Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Spambots, Retroism, VoIPhooey

Slashback -- another round of updates and errata for your reading pleasure follows. So read on for more information on spambots, Flash memory for your slightly-outdated Apple systems, Linux (not quite) running on the GP32, publicity (including a security problem) from Mozilla, and more.

Let's find the spamsters and turn them over to Hormel. Neil Gunton writes: "Further to my previous article about stopping Spambots with Apache, Perl, MySQL and ipchains, it appears that the spambots have evolved somewhat. They seem to come in using a search engine to find promising pages, and then spoof the User-Agent field and generally try to behave as much like a real person as possible. Here is an update to my original article. This is something that anyone who runs a website and dislikes spambots should be aware of..."

If I ever have children I might let it go at that. jamie writes: "'If I ever have children,' says Rich Dreher, 'I would want them to see and touch one of the very first 'real' personal computers, not some simulation of an Apple in a window on a Pentium VIII running Windows 2012.' Over the last few months he's put together a CompactFlash/IDE adapter card for the Apple //e and IIgs, and now he's taking orders. The largest hard drive that ProDOS supports, as flash RAM, costs $14! Seeing the card really brought back memories..."

We mentioned this a while ago, before the pressing need of Apple ][ owners was quite so evident.

What's a little $80 million mistake among friends? Sinjun writes: "In what is believed to be one of the first prison sentences given to the creator of a virus, David L. Smith of the infamous Melissa plague recieves 20 months in federal lockup. I would have thought he would recieve more, seeing the massive amount of money lost by corporate America resulting from Melissa. Oh well, this is the precedent that has been set."

Smith should be grateful that his victims weren't allowed to each pluck one hair from his body per Melissa message received.

But what about the GBA? bobbydigitales writes: "A while back someone suggested porting linux to Samsungs GP32 handheld games console. As I own one, I did a bit of 'googling' and found a post from a guy at Samsung about a problem he was having with his linux port to the s3c2400x chip (this constitutes most of the GP32's hardware). It seems he finished his port as he sent me all the patches and instructions needed to compile the kernal for the s3c2400x.

As I dont have any experience porting linux i thought I'd share this information with the world and see if anyone could offer help and/or suggestions on how to proceed. Here are the files and info.

Samsung have completed the following drivers:

  • LCD
  • Serial
  • USB Host (with mouse driver),
  • Sound
  • Keyboard
  • Network (not actually on the GP32 chip)

Things that are missing:

  • bootloader,
  • SmartMedia Card driver"

I knew I should have ordered a few. Alex Law writes "Only days after Slashdot's article about Creative Labs great deal on VoIP Blasters, it appears that they are no longer in production or available from Creative's web site. Shame; mine arrived yesterday, and we were all quite impressed."

From the Mozilla front: Lots of good reports and an oops. The good stuff -- reaper20 writes "With 1.0 around the corner, it seems like the folks over at Mozilla.org have their hands full. Between interviews and last minute security bug fixes, it seems like the Mozilla is poised for the big push to 1.0. David Hyatt brings up the IE Advantage, and the death of user-experince based browsers. Mozilla.org itself has stood firm on some of these marketing driven issues - yet some changes have caused some interesting developments in the Mozilla community. The recent context menu revisions and personal toolbar recommendations by Netscape have caused a bit of controversy. (Bugzilla entries ommitted for obvious reasons)

Recently, the mozilla/browser and Chimera projects have been started to address certain usability problems and the desire for OS X native widgets. With Galeon and other Mozilla derivatives getting better and better, it seems that Mozilla 'proper' will serve as a platform for derivative browsers customized for the target platform. Lots of standards-compliant clients each tailored to user needs, sounds like what web was originally designed for."

And the oops -- An Anonymous Coward writes: "An Israeli software firm has discovered a flaw in Netscape and Mozilla software that allows code hidden in a Web page to read files from the user's PC. The bug is a more serious variant of one patched in Microsoft's Internet Explorer in February."

293 comments

  1. Re:Great ... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Silly boy, haven't you learnt yet that Microsoft software never contain bugs, only "undocumented features".

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  2. Re:Great ... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what does that make bugs in open source software, "documented features" since the source is open?

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. Mozilla bug by falser · · Score: 5, Funny

    The flaw doesn't affect Mozilla 1.0 release candidate 1 because XMLHttpRequest appears to be broken in that release

    Hehe, I find that kinda funny ;)

    1. Re:Mozilla bug by psaltes · · Score: 2

      It works for me in rc1. However, I'm not actually convinced that this bug really allows someone to read files remotely. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how is this any different than just typing in the file's URL? Analysis with ethereal did not show any data going across the network other than filenames, as I looked around my filesystem using their demonstration.

      Galeon is apparently a "better performing, less buggy browser", since it isn't affected by this :-).

    2. Re:Mozilla bug by rabidcow · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I understand it, the bug allows local files to be read into JavaScript variables, which can then be sent to the server.

      Also, it has been fixed so future builds will not have this problem. (#141061: added to bugzilla on the 29th, fixed on the 30th, marked as fixed on the 1st)

    3. Re:Mozilla bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flaw doesn't affect Mozilla 1.0 release candidate 1 because XMLHttpRequest appears to be broken in that release

      It does however cause RC1 to crash it's merry brains out. Try the sample exploit and see for yourself. Using the test.txt file, if the file does not exist nothing happens. If the file does exit RC1 crashes immediately.

  4. What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The recent context menu revisions and personal toolbar recommendations by Netscape have caused a bit of controversy.

    Could someone summarize what the story is here? About the only thing that annoys me about the current crop of fresh Mozilla installs is that it keeps changing my default search engine away from Google and back to Netscape.

    Schwab

    1. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by JanusFury · · Score: 5, Informative

      Back and Forward were removed from most context menus, except the one for the page itself, slowing down navigation.

      Of course, this was to simplify and shorten the menus, so there are valid arguments for both sides, but personally I like having Back and Forward on all the menus.

      --
      using namespace slashdot;
      troll::post();
    2. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Indeed, especialy when some dipshod webdesigner desides that you do not need a toolbar. . . .

      Ugh, I hate that. . . .

      I have neglected to visit any violating sites with Mozilla so I do not now if this is a IE only 'MS-HTML' command or what.

      Either way it is annoying.

      My mouse actualy supports back and forward with two side buttons, bound by default to, err, back and forward, in IE5.x+ in Windows2K+, no need for drivers.

      Nifty that, I get to laugh at Opera users with their 'gesture' systems, hehe. Buttons kick gestures asses, and my 9 button mouse rocks. :)

    3. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by edrugtrader · · Score: 2


      why would they do that? i wonder what the people who are financing the project feel about this....

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    4. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Mathness · · Score: 1

      The mouse gestures are for more than back and forward. There is also resize, refresh, close, new page,...

      Besides Opera have mouse button support, right->left goes back, left->right goes forward. And the all time favorite (all browsers in Linux, that I know of) middle mouse button on a link, which opens the link in a new browser window.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    5. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Alea · · Score: 1

      I'm so relieved that there are UI experts out there making decisions like this. If it hadn't been for them, I would never have realized that right-clicking and selecting "Back" is nowhere near as efficient as trying to do it, seeing the context menu for that part of the screen doesn't have it, and then having to move all the way to the top left of the screen and click the Back button.

      They won't even add a pref for it because adding another pref would be "bad UI" according to their designers. If what they have now is "good UI", then I really don't understand how they think.

      This might explain why I've never talked to anyone who works in UI who didn't come across like a cross between a flaky social psychologist and a failed fine arts student.

      Note, I'm sure the UI field has its share of brilliant people... it just seems to have more than its share of opinionated pedants.

    6. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by ChiPHeaD23 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with alt-left arrow?
      Keyboard navigation rocks! :P

    7. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by fanatic · · Score: 2

      Back and Forward were removed from most context menus

      This sounds idiotic. Hopefully, Galeon will fix this.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    8. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing here, but I think it means the right-click menu changes depending on what's happening on the page.

