Slashdot Mirror

It's my understanding that Qualcomm purchase the engineers, equipment, and all the IP from ATI's handheld division. The purchase of the IP would seem to preclude them from developing anything new for the mobile market in the near term.

Citation

No way, lets have the firmware do this. The problem with your approach is that the OS wont understand the drive as well as the manufacturer does, so it will always be a sub-optimal solution. Dont tie the hands of the manufacturer to put intelligence in his drives. For instance, the best way to wipe a disk is via an ATA command, and not through multi-passes of wipes. The manufacturer knows where the heads are and how the drive writes. The SSD situation is somewhat similar.

Most definetly. CanSecWest only allows exploits of unknown flaws.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2316

So no, it's not really multi-OS. Silverlight will never come to Linux. It will always be Moonlight which will always be behind Silverlight and will always run the risk of MS undermining it.

That assumes that Linux users will want to use it in the first place. Personally I'd prefer to drill my own teeth.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2316

I asked Becker about Microsoftâ(TM)s plans to support Silverlight 3 on Linux clients. He said if and when that support happens, it will most likely come from Novell, which created the Silverlight port to Linux, known as Moonlight.

So no, it's not really multi-OS. Silverlight will never come to Linux. It will always be Moonlight which will always be behind Silverlight and will always run the risk of MS undermining it.

I'm surprised a quote from this article didn't make it in:

Morro will work by routing all of a users Internet traffic to a Microsoft datacenter, where the Morro application will process the traffic and identify and block malware in real-time, by examining all of the rerouted traffic

How many people want all of their traffic explicitly going through Microsoft?

Unfortunately we have different communication technologies overlapping here, each with its traditional pricing structure. They don't fit.

The Internet has always been free to the end-user, thanks to the generosity (and perhaps intelligent self-interest) of parties like the US federal government, owners of the many servers that forward packets to us all, and - let's not forget - even telcos. Where I live, in southern England, I can buy ISP service for about $20/month upwards. That gets me continuous Internet access using ADSL, over a telephone wire designed for speech only, with a maximum bandwidth of about 2Mbps (because I live 3 miles from the exchange). On a good day I might get 2.8 Mbps, on a bad day (and perhaps due to contention) down around 1.5 or even less.

Now this is perfectly adequate for almost everything I want to do. I use email (and have since 1980); download with ftp; browse the Web; and other such traditional activities. The only time I bump my head on the ceiling is when I have to download a really big file, or (occasionally) watch some streaming video that I can't download in its entirety first.

Where it breaks down completely, of course, is if I want to download (or worse stream) movies, watch live sporting events in full glorious technicolour on a large screen without graininess or intermittent motion; or watch TV. That's because the Internet was never intended for those activities, most of which are better adapted to the plain ol' steam TV set (complemented by a video player, DVD player, etc.) Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe? It doesn't make very good engineering sense. More to the point, it doesn't make good economic or business sense. Movies, TV, sport, music and other live entertainment have traditionally been things you had to pay for - whether by buying a ticket, subscribing, or just watching tedious commercials.

AFAIAC, the really important aspect of this whole thing is that the Internet itself should remain free - as in speech and as in beer (apart from content-neutral ISP fees). Unfortunately, there are pople like this http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&tag=nl.e539 who reckon otherwise. We have got to make sure they don't get their way.

So what are you saying?
That the robot is actually as tall as the Statue of Liberty only it is really far in the back?

Take a look at the photos in TFA:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/man-machine

See the giant robot? See its giant head? How about that giant plate across its giant chest and the triangular formation in between the chest-plate and the head?
Now scroll down and take a look at the other photo.

See that triangular formation and robot's chin? And the giant human inside the robot?

 
How about that other photo at ZDnet?
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-11979-1.html

See the chest-plate and the human inside the robot?
Also, note that the robot's leg-plates are just slightly wider than human legs and that the distance from the top of the leg plates to the robots chin is about 4-4.5 feet (height of a 6-foot human minus the lower half of the leg) - give or take a couple of inches.

