Google Shopping is into Google search results. Except that they did a rather worse job of it than Google.

Compare: Google versus Bing. If you click one of the product links in the Google search, you get a nice clean list of who sells that product and at what price. Do the same in Bing, and you get something rather less pleasant. The search results are below the fold, on one web browser information like price and retailer name is off-screen entirely, and even on something more mainstream the results take up so much vertical space that price comparison is a real pain!

Google is popular because the competition suck more.

Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.

Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.

Even this probably wouldn't warrant a top position for Google Products on most searches, and it doesn't generally get one. What Google does is use it to supplement its search results - if you make a search where Google thinks the Products search results are useful, it displays them as well as the generic web search results. This makes sense - Google wants to offer the best web search results it can, and sometimes that means presenting them in the Google Product format.

Note that Bing does exactly the same thing with ciao.co.uk, which Microsoft also owns and which was one of the other complainants. Except that Microsoft totally screwed this up - the ciao.co.uk pages lack useful information like prices and website names, making them less useful than generic internet search!

It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.

"But ISPs still should be disconnecting infected computers... Think of it like a medical quarantine" - by Todd Knarr (15451) on Tuesday November 30, @03:04AM (#34385882) Homepage

Per my subject-line - I agree, & that's a great analogy you used: IF my ISP/BSP called me up & said I was showing telltale signs of infestation by "malware-in-general", I'd actually appreciate it (even though it doesn't happen to myself because of this -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE )... & I'd want to know about it (it'd surprise me though, because of the security guide I wrote, and yes, use).

APK

P.S.=> Not only out of consideration for myself, but also others (if I was spreading it or even sending spam because of such an infestation etc./et al)... apk

"If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them. That, people, is power. And it is yours, not theirs." - by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday November 27, @11:25AM (#34358112)

You're dead-on correct, & I agree, 110% (well said): I felt the same way, more or less along the lines of "wait a second - it's PEOPLE that make the internet great... not companies!" when I read this article this a.m. over a cup of coffee here.

As to what I bolded above? Doing my part here:

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

As my guide for securing Windows & showing users how to do so, via the EASIEST/SIMPLEST MEANS I KNOW OF POSSIBLE (CIS Tool, or others like MBSA + Windows own "built-in" native tools). You & I? We think much alike.

Well, I "digress", as to your being "110% correct": I have had my share of 'naysayers' in my guides (trolls everywhere & all that), but the reviews & ratings others gave that guide of mine for securing Windows overrode that much easily, & you MAY be correct it was "execs" & their cronies coming in to "try to stop it" (good luck - ideas, especially ideas that are effective & benefit others for free, are HARD to kill!) - but, I don't think it was, and I have not heard any "b.s." from that ilk to date (2-3 yrs. now in fact).

APK

P.S.=> As far as "going into 10 people's homes" on my part though? Heh - that guide's seen over 600,000 views (and that was when I stopped counting it across the 15 websites it's been hosted on where it's received 5/5 star ratings, & was made a "sticky/pinned thread" across most of them (nearly all), everytime it was posted... it even got me PAID $100 for winning the January 2008 contest for "article of the month" over @ PC Pitstop http://pcpitstop.com/news/winners.asp ... which was completely unexpected (I didn't even KNOW they did that when I posted it, was a nice surprise & helped me obtain a WD Velocirpator 300gb model)).

Yup, you're right again: Funniest part is, when you try help others and end up doing so? It's funny how the community itself online will help YOU in return (in many ways)... ala "what comes around, goes around"... apk

Windows has had dynamic selection of an allocator since NT4 and possibly earlier. Google Image File Execution Options.

HeapCheck, the subject of the article, uses guard pages for real-time detection of buffer overflows.

As you say, the claims suggest that the allocator can be changed while a process is running but the invention says otherwise:

If the default heapcheck setting is altered in the system, existing processes continue to operate with the original heapcheck setting, while newly created processes inherit the heapcheck setting of the system.

This is behaviour Windows has had for over a decade. "The claims are all that matter in a patent" is a common Slashdot meme, but can you really claim something you blatantly haven't invented?

IANAPL, but everything in this patent has been done before. The only novelty is in putting existing functionality into an OS library where similar functionality has already been incorporated, so the idea is completely obvious. IBM and the patent office should be ashamed.

Facebook owns "one in ten people" with their current subscription rate. Not "everyone on earth" by a long shot.

The current unemployment rate in the US was at 10% not long ago.
No "one in ten" statistics from this list implies this mythical "everyone's doing it". Do a search in your favorite search engine, including quotes, for "one in ten people"

Really, shipping products?