      Old way: right click anywhere on the page, get a menu that has a variable list of options depending on what's there. You always had back/forward/reload/stop and so on, but others would come and go like view source and view image and the "open frame in window" ones.

      New way: if you click on an image, there's no more back/forward! If you have text highlighted, the same thing happens.

      Now imagine if you're viewing a full-screen picture (think raw images from a digital camera) - you either have to find a tiny piece of margin that's still in the browser's frame to click to get the menu with "back" on it, or you have to go up to the "back" button. Failing that, there's always ALT+wheel down, but screw that.

      I wondered what happened between the last milestone and RC1, and now I know. Good going, guys. Nothing like changing something that's been programmed into my fingers for years. I'm sure I'm not the only person who does a quick right button + move pointer slightly + release for "back", and now that's broken.

    9. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the bug number: 135331

      It's pointless to link to Bugzilla from here, so just plug it in yourself.

      Read some of the comments. Once again, jwz gets it (his bit about doing the quick right button-back without even reading is right on the money) and some of the other guys are out in left field.

      Nothing like breaking a good interface.

    10. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Heh. In IE it is backspace and shift backspace.

      Backspace is to go back a page and shift-backspace is to go forwards.

      (Shift is the universal 'reverse' key in windows, and since the negative of a negative is a positive. . . . it actually does make sense, sorta)

    11. Re:What's the Mozilla-Netscape flap? by Miksa · · Score: 0

      For example, at least in keyboards where right alt is alt-ground you need two hands to go back, really annoying. I myself prefer my Opera with z- and x-keys for back and forward.

      --

      Begging for modpoints since '03
  5. Re:Great ... by zmooc · · Score: 2

    No OSS dropped nothing; the bug was/will be fixed before Mozilla 1.0 will be released. So the OSS-idea worked quite well once again.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  6. Collecting spam... by killthiskid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not pay users to collect e-mail addresses? Just create a 'plugin' (not unlike the google tool bar) so that where ever users go, the plugin automatically collects the e-mail addresses on the page. The user could get paid in some way (money? otherwise?), and there could even be a space in the tool bar to enter e-mail addresses obscured, as in an email addresses displayed as an image, as to avoid detection.


    It would be almost perfectly undetectable.

    1. Re:Collecting spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not pay users to collect e-mail addresses? Just create a 'plugin' (not unlike the google tool bar) so that where ever users go, the plugin automatically collects the e-mail addresses on the page. The user could get paid in some way (money? otherwise?), and there could even be a space in the tool bar to enter e-mail addresses obscured, as in an email addresses displayed as an image, as to avoid detection.

      you should be drug out into the street and shot...

    2. Re:Collecting spam... by schnitzi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to rate this posting, but I couldn't find "Evil" in the dropdown.

      --



      I object to that article, and to the next reply.
    3. Re:Collecting spam... by JanusFury · · Score: 4, Funny

      Further proof that Slashdot is the root of all evil. Well, maybe not the root, but at least a subfolder. :P

      --
      using namespace slashdot;
      troll::post();
    4. Re:Collecting spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Folder?

    5. Re:Collecting spam... by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      When someone points out there's an exploit to application Foo, and tells you how this can be used to steal all his private porn, it's all good and proper, because of the obscurity != security thing.

      But when someone comes up with a way to marginally increase your daily spamload it's evil?

      I think I'm getting the hang of this slashdot thing.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    6. Re:Collecting spam... by Skater · · Score: 1

      Because then being a spammer would be a lot more expensive, and the spammers couldn't afford to do it any more.

      (I agree with above messages...you're evil.)

      --RJ

    7. Re:Collecting spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ... endorsing this? You sick bastard. Anyway, were this to happen, I would personally write a counter-program which would automatically submit poisoned email addresses, and share this version with everyone. If some form of auto-submit email addresses is ever written, the poisoned email accounts would by far outnumber the authentic ones. AND they'd be PAYING for them. Hahahaha.

    8. Re:Collecting spam... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      Further proof that Slashdot is the root of all evil.

      Wrong.

      Money is root of all evil.

      Send me $9.95 for additional information.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    9. Re:Collecting spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wouldn't have to pay by giving you money. They could put you on an "evil spammers don't spam these nice people" list for one hour per new validated mail address reported to the spammers. It would be the ultimate MLM scheme.

  7. The thing with spambots.. by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Funny

    is someone, from the human race mind you, creating these bloody things. I mean, how could you do that? Didn't they realize what they were doing, the annoying havoc that they were about to unleash upon the world? It's like setting off a nuke, only the nuke just sits there poking you incessantly until you click on their goddamn wares.

    1. Re:The thing with spambots.. by NineNine · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      It's real simple. If you know what you're doing with spam, you can make a fucking fortune. What would *you* do for $2K/day?

    2. Re:The thing with spambots.. by The+Last+Post · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are equating creating a spambot with detonating a nuclear weapon?

      This, coming from someone posting on a site who's members frequently bitch about copyright infringement being called "piracy", because downloading an mp3 shouldn't be likened to raping and murdering on the high seas.

      Sometimes, I think this site is filled with self-contradicting, self-righteous, narrow minded, socially inept individuals. Other times, I'm offered proof that it is. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which of those times this is.

    3. Re:The thing with spambots.. by JPriest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I sense a disturbance in the force.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    4. Re:The thing with spambots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Proof?

      (not that I doubt a spammer can earn that much, but... proof?)

    5. Re:The thing with spambots.. by NineNine · · Score: 2

      Proof?

      One thing that I learned about people who make real money. They don't talk about it.
      Unfortunately, I can't point to the place where the big boys hang out. I'd be crucified.
      So, I can't offer any proof other than I personally know people who make that much doing it.

    6. Re:The thing with spambots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know what goes on at the high seas? Do you have some sort of traumatic experience there, where when you were a kid a man raped you while downloading illegal mp3s? Seriously, you seem to be insulting all the users here, and the site. Go nuts, I don't care, but all I see is one of them insulting their own.

    7. Re:The thing with spambots.. by timster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I swear, no matter how illogical it is, there will always be people who expect everyone on Slashdot to comment as if they were all the same person, just because they're all on the same website.

      Repeat after me: "Slashdot comment posters are all different people... Slashdot comment posters are all different people..."

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    8. Re:The thing with spambots.. by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I can't point to the place where the big boys hang out. I'd be crucified.


      Don't we have AC accounts for this sort of thing?

      ....

      Seriously though, you KNOW where the bastards are and you let them live? Hell just sneak any one of us their local and I guarntee ya that none of us will mention it was you who gave out the info (at least until every last one of the damn spammers is dead dead DEAD and you are perfectly safe. ;) ).

  8. Re:Great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They have not really dropped the ball,
    because the versions of IE were released, final,
    production versions, wheras Mozilla is not.

    Simple

  9. VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by pbryan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The VoIP Blaster had huge potential, IMHO, because it was easy for non-internet-telephony-experts to plug in their POTS telephones and place a call. I was preparing to buy more when I discovered there were no more available.

    In a desperate effort to find out how to buy more VoIP Blasters, I called Creative Labs. Yes, it's official, they have discontinued sales of this product. That explains why they were blowing them out at $10 a pop. But, it goes deeper than this.

    I discovered that Creative Labs didn't manufacturer the VoIP Blaster. They were value added resellers of the InnoMedia InfoAccel USB. I decided to send a message to InnoMedia to find out who else resold their units.

    My Question to InnoMedia, made through their "contact us" page:

    "Creative Labs has now officially discontinued the VoIP Blaster (the repackaged InfoAccel USB). Are there other OEM partners who are repackaging the InfoAccel USB I can purchase from? Is InnoMedia considering releasing a consumer version of the InfoAccel USB?"

    Short yet concise response from Kelly Zhang, Director of Sales, InnoMedia:

    "We do not intend to release any more version of InfoAccel USB."

    Now that the VoIP Blaster party is officially over, what other inexpensive hardware platforms look promising to allow Grandma to pick up a phone and place a call without a Ph.D in Internet Telephony?