Unless Carlos Owens and Theodore Agranat are 9-10 feet tall.

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-11979-2.html

So where is the Slashdot article on the following? It's as current as the Microsoft article from ZDNet! I guess as long as it puts Apple in a bad light - it gets ignored or even censored. But if it can be interpreted as Microsoft=BAD then let's up the font size and BOLD the headers!

"Apple Safari Jumbo Patch 50+ Vulnerabilities Fixed" - http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3541/

Hypocrites!

Oh, of course established companies never release flawed software, right? Their ActiveX control does not have to be malicious in itself, it is sufficient if it tears holes into your defense for others to abuse. ActiveX needs to die a very quick death already. And can we please club that idea that a browser, JavaScript and a bit of fairy-dust can fully replace any local application regardless of specific implications out of people's heads?

ZDnet Article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3514

One of the hackers posted an uninformative response on his blog: http://skeptikal.org/2009/06/strongwebmail-incident.html

It is from ZDNet, posted as a comment to an equally trollish article.
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579806&start=43

WHOOSH
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579806&start=43
To this date it is unknown whether it was a troll or a genuine example of terminal misinformation.

Well, I admit this isn't the newest test, but Win 7 was already beating XP in build 7000, heck it is worth noting that Vista vs XP comparison is not particularly bad either.

I realize that exact figures don't really change your argument much but market share figures are something that have long been slippery. The more appropriate figures, in my opinion, put Windows at about 88%, Mac at 9.7 and Linux around 1%.

"Appropriate"? Only if you enjoyed the Kool-Aid. The marketshare.hitLink site is owned by NetApplications, whose business model was selling rebranded Windows executables to track Windows visits to Windows websites. No bias there, eh?

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/05/1-linux-market.html
"Matt Assay said it was at 2.02%

ZDNet reported on Feb 24th, 2004 http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=5334 that the 2003 Linux desktop market share hit 3.2% and expected it to hit 6% by 2007.

In 2005 they reported that the 2004 saw the Linux desktop at 4%.

I believe that the all the ZDNet figures were spot on. If anything, the Linux desktop market share has continued to increase and is probably currently at 8-10% and rising. Dell and the other PC OEMs wouldn't have invested in selling Linux pre-installed if it appealed only to less than 1% of the desktop market.

It is quite obvious that NetApplications latest "report" is merely Microsoft's continuing attempt to control the news about Linux's success in replacing Windows on the desktop...."

The best evidence that the NetApplications "report" is fake is from Ballmer himself. In a Feb, 2009 presentation he displayed a graph showing the percentages of desktop marketshare for Windows, Linux and Apple. HE puts the Linux pie slice at around 10%, and slightly larger than Apple's.
http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple

Ballmer can't listen to his own PR pulp. He has to plan using real data. Fortunately, he let it leak.

exactly. further investigation leads to http://www.rdcpro.com/, the "Developer's Home on The Web", apparently owned and operated by the same guy, mike sharp.

to say the least, the legitimacy of this site should be taken with a grain of salt.

there are no links back to either Asus or Microsoft, no "About Us" page, no contact page, no Copyright/Trademark notices, nothing. there's absolutely nothing official about this page, whatsoever.

on the other hand, it is directly linked from asus.co.uk, about 2/3 down the page.

how very confusing. and yet, since asus seems to have no oversight or actual control of itself, maybe this is all legit, sort of.

The Q6600 also supports Intel VT, which is becoming increasingly important as virtualization becomes more mainstream. The Q8XXX processors do not. That segmentation in Intel's product line will start getting obvious to more people come Windows 7 XP Mode. Given how Window-centric many game players are, buying a processor without VT support for gaming right now is a particularly bad idea.

concerns have been voiced over an exception clause in IBM's open source pledge."

Oh boohoo. Why would one expect IBM continue to give you protection against a lawsuit using these patents against you when you engage in a patent lawsuit against them? I don't see how this would worry anyone in the OSS community as they aren't known for launching patent claims against other OSS. I really feel no sympathy for any patent trolls who try to sue against OSS and then get caught in a shitstorm from IBM.