Here is some advice, when someone has corrected, but not been specific, an assumption you have just pulled out of your ass, I would recommend, before continuing to flaunt your ignorance, that you actually check the matter out. It isn't hard to do now that this new thing called "Google" has come about. You might have heard of it, if not, and if you know how to use a web browser (it may be called Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome or something similar on your computer). Enter the address http://www.bing.com/ and enter the thing you want to Google. You are then doing something quite new, you are "Googling it with Bing".

In addition to the products mentioned below, such as Visual Studio, MS SQL Server Managment, Live etc, you have all of the Microsoft Enterprise stuff that is written in .NET. We are talking about xRM here etc. You know, software for boys who have grown past the Playstation 3 stage of their computer use.

If the general public "bings it", there's a screenful of articles dissecting why it failed due to Microsoft's incompetence in data integrity. Which should be enough to form an opinion for the Average Joe.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+kin&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&sk=&sc=8-13

Just now, I searched, and it isn't.

Some transporation and oil companies and maybe a few wharehouses but the vast majority stay in China and it is stolen out of the US economy.

So when Caterpillar exports bulldozers to China and India, they're stealing from China's and India's economy? And what of the rare earth minerals from China? Those are needed for many things you enjoy. Or coltan, the mining of which fuels the conflict in the Congo, which your cellphone needs. Or the deforestation of Indonesia's forests, for the lumber used to make furniture and to clear the land for palm oil plantations for biofuels.

Oh, and let's not forget all those dollars shipped across the Canadian and Mexican borders with the US for oil. Dollars going to Saudi Arabia for oil? HAHA!!! Forget it, Canada is the US's biggest supplier of petroleum and Mexico is right behind them.

Your dollar moves all around it helping everyone else including industries out. Now picture it with a small hole with the air going into another baloon called China?

Yes, it helps everyone, including you and me. And I already said China is at fault for not having free trade.

FYI does Walmart even pay dividends?

Yes Walmart pays dividends. Here is Morningstar's 5 year history of Walmart dividends. And as of right now Walmart's P/E, Price per Earnings ratio, is 14.08. That is how long it would take to payoff the cost of shares in Walmart, 14.08 years. That is if all of the earnings are paid out.

That is what is happening now. Eventually there will be no more pressure to keep it inflated which is what the recession is all about.

Not that good with economics are you? The reason the economy collapsed and we're now in recession is because people borrowed more than they could pay back. People were taking out mortgages than instead of only taking 20 or 30 years to pay off, were going to take twice that. And why? Because they were hoping the house bubble would keep on inflating. But when prices didn't those borrowers couldn't afford their mortgage payments. They also started using their credit cards to pay their debts as well as living expenses. Debts mounted ever higher until people were bankrupt. So what did lenders do? They cut lending, that's what. Employers were then unable to borrow money to pay employees. Don't ask me why but instead of making sure they had enough money to pay employees many employers took out short term loans. Of course the bank bailout supposedly was supposed to get banks to start lending again. However because there was nothing in the bailout that required banks to lend money they didn't.

Sure free trade can help the world economy but it has to cost the American economy to create it. Many economsts agree if you are willing to research

Oh, I have. But first, your own link has Peter Schiff saying free trade is the answer: "The government is actually the source of our problem, that the stimulus is not the solution, the stimulus is why the economy is so messed up in the first place. And I want to go to Washington to end that." He goes on then says "we have to let free market forces repair the damage done to the economy by government intervention".

Now I didn't listen or watch the whole thing but that right there backs me up. Now I suggest you also check out

From a purely economic standpoint it is true that outsourcing jobs is better for the US economy as a whole"

It is not. You need to produce and every dollar needs to stay in the US economy to prevent a deflation.

Walmart only makes 2.5% or something silly for each purchase. That money goes to Walmart yes ... where does the rest of the 96.5% go?

That is the problem. Some transporation and oil companies and maybe a few wharehouses but the vast majority stay in China and it is stolen out of the US economy. Picture the economy like a baloon? Your dollar moves all around it helping everyone else including industries out. Now picture it with a small hole with the air going into another baloon called China? That is what is happening now. Eventually there will be no more pressure to keep it inflated which is what the recession is all about.

FYI does Walmart even pay dividends? Most companies do not and the brokers are trading fictional monopoly money in the form of stocks to many Grandmas' IRA and savings accounts. That is dangerous. This is all a bunch of cards.

Sure free trade can help the world economy but it has to cost the American economy to create it. Many economsts agree if you are willing to research. Peter Schiff in that video stated the problem. The Chinese produce and we just sit around and consume. It is not sustainable.

Sorry man, that's not a highlight. It's a link.
I, uhm.. think you may have missed out a bit on the Internet. Here, I'll give you a link to start with: http://www.bing.com/ -- happy binge!

Besides, the mentioned "bullshit" was half way into his post. If you just read the first few words, I think he's happy.