    --

    My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

    1. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by vrmlguy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How about Vonage DigitalVoice? They are selling a service for $39.99/month whereby you plug an ordinary analog phone into a "multimedia terminal adaptor", which in turn plugs into your cable/DSL modem (or a router plugged into same). Their service drops the call off at the local telco of the person you are calling, and gives you a phone number that people can use to call you.

      The service is cheap and easy enough for Grandma to use. Or you might could buy the MTA directly (Cisco ATA-186) and start hacking.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    2. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by Polo · · Score: 2

      I tried a couple of times to sign up, but their site always breaks...

      sigh.

    3. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by smnolde · · Score: 2

      That's a bummer. I ordered two yesterday for US$20 + shipping and handling.

      For that price they were a steal and with fobbit software I might be able to have some real fun.

      I think the product was discontinued because of one of two things: a) they were selling them at a loss and hoped to reap benefits from the call software, or, b) creative had better marketing to deplete the devices from inventory and make a few bucks on the service.

      As far as I'm concerned, it's a neat toy to play with. And with tcp/ip tunneling, you can basically encapsulate the udp to tcp and run it over a openssh encrypted session, much like Speak Freely.

    4. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      From what I've read about the VoIP Blaster, its demise is probably based on how horrible the internet to phone call resellers were. I'm too lazy to look up the company's name but according to some of their customers it was a real mickey mouse operation and the servers have been known to go out for an entire weekend until someone comes back on monday to reboot them.

      Lesson to be learned here is do not pair up with a crappy company. The VoIP blaster is a nice product by any internet telephone standards but Creative really dropped the ball by going with these guys.

      Imagine if someone could pair this product up with a cell-phone service like Sprint. Your PC's phone number can also be your Cell phone number and your minutes (for phone use) will be deducted from your cellular plan.

    5. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by kesuki · · Score: 2

      Why should it deduct minutes? Why not just add VoIP service for an extra flat monthly charge?
      The only cost to cellular carrier is network bandwith/server costs, and that is far cheaper than wireless spectrum. They already have the telephone side of the network in place. They can have your local phone ring at the same time as your cell phone, and you can just answer on whichever is easier for you.

    6. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company Creative partnered with is Innomedia. I've been using the service for almost 9 months it's very rare that I've had a problem with it. Looks like the product was /.ed!

      Spock

    7. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by DragonWyatt · · Score: 2
      I am in the process of moving, and for the potential of ditching HellSouth, considered Vonage. I had several issues with them:
      1. Their notion of "regional" calling is fairly "interesting" (read: vague!)- it's not clear what constitutes a local call (except for their list of area codes, none of which seem to correspond to geographical locations...)
      2. When people geographically near to me call me, do they pay long distance tolls? (it sure seems that way, since you are assigned a "Vonage" area code...)
      3. They require a 12-month contract
      4. No 911 service...
      [3] wouldn't be so bad, except for [1] and [2]. I'm certainly willing to forgive [4] considering availability of my cell phone.

      I would love to hear any reports from current customers...
      --
      Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
    8. Re:VoIP Blaster (and InfoAccel USB) Discontinued by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Cheap and easy? That monthly fee is about double what I pay for my landline telephony, including all call charges. For that price, I just don't see the point (well, that and that I don't live in the US...)

      /Janne

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  10. Not exactly... by Daniel+Wood · · Score: 2

    I think by undocumented they mean code that some MSCE certified programmer wrote in a MS product that they strangely left uncommented. So in a sense, they both have undocumented features left by MSCE-ish programming professionals.

  11. Less buggy browser? by SeanTobin · · Score: 1
    (From the page)
    Solution: Users of Netscape Navigator should move to a better performing, less buggy browser.
    Anyone want to tell me a less buggy browser?
    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    1. Re:Less buggy browser? by sulli · · Score: 1
      telnet to port 80?

      seriously, NSCP is pretty fuckin' buggy. switch to mozilla, it works well now.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    2. Re:Less buggy browser? by ragnarok · · Score: 4, Funny

      Internet Explorer.

      --
      Search first, ask questions later.
    3. Re:Less buggy browser? by Servo5678 · · Score: 2, Flamebait
      Anyone want to tell me a less buggy browser?

      I've heard good things about something called Internet Explorer. Why not give that a try?

    4. Re:Less buggy browser? by Resist148 · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, and IE has no security holes, RIGHT!

    5. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I tried, but I could never find the rpm for that. I looked for the tar ball of the source so I could compile it for RedHat but no luck. Post me a URL and I'll try it.

      JonWan, Too lazy to log in.

    6. Re:Less buggy browser? by smartin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, sorry I tried that one it sucked. All I got was this: chdir /root/.wine : No such file or directory

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    7. Re:Less buggy browser? by kableh · · Score: 2

      Liar.

      This got modded Insightful? What I wouldn't give for mod points right about now. IE is the slowest, buggiest browser I've used, second only to Netscape 4.x.

      Mozilla RC1, on the other hand, renders pages almost as quick as Opera, starts up instantly if you enable QuickStart, and is more standards compliant than just about anything out there.

      If you find browsing in anything than IE a pain, blame Microsoft for breaking the web.

    8. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It boggles my mind how in the minds of so many people, Microsoft CAN DO NO WRONG. They can learn about 100 new MS security flaws IN IE that day, their computer can BSOD on them 10 times in that day, and at the end of the day they'll come home and write "Internet Explorer is the best browser" into slashdot, and then say something like "you know, it was *Microsoft* that made computers usable for the masses".

      How do these incredible internal contradictions resolve themselves without creating some cognitive dissonance for these people? I cannot imagine.

    9. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about? IE (5.x and 6) is the fastest most bug-free browser ever. Its *never* crashed on me. I haven't found any problems with it. Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, or whatever.. they've all crapped out on me.. Mozilla being the worst of the bunch (even RC1). And I've used all these browsers' latest version in the last week.

    10. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you poor fools have never tried OPERA

    11. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >They can learn about 100 new MS security flaws
      >IN IE that day, their computer can BSOD on them
      >10 times in that day

      Can you show me the 100 unfixed security flaws in IE?

      I've NEVER had a Windows system BSOD on me 10 times in one day unless it was suffering from a serious hardware problem that I was in the process of fixing.

      Your negative experience with your poorly built frakenstein machine makes me wonder if you know how to do things like make sure all the cards are fully seated in the slots and make sure you're using the right kind of memory...

      Do me a favor, don't work on your own car. You don't seem to be mechanically or technically inclined.

      >"you know, it was *Microsoft* that made
      >computers usable for the masses".

      Nah, that was more likely Apple. But MS did a lot to make computers ACCESSIBLE to the masses. There's a difference. Look it up.

    12. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the 250 Win2K machines I admin have bluescreen in WELL OVER A MONTH (1 month shit, you servers yes, for desktops it's fine).

      My company (a IE/Outlook/Exchange/IIS/MSSQL/MSEVERYTHING shop) have never had a virus infection.
      Or have been "hacked" into.

    13. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, thats sooo uncool, it's ssh all the fuking way now! 443 is da k1ng of p0rtz

    14. Re:Less buggy browser? by rainmanjag · · Score: 1

      Less buggy browser: the Mozilla codebase after 4:30 yesterday when the patch to this bug was applied.
      Better performing browser: that browser that the guys at Greymagic are really thinking about getting around to writing since they (of course) write bug free code.

      Give me a @!$#ing break! What kind of solution advice is that? How about include a link to the patch?! That might be more useful than dismissing the entire Mozilla project as poor performing and buggy.

      --
      http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
    15. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/

      Open IE Advisories: 7 (and one appendix, whatever...)
      Patched IE Advisories: 1

      Open Mozilla Advisories: 0
      Patched Mozilla Advisories: 1

      I believe he said LESS buggy.

    16. Re:Less buggy browser? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      More to the point, better performing, less buggy browser. There's only one answer: LYNX.

    17. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      443? Did you mean 22? SSL or ssh? Make up your mind!

    18. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've NEVER had a Windows system BSOD on me 10 times in one day unless it was suffering from a serious hardware problem that I was in the process of fixing.