Attempting (even facetiously) to blame SPAM on Windows is wrong. If every copy of Windows on the Internet somehow magically disappeared, the SPAM problem would not abate. Bot herders and spammers would simply shift their efforts to other platforms.

If your doubt this, consider what the winner of this year's PWN2OWN contest had to say about why it's easier to target Mac OS X.

BTW, this is not a troll, and I'm not a (Windows|Mac|Linux) evangelist of any kind. I just find kneejerk Windows bashing rather tiresome

Well it is only one department, at least one other department has a different approach. The Swiss Department of Public Instruction, which has the motto "Long Live Free Software" and is responsible for IT policy in Swiss schools, has encouraged Linux boots in the interests of leveling the playing field for students unable to afford new computers with the latest Microsoft software, a policy in place since late 2008.

Theoretically the attacker could throw away un-memorizable permutations and cut through tons of entropy, but it would be extremely difficult.

No, it's not extremely difficult. It's more or less what password-cracking software does. Here are some examples of the kinds of low-entropy passwords that are susceptible to attack.

So you're an attacker and you try all the English words. Users can just type in 1337 5P33K. So you throw in leet words. Users can type their word ROT1. [...]

All of those are perfectly reasonable things to do, and doing them will get you closer to the theoretical maximum entropy of 6.6 bits per character for printable ASCII. An 8-character password done using the techniques you're talking about is probably quite secure. However, most users don't understand enough to do that. Here is an analysis that shows that users vary widely in their sophistication.

Uuuuhhhhh....sorry, but that was XP and Vista starter. Those folks will now be getting Win7 Basic. They have already stated that Win7 Starter WILL get sold on Netbooks in the good old US of A. And as I said, that is just to start. I can easily see a scenario where MSFT prices Win7 sooooo cheap that pretty much all the desktops and laptops that get Vista Basic or XP Home now end up with Starter. Then MSFT can "maximize their IP" by trying to push upgrades on all those poor saps that got boned.

Remember one of the bigwigs IN MSFT ended up with a $2100 email machine because he didn't know the difference between Vista Capable and Vista premium Experience. You honestly expect Joe and Velma Home user to know the different Win7 SKUs and the level of cripple in each? As someone who work retail i can tell you that 90%+ of home users think "I have Windows" and that is it. They can't tell you if it is XP Pro or Home, or what the difference is, they can't tell you if it is Vista Basic, Premium, Or Ultimate Electrolyte Edition. They just know "I have Windows".

Hell I have been building PCs since Win3.x and even I, am confused over exactly what will qualify as an "app" under Starter. Things that run in the tray and as a service don't IE does but with unlimited tabs, huh? I as a user would have no fricking clue when I launched a program whether it would fit under MSFT's idea of an "app" or not. And even the shittiest machines today can run 3 apps without breaking a sweat.

Just let me say that if this isn't proof that Ballmer needs firing I don't know what is. It was bad enough with the..what was it? Six or seven flavors of Vista? But now while the economy is in the crapper and his profits are down to pull this level of bone headed move is just ridiculous. At least No Aero on Basic made sense, since it was being put on machines that wouldn't run Aero anyway. I smell a whole lot of lawsuits coming down the pike for MSFT. All those clueless customers that went to "buy a Windows PC" and get burned by Starter is going to have an easy class action if they don't make it really obvious, as in a big sticker that says "this computer can only run 3 programs at a time" which I'm sure the OEMs are gonna love, and any company whose app is counted under the three app limit will point to some app that don't get counted and scream "the monopolist is using his power to twist the market! We'll sue!"

They are gonna take what looked like it could be a good OS and thanks to Ballmer and his marketing drones they are gonna turn it into a giant clusterfuck. The only good that may come of this is the board get tired of his dumbass maneuvers and fire the Ballmer monkey. I thought the Pepsi guy that nearly drove Apple into bankruptcy was a shitty CEO. Hell he looks like a genius compared to Ballmer. This is a boneheaded move from a company that has made nothing but boneheaded moves since Bill stepped down and gave the reins to the monkey. Maybe the next guy will be somebody from the Office team and they will actually make Win8 a winning OS.

