Slashdot Mirror

For anyone who admins Linux systems - but primarily does their work from Windows - this could be a god-send.

Totally agree. (Not a good time to be a commercial Windows-based X server producer, eh?)

And seems like cheap options have long been available DOS/Windows NFS clients for a long time. In 1994, this summary mentions XFS (shareware NFS client from Germany, not the SGI filesystem) TSoft and Sun's PC-NFS.

Nowdays you also have at least these option, and you are right, many are not cheap.

• HummingBird $300 My past impressions were always of good quality and features.
• Reflection $88 I know this name.
• ProNFS $40 (shareware?)
• DiskAccess $179
• SuperNFS $160 Found with google.

WRQ is the industry leader in Solid Terminal/X/RDP emulations for many years. Their products have been getting better and better over said years.

Check it out.

Dolemite
_________________________

Your options are to either

1. write one :-)
2. buy a client for each machine from one of these vendors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
3. Buy a NFS/SMB gateway from one of the vendors above (or make one with Samba)
4. Use both samba and NFS on the server
5. Simply use samba

Norton purchased the rights to WRQ's AtGuard(tm) product, and now markets it as their own. It can restrict network access on a per port and a per application basis.

While there are a few annoying bugs still seemingly in the product (from my viewpoint anyway; the most annoying one being that launching "C:\Program Files\Directory\Item.exe", "C:\Progra~1\Direct~1\Item.exe", "C:\Program Files\Direct~1\Item.exe", etc., all are treated as seperate applications), for the most part, it works. It has privacy controls to block HTTP referers, cookies, trojan blocking (although if a legit application binds to a trojan port, watch out), etc.

And if I did not mention, while this product was called AtGuard, it worked on Windows 95/98 back in 1999, and still works on Windows XP, so it has been around. Now if only someone made a product with the file restriction permissions per application that Subterfugue seems to do...

It just occurred to me to look up the definition of Class A/B/C addresses, and yup, I used the terms wrong in my story submission (argh!). What I meant to say was that when the worm generates addresses to scan, it appeared to always keep the first octet and a little over half the time (137 of 224 scans in my case) it keeps the second octet as well. That's no longer precisely true: I've since logged one scan from 152.72.x.x (grep XXXX access_log | grep -v 24.). And the high number of scans from within the first two octets may have more to do with that being a block of cable modem addresses rich in vulnerable IIS machines than anything else.

And now we know these poor bastards have been rootkitted. There has to be a way to use this to warn them?

AtGuard is a desktop firewall and script and banner remover and more... Download atguard 3.22 from here Of course this version is for windoze.