      You obviously have never done C++ Direct3D development on a Win9X machine. The lack of full-on protected mode is disasterous, a single dangling pointer will easily write all over random areas of memory, including the kernel, and cause the system to lock up solid.

      Combined with that is Microsofts invention, the "Win16Mutex". This brilliant piece of innovation is a *single, global, system-wide mutex that the operating system uses to function*. Now, if an application hangs while it *has* the Win16Mutex, the operating system ITSELF is blocked. I'm not making this up. If a single little bug causes your program to hang while it has the Win16Mutex, your only recourse is the "reset" button. This is all true, you know because you saw it on "Ripleys believe it or not". Seriously. Many things in a typical simulation app or game will cause your process to have the Win16Mutex, including locking of any Direct3D / DirectDraw surface, as well as calls into Winsock functions.

      Man if you only had a clue how bad it really is. At the height of my pain, it was *common* for me to have to hit "reset" 10 times a day or more. The problem is that even TINY bugs become almost impossible to find if the system locks up solid whenever they occur.

      I see you're a member of the "its your hardware" Microsoft apologist crowd. Amazing notion that, considering this happened on at least five entirely different hardware configurations.

      You should try the Intel profiler - it will show you how much time your OS spends in 16-bit (unprotected, "real mode") - Win9X spends typically 15 to 25% of its time in real mode! And every single moment of that time, it is completely vulnerable to runaway processes.

      Learn a little about operating system design and about "protected mode" on the intel 386 and above. Since you claim to be technically inclined, you should pick it up easily, and perhaps then you will understand why its so easy for Win9X to crash 10 times a day.

      Once Microsoft finally managed to get DirectX 6 and above to actually function on NT kernel based systems, my life became a thousand times more pleasant. I could develop away on my Win2K box for literally *months* without a single lockup. WinXP is slightly less stable, I get maybe a couple of lockups in a month of even heavy development, which is still very acceptable to me. The bad old days of Win9X are finally becoming a thing of the past.

      PS where did I say that 100 flaws should be "unfixed". PS: go to www.dictionary.com, and look up "hyperbole".

    19. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was talking about Win9X. Come on, how many "Joe Public"s out there are using Win2K? If 90% of Windows users are using 9X, I hardly think its fair to defend THEM on the basis of Win2K having a better design.

    20. Re:Less buggy browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you think 'cos you know how to put a box together, makes you fuckin clever? thats the lamest, saddest thing i've heard in a long while. any old dick can put a box together. and you're the proof. i know your type - you were one of those sad losers at school who were never clever enough to get good marks, but were too geeky to not be a loser --- so when you learned how to put a box together, you suddenly felt clever because you were "into computers" and others suddenly thought you were clever. man, get over it. most of your type seem to end up in low-end "monkeywork" computer jobs like that. bottom of the chain. know all the buzzwords but use 'em wrong. a monkey can put a box together, try actually learning something about how the stuff really works. I guess MS made computers "accessible" to PEOPLE LIKE YOU, thats why you defend them. Sorry, bub, truth hurts.

  12. Apple II GS by taya0001 · · Score: 0

    I think its great that someone took the time to create a card like this. Expecially for 14 dollars. Also i think apple made all of their software for the gs open sounrce/ public domain or something like this.

  13. robots.txt? by douglips · · Score: 5, Interesting
    For the latest evolution of spambots, Neil quoth:
    [Spambots are now] Using Google to find pages.
    ...
    [Spambots are now] Following no links within the target site.


    One of the complaints about spambots was that they either ignored, or read and then flouted, robots.txt. But, Google is well behaved - so won't the new generation of spambots implicitly obey robots.txt?

    Seems you could use robots.txt to keep Google out of your email address pages, and still keep your other spambot defenses.
    1. Re:robots.txt? by Arrgh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. The whole point of robots.txt is to ask search engines to refrain from spidering parts of your site that they normally would because they're linked to.

      A non-robots.txt-respecting spider will simply follow all the links on every page. Once they somehow find some way onto your site (perhaps via Google), they can harvest whatever they want.

    2. Re:robots.txt? by douglips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, you totally agree with me.

      Every other effort he's taken involves dealing with such ill-behaved spiders as you mention.

      This Slashback has to do with new spiders which do not follow any links on your page, and which use google to find all of your pages.

      Any robot that follows links on the site falls prey to his other spambot attacks, so he only has to worry about the new breed that comes through google.

    3. Re:robots.txt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt such spambots are actively being used. Surely this is just a spambot author who read the slashdot story and decided to take up the (easy) challenge.

      Open source actually makes this easy enough that I could do it. The latest versions of wget even include a random-wait feature to fool intelligent servers into thinking the spider is human. It is a trivial matter to write a perl wrapper to make wget harvest promising pages from google and then check them out.

    4. Re:robots.txt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with Google's new SOAP API, getting results is even easier! Thanks Google!

    5. Re:robots.txt? by po_boy · · Score: 2

      My understanding (and the way my bottrap works) is that because some spambots use robots.txt as a list of places to search and not ignore, you can use robots.txt to point them to a trap, allowing you to identify them and treat them differently. Since the new behavior is to not fall into this trap it makes it more difficult to discriminate them.

      Not abiding by the rules of robots.txt was an identifying characteristic of old spambots which was used against them.

    6. Re:robots.txt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make your page inaccessible to Google, then your page won't be indexed, which may be even worse than the spam in the first place.

      If you want users to be able to see your page, then spambots will also be able to see your page. Defending against spam is like Hollywood trying to defend itself against unauthorized copying.

    7. Re:robots.txt? by mixbsd · · Score: 1

      ... only if people insist on plonking their email addresses onto the website, either in plain-text or within a mailto: tag. It's not that difficult to obscure your address - even if you make your address into a .jpg file. Altavista has already used .jpg's with pre-rendered text that a human has to read and key in to prevent auto-registrations taking place (I think Yahoo did this too).

    8. Re:robots.txt? by Arrgh · · Score: 2

      My post was in answer to someone's idea that to avoid being spidered by spambots, one could simply remove the pages on one's site which contain email addresses from the Google index by means of a robots.txt file.

      My point (perhaps not articulated clearly enough) was that this wouldn't help if those pages were linked from any other part of your site, because the spambots, once they found their way to the "public" part of your site, would quickly spider the non-Googled part, and with it your email addresses.

      The only reliable solution, aside from joining the email-address-spamproofing arms race, would be to completely exclude one's site from search engines.

  14. Immensly Confusing by unicron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I really don't understand the levels spammers goe to. I'm an intelligent person, and if I want something, I know where to go to get it. I've been around on the net long enough to know where the best sites are, be they news, computer sales, money matters, or even porn. It's gotten[sic] so ridiculous that I often want to scream. On a technology forum I post on(very private, mostly real life friends, but still public THCNET)about once a week someone will come in a make a damn spam post on the board. This is utterly pathetic. For one, if I know you circumvented security features for your email to get through, I'm going to be so angry I would never, ever desire to give you one red cent. Most likely, I would find some way of retribution, be it legal avenues or guerilla tactics on your servers.

    This has got to stop. It's been proven time and time again that if you want consumers money make the best product/offer the best service, and do it in a helpful, non-pushy way.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  15. Re:Great ... by SirRichardPumpaloaf · · Score: 1, Troll

    Let's see, it's buggy and its development has been slow. Are you telling me that those two bad things cancel each other out, producing yet another triumph for open source? You zealots can rationalize anything.

  16. Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A major problem with mozilla is their "improved" handling (i.e. hiding) of referers in certain new situations, like from one HTTPS page to another accross domains. This is preventing people from placing orders with websites that use at least one major credit card processing service. We've been getting lots of complaints because mozilla/netscape users cannot place orders and have to tell these customers to use IE, as much as we hate doing that!

    And, yes, I know it's easy to fake referers, but it's just one of a variety of checks the credit card processing company uses and if any of them fail - no order!

    I'm guessing that they feel that this is a browser security issue, but it is really a website security issue. Any website that has critical info in the URL is itself a security hazard...someone could just walk by the system to oggle that info directly. Hiding the referer isn't going to fix the site. For the browser to cripple its ecommerce applications for this is a truly bad decision.