Ed Bott did a bunch of research on what the Windows 7 three application limit really means:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844

In short, he says that:
- Windows Explorer, Command Prompt, Task Manager, Control Panel applets, other Windows system tools don't count
- Many applications that run as system services and present themselves through the notification area (aka system tray) don't count (anti-virus, firewall, little utilities, etc) ...
- The version he tested doesn't exempt installers, but Microsoft said that they should be
- Internet Explorer is NOT exempt, but there is no limit on the number of tabs you can open
- If you don't like the three-app limit, there is a built-in way in Windows to upgrade to a higher edition that doesn't have the limitation. You don't have to reinstall Windows or lose your data or anything; it's just an online purchase and a change of product key, and the upgraded features are unlocked with a reboot

So it's not like you're screwed if your computer came with Starter and you need more. But if you don't need more, hey, you just saved some money....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9808489-37.html
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/21/new-mac-os-x-malware-osx_lamzev-a/
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/trojan_osx_dnschanger.shtml
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/inqtana_a.shtml
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2418

to begin with a few.

It is "in the pipeline"; it's presumably not going to change very much more. So both MS Office 2007 SP2 and ODF 1.2 could have "converged" so to speak. I mean, surely that's a reason why they are members of the OpenDocument TC of OASIS.
An earlier posting by Rob Weir (february 2009): ODF 1.2 committee draft 1
Microsoft announced MS Office 2007 SP2 in april 2009; I do understand that it takes time to implement a large standard :-)
<dream-on-mode>
Now I hope MS will announce they'll support ODF 1.2 in their upcoming Office 2007 SP3, don't buy SP2 in the meantime because it's incompatible.
</dream-on-mode>

...Windows cost less with all the adware, spyware, trial that comes pre-installed with the computer.

This statement just doesn't make sense. You'll notice that the crapware you receive on a new machine is dependent on the maker of that machine (Toshiba crapware is different than HP crapware), which tells me that some software makers are likely paying Toshiba/HP/Dell/Gateway/whoever some small amount of money to put their crapware demo on there.

You'll never get the full retail, off-the-shelf, cost of Windows because even OEM's don't pay full price for every copy they distribute. Slashdot discussed for months the "Upgrade to XP" that cost users of Home Premium $90 to "upgrade" the license to Vista Ultimate, which could then be transferred to an XP license. However, you look at the original sticker price for both, and you'll see the difference was really more like $200 for off-the-shelf. Even the difference between upgrade prices was ~100. The OEM prices tell a similar story, with Vista Ultimate being $200, Home Premium at $120.

I agree with the OP that if Dell/HP were to beef up their tech support with some Linux knowledge (or at least set up a couple links to Ubuntu forums), they could easily whack a couple hundred off the price of a new machine. At most we'll see the OEM price of the OS knocked off, never full retail.

...Windows cost less with all the adware, spyware, trial that comes pre-installed with the computer.

This statement just doesn't make sense. You'll notice that the crapware you receive on a new machine is dependent on the maker of that machine (Toshiba crapware is different than HP crapware), which tells me that some software makers are likely paying Toshiba/HP/Dell/Gateway/whoever some small amount of money to put their crapware demo on there.

You'll never get the full retail, off-the-shelf, cost of Windows because even OEM's don't pay full price for every copy they distribute. Slashdot discussed for months the "Upgrade to XP" that cost users of Home Premium $90 to "upgrade" the license to Vista Ultimate, which could then be transferred to an XP license. However, you look at the original sticker price for both, and you'll see the difference was really more like $200 for off-the-shelf. Even the difference between upgrade prices was ~100. The OEM prices tell a similar story, with Vista Ultimate being $200, Home Premium at $120.