    1. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For someone to rely on the completely optional (and forgeable) referer field is truly a bad decision, even if it is only one part of a check.

    2. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but it is important because people can't code, and leave important stuff in the url which of course is then blithely passed to the third party site.

    3. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by RevDobbs · · Score: 1

      Are you joking? Besides the fact (that you mention) that using the referer as security measure is pretty stupid, Opera (in the latest version, at least) has the ability to not divulge referer information.

      If the credit card verification company in question isn't willing to change their methods, I think it is time to get a new one, not tell users what browser they can use...

    4. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by cduffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, bah. There are plenty of ways to pass data around securely. Here's one suggestion:

      Both you and your CC handler agree on a shared secret and a shared PRNG seed. Every time you refer a customer to them, you pull a bunch of random data out of the PRNG, and create an address from which the CC provider (and nobody else -- use SSL client certificates to authenticate them, as well as IP address checks) can pull data. Every time a customer puts in their data, you make it available under /cc-handler-private/{OneWayHash($SHARED_SECR ET, $NEXT_RANDOM_VALUE)}, and put $NEXT_RANDOM_VALUE in the URL you give the customer. Wallah! You're now putting a handle to the info you need to pass out in plain sight -- but they can't do anything useful modifying it; and even someone who knows the requests customers are making (their pseudorandom values) and who can circumvent your authentication checks on the retrieval side *still* can't get to the customer data unless they know the shared secret.

      And that's something I just made up on the spur of the moment. If your credit card handling service can't hire someone actually competant (read: better than me) to come up with a system for doing this, they shouldn't be in the business.

    5. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you missed the point. :)

      The point is that, as shipped, mozilla needs to work with what's out there now and not insist that people redesign their sites/systems. Imagine if it insisted that all HTML comments have truly correct syntax. It would fail to properly display half the pages on the net! Sure, the syntax of all those pages should be fixed, but will that happen??

      As shipped, mozilla users will not be able to place orders with many thousands of sites. Telling the zillions of sites affected to re-code/change/etc is clearly not a solution, as that is not going to happen (even if they should re-code).

    6. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2


      The old joke about the manager in a hot air balloon and the technician on a mountaintop comes to mind, only in this case the manager is right.

      Your solution does nothing to solve the immediate problem, which is that existing CC validation software is now broken because the Mozilla developers have pulled a Microsoft on the HTTPS protocol and extended it with a non-standard behavior.

      Whether or not the the validation software is 'truly' secure or not is irrelevant to the point; the reason this particular system work with other browsers but not with Mozilla is because Mozilla's broken.

    7. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by cduffy · · Score: 2

      Okay, yes, I'm not solving the immediate problem -- because the immediate problem isn't a problem, it's a symptom; the problem is that the existing CC validation software breaks with standards-compliant browsers (being that providing the referrer tag is explicitly optional behaviour). If Mozilla complies with the standard, and the validation software breaks with it, then it isn't Mozilla that's broken -- it's the validation software.

    8. Re:Mozilla not ready for ecommerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mozilla is not broken.

      From the HTTP 1.1 specs
      Note: Because the source of a link may be private information or may reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the Referer field is sent. For example, a browser client could have a toggle switch for browsing openly/anonymously, which would respectively enable/disable the sending of Referer and From information.

      Repeat after me:
      The REFERER field is OPTIONAL.

      O P T I O N A L

      Anyone relying on an optional field is making a mistake in their design. Just like the people that assume everyone will have images on, or javascript on, or flash, or windows media player. Just because the majority has something doesn't mean you can ignore the minority. Could support for this sort of thing being added to Mozilla as a user-selectable option, though? Sure.

      And, just because IE and earlier Navigator versions did something does not mean it's correct. If it did, then PNG wouldn't support transparency.
  17. More jail time? uh..no.... by cdf12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's a little $80 million mistake among friends? Sinjun writes: "In what is believed to be one of the first prison sentences given to the creator of a virus, David L. Smith of the infamous Melissa plague recieves 20 months in federal lockup. I would have thought he would recieve more, seeing the massive amount of money lost by corporate America resulting from Melissa. Oh well, this is the precedent that has been set."

    The massive amount of money lost by corporate America?!?!

    First of all, since when do we start supporting corporate america?

    Second, were do "they" get damage figures from? Probably the same accountant that say software firms lose "billions and billions" to piracy although many people would never buy the software anyways.

    Also, if corporate america didn't have their heads up their asses, they could have avoided all the "damage" the melissa virus did. In fact many companies who know what their doing were completely unaffected.

    By the way, why not jail the programmers at Microsoft for writing an e-mail client that allows "billions and billions of damage"

    simple fact is this, It's well known that outlook is not secure. If companies have not taken steps to protect themselfs, I can hardly agree with jailing someone who wrote a program (and I believe didn't distribute).

    --
    Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
    1. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by fean · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The massive amount of money lost by corporate America?!?!

      First of all, since when do we start supporting corporate america?

      since when do you use plastic? oil? drive a car? eat something produced by Kraft (and subsidies)

      I don't think you understand... these companies lost money due to this virus, the money figures come from when an email server goes down because it's been innundated with email, taking out the company's resources... imagine... an office full of salaried workers doing absolutely nothing because their email/file server is dead...

      and who pays for it? we do... we pay $.02 more for a box of mac & cheese... $.05 more for a gallon of oil because Texaco's cross-country communications were taken down, and a couple freighters had to stop in the middle of the pacific.

      We shouldn't blame the guy who wrote the virus, right? just like we shouldn't blame the script kiddies that DDoS our web sites...
    2. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by JanusFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the way, why not jail the programmers at microsoft for writing an e-mail client that allows "billions and billions of damage"

      Ooh! Let's jail Linus Torvalds for writing an OS that allows people to hack! And Bill Gates for creating an OS that allows viruses to be spread. And CmdrTaco for creating slashdot, because people can post flames and trolls, and links to illegal material.

      Let's not be stupid, okay, buddy? The rest of your post is quite excellent, but stupid remarks like that one invalidate the whole thing.

      --
      using namespace slashdot;
      troll::post();
    3. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by daniel2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I *think* that what cdf12345 is getting at by saying:

      "By the way, why not jail the programmers at Microsoft for writing an e-mail client that allows "billions and billions of damage""

      Is that money losses are being caused by Microsoft as they are also caused by the email virus, AND maybe just as intentially- just phrased better: It isn't cost effective to [make the computer crash less] [provide better secturity] [etc] so we wont do it, this sounds reasonable to everyone but it is just as intentially causing loss money as someone who writes the virus.

    4. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by puckhead · · Score: 1

      First of all, since when do we start supporting corporate america?

      What do you mean we? I own stock in dozens of corporations thru my 401K and mutual funds and I use corporate products and services (slashdot for one) every day.

      --
      Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
    5. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think better analogies would be:
      "Blame ford for creating an unsafe car whose gas tank explodes if you look at it wrong - which was the direct cause of hundreds of people dying"
      and not "Blame ford for creating cars which, due to the driver being drunk, can be in high speed collisions that kill the above stupid driver"

      So let's think before we post, ok, buddy?

    6. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by nil_null · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't blame the guy who wrote the virus, right? just like we shouldn't blame the script kiddies that DDoS our web sites...

      Well, blaming the guy who wrote the virus is like blaming the security expert who discovered a vulnerability and posted a sample script to exploit the vulnerability.

      But in this particular case, the guy pleaded guilty to actually sending out the virus (as well as computer theft). So I think the courts ruling was fair enough.

    7. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by nathanh · · Score: 2
      By the way, why not jail the programmers at microsoft for writing an e-mail client that allows "billions and billions of damage"

      Ooh! Let's jail Linus Torvalds for writing an OS that allows people to hack! And Bill Gates for creating an OS that allows viruses to be spread. And CmdrTaco for creating slashdot, because people can post flames and trolls, and links to illegal material.

      Or fine Ford for not fixing the Pinto. Or fine Philip Morris for making people sick.

      Let's not be stupid, okay, buddy? The rest of your post is quite excellent, but stupid remarks like that one invalidate the whole thing.

      Sometimes companies are held responsible if their product causes damage. The situations where this is legal are beyond me but I know one of them is gross negligence. Whether Microsoft was negligent with Outlook isn't a question I can answer, but the original poster wasn't being stupid.

    8. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by MrHat · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot were crossposting all its comments all over usenet, someone probably would sue them. Or ban them.

      Hey, there's an idea. Maybe more than one.

    9. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 2

      Or fine Ford for not fixing the Pinto.

      *ahem*. Even the early Pintos were much safer vehicles than average for their day, even when one only looks at deaths by fire. The entire scandal was (for the most part) manufactured by the irresponsible, scaremongering, muckraking anticorporate press -- noticed how Mother Jones's headline on their anniversary issue was "25 Years of Raising Hell"? [background: Mother Jones published the article "Pinto Madness", by Mark Doughie, which brought the Pinto's gas tank design into public view]. Even Doughie admits (based on more recent statistics from the NTSB) that the numbers he cited were severely inflated.

      So... when you suggest that Ford should be taken to task for not modifying the Pinto, what you're really suggesting is that even a producer who makes a safer-than-average product should rightfully be watching their backs lest they be driven off the market by lying, scaremongering bastards looking to get some quick popularity. And remember: When a safer-than-average product gets driven off the market, what replaces it? A product only as safe as average! At least in the short term, the persecution of the Pinto harmed automotive safety, rather than helping it.

      Okay, I'll admit: I went a bit over the top on this one -- but the main point of what I'm saying holds: The Pinto was a safer-than-average vehicle (with a gas tank design which was arguably safer than that which several safety "experts" proposed replacing it with), and was in no way deserving of what it got -- and if people like Mark Doughie actually cared about public safety, they'd have found worthier prey.

      (And I wouldn't fine Phillip Morris for making people sick -- I'd fine them for lying about the safety of their products. If people know something might make them sick, it's their problem; if they're told by the manufacturer it's safe, then that's the manufacturer's problem).

    10. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cdf12345 · · Score: 1

      let me clarify a few things,

      When I stated "First of all, since when do we start supporting corporate america?"

      When I read the story, I got the impression that the author's attitude was "Look at all the money lost due to this single individual's actions, I'm surprised the jail sentence wasn't longer, corporations shouldn't be picked on like that!"

      We all probably agree that figures used to make up a figure like the damage caused by a virus are laughable. No one says today the power company caused businesses to lose X millions of dollars due to the recent blackout. After reading the article again, more closely, yes what this person did was wrong, but I think the sentence was probably fair.

      Now as for all these people not being able to work without e-mail, I find that hard to believe. I mean sure there was some major inconvience, but what kind of company has employees whose entire jobs center around e-mail? (besides the simple examples) I would think very few, and we do have a little invention called the telephone.

      The point I'm trying to make is that there are more then one guilty party when it comes to looking at the grossly inflated damage estimations. The exploits that the melissa virus used were well known at the time, as well as ways to prevent them from being abused. If part of your job was to run the e-mail for your company shouldn't you know how to protect you systems?
      Yes, there are always people who will open vbs scripts or whatever, but I would think you can keep 95% of the e-mail accounts clean in your firm, from exploits that are known and fixable.

      At the same time Microsoft has seen how these virus's have abused their e-mail client, and have done little to help novices protect their computers.

      And what about all the people that clicked on the attachment?!?!?!? Are they not partially to blame as well? I know at our company people know not to open attachments, unless they are 100% sure about what's in it.

      So all is probably fair in the sentence. However I'm not losing any sleep over poor corporate america losing some pocketchange then screaming they were robbed.

      --
      Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
    11. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by JanusFury · · Score: 1

      Outlook hasn't killed people. Ford has.

      Any questions?

      --
      using namespace slashdot;
      troll::post();
    12. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by mxwoz · · Score: 1

      The outlook argument is just lame. Lets suppose i go to my local 2 dollar shop and buy a padlock and lcok up my (insert item of huge value) and some crim breaks the lock then I have only myself to blame. Now if the lock said 100% secure blah blah, I might have a case But by now everyone knows or could know that msloth products are not secure. msloths poor manufacture and quality control (like the 2 dollar padlock) ensure they have no case to answer

    13. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by nathanh · · Score: 2

      Choose your own examples. The point was that companies can be held responsible for their products.

    14. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 2

      But Ford knew about the specific problem before the Pinto was released. They did crash tests which all showed this problem. They could have fixed it, but they didn't. The part would have cost a buck per car. And it was installed in Canadian Pintos anyway (their stricter safety standards required it). Ford's behavior was clearly unethical.

      And you couldn't even bother to read _Pinto Madness_, where you would have learned to spell Mark Dowie's name right.

    15. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 2

      I not only read Pinto Madness, but did a paper analysing it -- but this was some time ago, and remembering names has never been my strong point.

      Dowie contradicts himself repeatedly -- first claiming that Ford's production schedule shows how they "put profits ahead of safety" (and thus inferring that the vehicle could not have been made safe with such a short schedule) and quoting experts saying that the position of the gas tank is inherently unsafe (and that it could not have been made safe without retooling), and only when it supported the particular point he wished to make in saying that a much cheaper fix would work. He vastly overstates the risks involved in the Pinto (statistically speaking, it was much safer than other cars produced at the same time), and one of the major reasons it didn't get fixed before production was simply miscommunication. Remember, there's no one "Ford" entity; rather, there are a whole lot of separate people. The Ford engineers who did the later crash tests with additional safety measures installed clearly intended and expected to have their modifications produced -- but these expectations simply didn't make it up the line. (One of the good things to come out of the incident is a great deal of research with regard to the necessity of formal process in ensuring product safety, presently championed by a fellow who was the recall coordinator at Ford at the time and saw the incident from the inside; his view was that it was not any willful decisision on the part of upper management but rather a failure to have process for communicating and responding to such issues).

      However... Any product has known bugs. In a product like a car, those bugs can kill. If the product is safer than average as a whole, however, it's still a safe product, and while taking measures to make it still safer is most certainly a Good Thing to do (so long as those measures are cost-effective), its producer should not be subject to such as Ford received for failing to do so.

    16. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 2

      If the product is safer than average as a whole, however, it's still a safe product, and while taking measures to make it still safer is most certainly a Good Thing to do (so long as those measures are cost-effective), its producer should not be subject to such as Ford received for failing to do so.

      But if there is a deadly flaw, and a $1 part can fix the problem, and the fix is not applied, then the company in question *should* be in deep trouble. The engineers should have gone to management (Boisjoly did in the Challenger case, and that was only 7 lives on the line), and they shuold have gotten the problem fixed. The managers should have known about the crash tests, and should have refused to release.

      Certainly, if Dowie is to be believed, the Ford execs are culpable -- they campaigned for years against safety standards. The NHTSB is culpable too -- despite the thousands of people a year killed in rear-end collisions (far less than side or front, but still lots), they still don't require rear-end crash tests.

      Sure, not that many people died in Pinto rear-end crashes, but those deaths were trivially preventable. And there are no good stats on the number of injuries caused by these crashes.

    17. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 2

      I'm not so sure. Let's say that "deadly flaw" kills only one person (who was aware that the product, like others of its type, had risks associated) of the millions of purchasers, and that adding that $1 part (which, IIRC, was closer to $6 or $12 -- much more in today's currency) would have required several million dollars worth of retooling -- is it worth the price? If not for one person, then how many? Where do you draw that line? (Seriously... give me a figure and I'll go see if I still have the statistics to compare it against). Asking several million people to pay $1 each to save someone else's life (or to make themselves 0.0001% safer when driving) isn't something I'm entirely comfortable doing.

      Dowie attacks Ford for "putting a price tag on human life" -- but I don't think those who performed this analysis were wrong at all to do so; such cost/benefit analyses *do* need to be done -- I wouldn't agree with millions of tax dollars being spent to save one life, or even five or ten; why is it more imperitive that private spending occur with a similar cost/return (or, worse, without any regard at all to the same)?