I agree with the OP that if Dell/HP were to beef up their tech support with some Linux knowledge (or at least set up a couple links to Ubuntu forums), they could easily whack a couple hundred off the price of a new machine. At most we'll see the OEM price of the OS knocked off, never full retail.

I totally agree with you, but
grrr.. trust /. to degenerate the topic into "Macs are swiss cheese.." "no! widnows is swiss cheese".. etc..

I'm really interested in hearing about Krstic's security philosophy and it's merits/demerits. I found this talk on zdnet but there's only about 5 minutes of actual security architecture info in it at around 40:00 into the video. Oh, and there's also this BitFrost overview on Wikipedia. I think there are some cool concepts there. The idea of sandboxing all apps into containers with sets of standard rights, and restricting IPC to certain approved mechanisms is pretty interesting. Was hoping poeple could focus on BitFrost and Krstic's security philosophies so we could all learn something.

Looking at the Google status page at http://www.google.com/appsstatus# has some live info.

ZDNet is reporting that any traffic that is routed through AT&T was not able to get to Google
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=18064

Google says that a traffic overload in Asia was the problem:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/this-is-your-pilot-speaking-now-about.html

So it looks like a switch/router issue caused a long packet path with caused timeouts which caused unhappy users.

If you wanted a Linux computer, you should have bought one. You're not going to ever get what you want if you keep encouraging them to use the crap chips and subsystems with secret interfaces.

If you want a Linux laptop, buy a freaking Linux laptop. It's not like they're not all over the place. Here, for example.

If you quit paying them to jerk you around, they'll quit doing it. Capiche?

The idea of making Microsoft pay for the billions of dollars of damage caused by flaws in its products is certainly attractive, but where would this idea leave free software coders?

Probably the same place as always, ie, "you get what you pay for". If the users don't pay you, they can't reasonably expect anything from you. Well, maybe they could if you were to tell them that it would work (but who does that anyway), IIRC there tend to be rules about when people are harmed by relying on something you told them?

No, first, go and look up all the sites that debunked Gutmann's paper as being pretty much entirely garbage and fearmongering. In fact, before he revised it a couple of times to remove the most glaring incorrect statements that he originally made, he stated that he hadn't even used Vista, but was basing his assumptions on his understanding of how he expects it to work, based purely on reading other FUD-filled reports from other so-called news sites.

Now YOU gtfo with your arrogant, "think you know everything while not knowing shit" mentality. Honestly, the thing most sorely lacking in slashdot is a "-1, tragically misinformed" mod, so that blatanly incorrect bullshit like every post that links to Gutmann can be labelled as crap.

Short version, Gutmann's paper is pure FUD to the most astronomic degree, and is almost entirely discredited. Please do more research so that
a) you are better informed in the future; and
b) you stop spreading this FUD

I suggest you read some of these instead of Peter Gutmann's tripe:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284

Hell, even slashdot reported on it here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/0041219

Did you, perhaps, sleep through the whole thing yourself?

No, first, go and look up all the sites that debunked Gutmann's paper as being pretty much entirely garbage and fearmongering. In fact, before he revised it a couple of times to remove the most glaring incorrect statements that he originally made, he stated that he hadn't even used Vista, but was basing his assumptions on his understanding of how he expects it to work, based purely on reading other FUD-filled reports from other so-called news sites.

Now YOU gtfo with your arrogant, "think you know everything while not knowing shit" mentality. Honestly, the thing most sorely lacking in slashdot is a "-1, tragically misinformed" mod, so that blatanly incorrect bullshit like every post that links to Gutmann can be labelled as crap.

Short version, Gutmann's paper is pure FUD to the most astronomic degree, and is almost entirely discredited. Please do more research so that
a) you are better informed in the future; and
b) you stop spreading this FUD

I suggest you read some of these instead of Peter Gutmann's tripe:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284

Hell, even slashdot reported on it here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/0041219

Did you, perhaps, sleep through the whole thing yourself?

To quote the post that you just non-answered:

Right, and how about something to back up the claim that it *does* slow Windows down? That was the first assertion, so the burden of proof is on the first poster.