      Without considering the full price to be paid (by not only Ford but by their investors and the car-buying public) and finding accurate statistics on the number of deaths being considered, I don't think one can come to a conclusion regarding whether Ford was in the right or in the wrong.

    18. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      ...would have required several million dollars worth of retooling...

      At least if stuff on the 'net is to be believed, moving the gas tank would have required retooling, but adding a piece of plastic to keep the bolts from going through the tank would not. If Dowie is right, the part was already installed on Canadian Pintos. And it was certainly possible for Ford to add them after the fact -- that's what they did in the recall.

      Asking several million people to pay $1 each to save someone else's life (or to make themselves 0.0001% safer when driving) isn't something I'm entirely comfortable doing.

      I am fairly comfortable with that. The way to do it is with regulation, so that all auto buyers must compete on a level playing field.

      And remember, it's not just deaths -- it's also serious burns. Does it help for you to think of the $1 (OK, say $10) as burn insurance?

    19. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      The way to do it is with regulation, so that all auto buyers must compete on a level playing field.

      What if I don't want to buy burn insurance? If this proactive "burn insurance" were worthwhile, it would also be economically valuable -- the difference in health insurance premiums between folks who have it and who don't would make buying the "burn insurance" the safe bet, creating an economic incentive for folks to do The Right Thing (even if they're big companies, presuming they offer the employees driving company vehicles health benefits). Since there's no difference in my health insurance rates based on whether I buy your burn insurance or not, I can conclude that my health insurance company came to the decision (either directly or by considering it too marginal to even think about) that the risks involved with me failing to have this proactive "burn insurance" aren't sufficient to try to stick me for even $10 extra over the lifetime of my vehicle.

      So... if I can come to a considered conclusion that I don't want to pay extra for your burn insurance, what the hell are you doing forcing me to buy it anyhow?

    20. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      What if I don't want to buy burn insurance?

      What if you don't want to buy auto insurance? Tough, it's mandatory in most states, and for good reason.

      There are costs to car accidents, especially those involving fire, and not just to the Pinto owners. The other driver in the accident could be hurt by the flames (dunno how common this is). Firefighters have to put out the flames, and risk their asses dragging your burning children out of the back seat (ok, maybe a bit melodramatic). The other person's car is more likely to be more damaged. Because fire trucks must get there, the highway will probably be backed up longer.

      So even if you feel lucky, you ought not to get to screw up everyone else's day.

    21. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Liability insurance is mandatory because failing to have it could easily lead to harm to others who aren't themselves responsible for the situation. I find your claims (that the other vehicle is more likely to be damaged, that the other driver could be hurt, &c) unconvincing -- find some statistics, and then I'll listen. Even so -- in my state, at least, any person rear-ending another vehicle is always automatically the responsible party. If they or their vehicle is harmed by the situation which they're responsible for creating -- tough shit.

    22. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      I hope you don't find my claims about fire engines and firefighters unconvincing -- it doesn't take statistics to see that! As for the rest, maybe I'm wrong -- what seems logical often isn't. I don't have any statistics, because I can't find them on the NHTSA site.

      "Even so -- in my state, at least, any person rear-ending another vehicle is always automatically the responsible party."

      Your state's laws are on crack.

    23. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are costs in terms of fire engines and firefighters -- but if the cost to purchase this "burn insurance" for every Pinto on the road would have been $13.7 million (1.37 million Pintos recalled * $10 each -- which dramatically underestimates the costs involved), one asks whether, even including these externalities, the cost of these vehicle fires was or remains sufficient to justify the expenses required to reduce their frequency -- a reduction which may have only resulted in a difference of about three rear-end collision fires a year (based on 1969 and 1978 statistics).

    24. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

    25. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by cduffy · · Score: 1
      You "absolutely" would spend $13.7 million to prevent three rear-end collision fires a year?

      Presuming each of these is deadly (unlikely!), my life would have to be worth over $4.5 million (more in today's dollars) to justify that expendature, even if I'm the one in the exploding Pinto. Take off $1 million for the fire fighters and such, and it's still far more than I'm worth. If you're worth more than that, fine -- you go buy burn insurance.

      Or do the costs seem less to you when "the government" or "Ford" is paying them?


      Okay, I'm going to go back and do my math a little better -- I was sloppy back there, and might as well do it right.

      The probability of dying in a car accident in any given year is roughly .015% (15 out of every 100,000 people per year). The probability of any fatal car accident being a rear-end collision is currently 1.87%. Let's say that every single fatal rear-ending of a Pinto were fire-involved (grossly untrue, of course) and would have resulted in no death whatsoever had the Pinto been fire-safe -- this would indicate that the probability of a driver of a Pinto being in a fatal rear-end crash in a year is 1 in 280,500 -- fairly low. Now, if this "burn insurance" were to cost $10/yr (and putting it into today's money, that's probably not too far off even after amortizing over a short but reasonably vehicle life), I would have to consider my life worth almost $3 million to consider your "burn insurance" a reasonable deal. Given that this "burn insurance" would not in fact render all rear-end accidents non-fatal (but rather make the Pinto up to about twice as safe as it was in this very specific variety of accident, depending on which year's figures one uses), the actual value is far over $6 million; I'd need some moure source data to calculate it accurately.


      $6 million is much more than the average human life is worth -- mine included. Once again -- you disagree, you go buy your own insurance.

    26. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      prizog: EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.

      anthony_dipierro: None of which changes the actual law.


      Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.

      prizog, quoting the GPL: "The act of running the Program is not restricted"

      anthony_dipierro: That however does...


      How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor, but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program). In Unfreedonia, maybe it's illegal to run a program without a license. So, the GPL allows one to run the program.

      anthony_dipierro: So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.

      I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.

      anthony_dipierro: But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA.

      Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.

      anthony_dipierro: You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right [first sale] to sell those lawfully made copies).

      Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.

      Your math is wrong -- you are assuming 13.7 million per year / 3 collsiions per year, instead of 13.7 million over the life of the Pinto (maybe ten years?). You are also assuming one death per collision, no additional injuries, no additional auto damage. In fact, on average, more than one person is killed in a fatal crash: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2002/809-439.pdf, and there are about ten injuries to each death in passenger cars. Below, you are assuming $10/year, rather than $10/car (I think I heard 7 years was an average life for a car). I think my life (and your life) is easily worth half a million bucks, especially considering the various other costs etc.

      And I'm not sure where you get the $10/part number -- it seems to me as arbitrary as $1/part, but at least I have some source for that (even though you don't like him). Actually, I'm not sure where you get any of your numbers. But even if they're accurate, you are abusing them:

      You write, "the probability of any fatal car accident being a rear-end collision is currently 1.87%", but that's in an average, modern car (i.e. one that presumably has been tested for the same design flaw the Pinto had), rather than a Pinto!

      Finally, buying insurance does not keep one from being killed or injured.

    27. Re:More jail time? uh..no.... by prizog · · Score: 1

      Oops, I am a moron. I pasted in from an emacs buffer I was using to respond to another message. Please disregard all but the last 4 paragraphs of the post.

  18. Only 64MB? I don't think so... by ncc74656 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Over the last few months he's put together a CompactFlash/IDE adapter card for the Apple //e and IIgs, and now he's taking orders. The largest hard drive that ProDOS supports, as flash RAM, costs $14!

    I have a 1GB hard drive hooked up to my IIGS right now...and all the space can be used. ProDOS 8 only allows 32MB partitions, but RamFAST and Apple rev. D SCSI cards provide various methods for mapping more than two drives to a physical slot. (ProDOS 8 itself allows for four drives if the controller is in particular slots.) The number of slot/drive combinations limits you to somewhere around 300-350MB maximum online storage with ProDOS 8 (the RamFAST will let you mark partitions active or inactive). If you're using a IIGS and its GS/OS, though, you just create a couple of 32MB ProDOS partitions (to boot and to run your 8-bit apps) and one big HFS partition to use up the entire drive. (The only downside to HFS is that you'll need a Mac to fix the partition if it's corrupted.)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    1. Re:Only 64MB? I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gig on a IIGS?