So how about it? Are you going to quote that "researcher" Peter Gutmann?

You've been had. The Vista DRM debacle was nothing but a smear campaign. Try reading someone who actually researched the topic as opposed to someone who just went with what he could find of anecdotes on random blogs. Ed Bott has made a series of well-investigated rebuffs of Peter Gutmanns diatribe: Read "Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong (3 parts"):

1. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
2. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=304
3. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=309

Or this: "Busting the FUD about Vista's DRM": http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284

The short version:

1. Yes, Vista does have DRM. Otherwise it would not be able to play back DRM'ed media. An OS/App which doesn't support DRM cannot decrypt DRM'ed media.
2. Yes, decryption does take a few clockcycles. On XP, Vista, OSX or Linux. It would do so on any device playing back encrypted media. No way around that, except don't play DRM'ed media.
3. No, Vista DRM is not active when playing back non-DRM'ed media.
4. No, Vista does not cripple non DRM'ed media.
5. Yes, Vista does support the "protected media path" as *any* device which are licensed to play back hdmi are required to.
6. No, protected media path is not active unless requested by the media, which is very uncommon at this time.

Here's one from 2008 that says that Vista isn't quick. How 'bout that?

I agree fully that TFA is a poor choice, but your anandtech link doesn't do much for me either. First, half the links led me to an error page. Slashdotted? I dunno, but their website needs some work.

Secondly, the performance comparisons are between 7/Vista/XP on 64 bit machines. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of windows machines with 64 bit OSs are far less than 1%. Further, there's no report on memory usage and how it compares between the versions.

The best link I've found is based on the beta of Windows 7, but it's still more informative on a practical level than TFA as it actually compares the OSs on a machine with 1GB of RAM -- which is still far more common than those pumped up 4Giggers:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

stop poopooing windows 7's speed and start focusing on the gains that free os is making in the netbook arena

Except that Linux is losing in the netbook arena...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-279551.html

thank you, Eric. as a technophobe until 2002, and starting on a Mac, I've developed a similar philosophy as you... I am unable to understand how well Apple markets itself as the hip, free and un-evil (in contrast to windows)"alternative" when all their software is proprietary to it's hardware and vice vera.... well... i'm a digital-artist, programmer and video editor and i'm a PC....(linux is great for running servrs! or sabayon, locally) PS finally... botnet for apple! out NOW!!!

A few years ago, official Microsoft spokespeople were telling reporters that it was not technically possible to make document converters for reading and writing the OpenDocument format. It made me rather angry.

I just did some Google searching, and didn't find any primary sources, but here's a blog posting that summarizes what they were saying:

Microsoft -- a company with close to $5 billion of cash in the bank and over $70 billion in total assets -- has come up with all sorts of reasons that adding ODF to Microsoft Office is a bad idea. It doesn't have the fidelity of Microsoft's formats (an issue that's really for customers to decide). The company has limited resources and so it's a question of how best to prioritize those resources. Supporting it would be a problem. These are reasons, by the way, that didn't get in the way of supporting Wordperfect's formats, Lotus' formats, HTML, and more recently Adobe's Portable Document Formats.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2075

And what do you know, it is technically possible after all.

P.S. At the time, one of the reasons I thought this was so dumb was the blindingly obvious point that if MS Office supported ODF, then when governments or businesses standardize on ODF, they can still buy MS Office. Now, instead of spending resources on trying to fight ODF, they can just focus on selling Office as an ODF solution.

So, points to Microsoft for finally doing the right thing for the right reasons. (IMHO they are still in karmic debt over this issue.)

steveha

"Right... " - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday May 02, @02:20PM (#27799759)

Yes, I am, as-per-usual, especially when I showed you how often DNS servers get hacked (just recently in New Zealand last week, see below - would you like a few more of the same, in those types of evidences?)

----

Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites

April 21st, 2009

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185

----

I suggest you read that, again!

(Mainly, because that is EXACTLY what "DNS Poisoning" is about - redirecting users to a bogus website for say, www.slashdot.org, to their site loaded with malscripted traps)

Man - At this point? I strongly suspect you do NOT know what you are talking about (& are trying to "save face" here @ this point now, with double-talk b.s.!)

----

"How is some clueluess user going to find the very latest copy of the hosts file that you're distributing when you've put several hundred different revisions across several thousand different forums?" - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday May 02, @02:20PM (#27799759)

There is only 1, & they email me for it (otherwise, they get an older one that is VERY tiny, no need to disable the DNS client either since it is small, & it's only for speed really, by blocking adbanners in that tiny older one)...

I.E.-> My latest one is updated, daily, from numerous reputable sources (ZDNet's Dancho Danchev, StopBadware.org, SRI, & even Spybot "Search & Destroy" lists, to name only some of them)

----

"Would you recommend to your 3000-identical-Windows-machines-at-a-site clients that they install the latest .MSI of EnterpriseApp v4.0 by burning a disc, taking it to each computer -one at a time-, logging in with a root account, open Explorer, double click the .MSI, answer the installer's questions, wait for the installer to complete, and move on to the next machine?" - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday May 02, @02:20PM (#27799759)

Man, either YOU cannot read, or you don't understand what I noted last post:

LOGON SCRIPTS can merge .reg files settings for reconfiguration, via batch .bat or .cmd files...

OR

Group Policies via AD distribution can do much of this as well, and for different areas/things!

(Have you ever done anything of this nature as a network administrator or tech? Apparently not!)

APK

P.S.=>

"you're doing the internet a disservice by spraying copypasta across the web." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday May 02, @02:20PM (#27799759)

This guy says QUITE otherwise, take a read (opinions vary, lol):

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=813d47fae9640bf0469914bb62faf019&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free!

I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill.

I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get.

He said good point.

So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.

Great stuff!

My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.

APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easie

" DNS changes *Very* quickly." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Friday May 01, @09:47PM (#27794995)

That has NOTHING to do with an adbanner, bad adbanner, or bad website blocking custom HOSTS files!

(That was the main reason & purpose of noting them in my guide)...

E.G./I.E.-> HOSTS files that use 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1 (no DNS server broadcasts those, mind you) to block out known bad adbanners, bad websites, etc. et al!

( & the security portion of using a HOSTS file is largely that, not "hardcoding" in your favorite websites into it so you avoid DNS round-trip lookups of URL-to-IP address resolutions )...

AND, as far as "DNS Servers changing", AND, their reliability for URL-to-IP address resolutions?

(BOY, do they... )

See here:

Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites

April 21st, 2009

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185

(That's VERY recent, & only a SINGLE EXAMPLE of "DNS poisoning", & that goes on quite a lot (especially the past 6 yrs. or so now)).

----

"There's a reason why most IT professionals prefer centralized installation systems over manually walking to each of the systems that they manage and installing each piece of software a machine at a time." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Friday May 01, @09:47PM (#27794995)

The guide deals in things that can be "mass deployed" via Group Policies (or via logon scripts via .reg file merges, or HOSTS file copies to local machine nodes on a network, in the same manner)...

So - how is this not the same? The guide shows a user on a single machine how to do this (& it states it is geared to single machines @ home online on the internet, though it also warns what to do, or not to do, on a LAN/WAN (especially an AD one)).

(E.G.-> You'd "prototype" a single machine with diff. wares a particular company uses OR custom develops, & then deploy the hardened settings across the rest once you have a proven, working, & useable setup)

APK

P.S.-> The bottom-line however, IS that the guide's recommendations are largely "industry based practices" for the OS tested per CIS Tool, AND, that it just works!... an example thereof:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7de5812b7341873cc5e6ee9582f21bf9&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

THRONKA@xtremepccentral.com

----

apk

You need to relearn the difference between full disclosure and responsible disclosure, know that MS doesn't even follow RD guidelines, then go and rewrite your post. You can't compare numbers of vulns when one of the projects doesn't disclose them.

"They may delay publication in a responsible disclosure ...." Yes. They delay it until a patch is available or a vulnerability is in the wild.

Here's a good article explaining how Google makes plagiarism detection easy: http://questioncopyright.org/node/4 There was a story a couple years ago about one of these plagiarism detection services, Turnitin, getting sued for copyright infringement... does anyone know if that went anywhere? http://education.zdnet.com/?p=953

And guess who is responsible for the code quality of quicktime? Apple.

OSX is swiss cheese too. It has dozens of setuid programs. It has no "DEP" - something that Windows XP had 5 years ago with service pack 2.

It's not just me claiming that. I know others who would say the same thing.

Both Charlie Miller and "Nils" say OSX is easier to exploit.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/03/mac_os_x_top_target_in_browser.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9759132-7.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Quotes:

"It's getting pretty hard to do a lot of this stuff on Windows Vista and Windows 7," Nils said. "Especially when a lot of people who stayed with [Windows XP] switch to Windows 7 because they didn't want Vista, the bad guys may start to figure out they can more easily exploit these bugs more reliably on a Mac."

"Mac OS X has some ASLR but not much, and there is no DEP in OS X," Miller said. "My exploit relied on exploit code being in certain spot, and that it would [execute], and in Vista neither of those things would have happened."

to sum up: if it runs exclusively in the tray, it doesn't count. If it's a single app but multiple windows (i.e. 3 Word/OOo documents), it counts as a single process. Explorer windows, task manager, and Installshield/MSI/Nullsoft/Wise Installers don't count at all.

The Starter Edition is for raw beginners running Windows on low end OEM systems.

It is not an OS for the geek's dream machine - the dual-core Atom netbook with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB of Flash.

Win SE has in the past been localized down to the level of native language tutorials on how to use a mouse.

You can open as many windows as you want from a single program. So if you want to open 15 tabs in your browser, six images in your photo-editing program, and a couple of instant messenger windows, you can do it.

Windows Explorer windows don't count. So you can open as many file folders as you want

Basic Windows tools don't trigger the limit. You can run a Command Prompt window or open Task Manager even if you already have three programs open.

Most Control Panel applets don't count either.

Desktop gadgets...and some system utilities get to bypass the three-app limit.

Antivirus programs that run as a system service don't count.

Living within the limits of Windows 7 Starter Edition

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=844

Other users have posted this, and it gives some good information as to what is counted and what is not. Something that runs in the tray ("notification area") does not seem to count, but may when the window is launched. An example from the article is an antivirus app that runs in the tray. While in the tray, it works fine, but if you launch the main window for the application that window counts toward the limit. This means you might be able to hide applications in the tray using TrayIt or something, but only 3 can be unhidden at a time.

Artificial limitations like this seem to me to be an invitation for problems and end user frustration.

Given that this is designed for especially low-cost (and hence low-power) small notebook PCs, it may not really be an artificial limitation, but rather a valid means of managing extremely limited resources.

What is an application?

Ed Bott took it for a test drive and answered that question...

Are tool tray apps possible, or allowed?

Yes and yes. They don't count toward the 3 app limit.

What about apps that launch other apps as part of their functionality?

If they open multiple tabs (ex. Firefox, Internet Explorer) or windows (ex. Messenger), that's fine. If they launch completely separate applications, well, those would be completely separate applications.

Would Chrome be limited to two tabs? (One for the host window, two and three for the first two tabs.)

Nope.

Some other interesting details:

• "Windows Explorer windows don't count."
• "Basic Windows tools don't trigger the limit."
• "Most Control Panel applets don't count either."
• "Program installers run without triggering the limit."
• "Desktop gadgets are free, too."
• "Some system utilities get to bypass the three-app limit."
• "Antivirus programs that run as a system service don't count."

All in all, according to the ZDNet writer, "when I used this system as a netbook, it worked just fine".

You can find the answer to most of your questions from the people who have tested the thing: Living with the limits of Windows 7 Starter Edition