      That's a shit load of ASCII Pr0n!

      (Not to completely troll, great hack!)

  19. this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by molo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That web page linked to has a demo of their security flaw. It appears to be targeted at Windows users, trying to read from c:\.. but if you try to read this file under the Linux build, it crashes Mozilla.

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 1

      Report a bug then!

    2. Re:this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude why don't you send in a patch?

    3. Re:this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by Resist148 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This bug was fixed yesterday, the day that it was known by the mozilla developers. The crash is fixed, the bug is fixed, it's all fixed. You can see the bugzilla entry here.

    4. Re:this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by moncyb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe that example will, but not others. I'm using Mozilla under Linux too, and their other example allows me to browse my harddrive and look at files (the full page one--link is near the bottom of their page). I would assume that this technique can be used to send the contents of files to some server...this is bad.

      I don't know much about XMLHTTP. I suppose you still have to go to and evil site to be exploited, but still.

      I just want a browser that supports the more basic stuff HTTP, SSL, HTML, images, CSS, cookies, and simple javascript. Maybe I should just go back to Lynx--no images or javascript which means some sites don't work, however I'd rather be inconvienced than hacked.

    5. Re:this flaw will crash Mozilla under Linux by autechre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're thinking of going back to a text mode browser, you might try w3m. A few of the freshmeat.net staff use it for daily work (hey, there are only really a few of us anyway), and although I use mozilla most of the time, w3m is a fine browser that works great. SSL, frames, tables, and nice default key bindings (except under SuSE, who decided to change them. Bad! But I don't use SuSE, so...oh, well).

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  20. Project: CompactFlash / IDE Interface for Apple by taya0001 · · Score: 1, Informative

    The site is prob. already slashdotted so here is the introduction text from the site.

    Project Introduction:

    This page describes a project to create a CompactFlash / IDE Interface card for Apple II computers. The card is ProDOS 8 compatible, and GS/OS compatible with an extra driver. I did the original wire-wrap prototype over the span of several months. This project is very much a case of old technology (the Apple II computer) meets new (CompactFlash cards and Altera CPLDs).
    My reasoning for this project is described in detail in the Background section , but suffice it to say, I wanted to be able to pull out my old Apple II and use it from time to time to reminisce about the early days of personal computers. I wanted a reliable way to store my Apple II programs and data files for many years to come. Due to the long term reliability prospects of floppy drives, and my general laziness, I decided a mass storage device is what I needed.

    The Apple II was an excellent example of an open system, with unheard-of-today documentation like system schematics, firmware listings, and peripheral design tips. Indeed the only thing that was totally hidden was the source for the BASIC interpreter - "AppleSoft" written by giga-monopoly Microsoft. In the spirit of the Apple II this project is also an open project.

    I am currently in the process of assembling a run of 100 units and I am now taking orders. I have contacted everyone who has expressed some interest in this project. If you would like to order a CFFA unit, assembled and tested, please check out my order page . I am assembling these boards by hand and will fill orders in the order in which I receive payments. Also, please realize that hand assembly will mean that I will probably need a month or more to build them all. I will fill orders in batches of 10 or so, which could easily result in a delay of several weeks for your order.

  21. Melissa and David L. Smith by hypnotik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interestingly enough, one of my former roommates went to college with David Smith, when he was at UNC. She said he was a quiet, but rather odd man. She was very adamant about her impression that he wasn't really a bad guy.

    On a related note, how many people actually picked apart one of their copies of Melissa? The really nasty bit of code was only maybe 10 lines long. Doesn't seem like he had to go through all that much trouble to write the thing. For years I've been thinking that Microsoft should really be held accountable for building that capability into Outlook in the first place. Then just a couple weeks ago someone said that is like holding gun makers accountable for murders. Now I'm not so sure that MS is to blame - they had their reasons for building it in, dubious as they may be, and I'm sure people besides the virus writers have made use of this feature. Would calling for Microsoft to remove it be the same as calling for file sharing networks to be torn down just because people use them illegally?

    It's funny that I didn't notice how much of a hypocrite I was until it was pointed out to me.

    --
    (I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
    1. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by pete-classic · · Score: 2

      You weren't a hypocrite. But you have allowed rotten (neo-liberal?) thinking to cause you to be ashamed of you opinion.

      If a gun manufacture made a gun that could be caused to fire by someone who isn't even in the same room as the gun, AND the manufacture was aware of it, AND they did nothing (or touted it as a feature), AND consumers generally didn't understand the implications of this mis-feature THEN there would be a parallel here.

      I'm not saying Smith isn't culpable (that's D. Smith, not Smith & W. ;-) , I'm just saying that there is a difference between holding a company accountable for a product that is dangerous (and obviously so) when misused for the misuse and holding a company accountable for knowingly creating a shoddy product.

      Let's face it. Outlook is unsafe at any bitrate.

      -Peter

    2. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by ekidder · · Score: 2

      Bah. I've been using Outlook for.. well.. a few years now and I've never had any problems with it. Even the viruses I've received have been nothing more than minor annoyances. Outlook never automatically started scripts, opened files, or killed JFK.

    3. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by moncyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For years I've been thinking that Microsoft should really be held accountable for building that capability into Outlook in the first place. Then just a couple weeks ago someone said that is like holding gun makers accountable for murders. ... It's funny that I didn't notice how much of a hypocrite I was until it was pointed out to me.

      No, that person was wrong. Let's say there is a popular gun manufacturer called Smallnlimp. This is like if smallnlimp put in a "feature" that caused the weapon to go off anytime it detected a certain audio pattern. Then some whacko discovers if a specific other signal is sent immediately after, the guns will repeat both signals loudly--thereby causing other guns to go off too. The result? Millions of Smallnlimp's guns fire unexpectedly injuring and killing people as this signal is spread over open air and through telephone lines. Is Smallnlimp responsible for the guns going off? Maybe not directly...

      IIRC Microsoft patched this problem by not allowing Outlook Express to run executables directly, however IMO they have been very careless and irresponsible in how they've produced software--their whole objective seems to be to take over the world instead of producing quality software. The types of "viri" that require opening an attachment are only the tip of the iceburg. Code Red and Nimda are just two examples of real worms/viri that Microsoft has allowed to spawn. I dare someone to show me a security exploit in Apache/NFS/etc that would allow such a program to spread. In additon to bugs, their default settings and all the stuff they try to hide from the user (such as file extentions and the network settings) have allowed script kiddies to go freestyle on Winboxen. Between Microsoft and Redhat, more internet worms are probably on the way...

      The moderators can mod this as flamebait all they want, however it doesn't change the fact that this is an honest assessment of the MS by a person who has used their software for at least a decade.

    4. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Informative

      $80,000,000 US. I don't believe this number, but holy shit.

      Anyway, you are over-generalizing your personal experience.

      Everyone has heard someone say something along the lines of "I don't wear seat belts, because my uncle was in a car accident and was thrown free. If he had his seat belt on he would have been killed in the fire." Even if we assume this anecdote to be true it in no way controverts the statistical fact that a seat belt is far more likely to save the life of an adult than to end it.

      So, without regard to your personal experience cigarettes cause cancer, seat belts save lives, and Outlook is a security risk.

      -Peter

    5. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by Leeji · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, sounds like your the second person (aside from me, of course) on Slashdot with an open mind. Most people come here to read the stories, then force their opinion down the throad of others. Even when they need to bend facts, or use logically vapid (slippery slope / straw man / ad hominem / etc) arguments. Perhaps especially so :)

      --
      It all goes downhill from first post ...
    6. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by pod · · Score: 1
      Then just a couple weeks ago someone said that is like holding gun makers accountable for murders. Now I'm not so sure that MS is to blame - they had their reasons for building it in, dubious as they may be, and I'm sure people besides the virus writers have made use of this feature.

      The problem is that guns (generally) do not go off by themselves. They don't shoot random people across the globe. There is nothing wrong with all the features in Outlook, they just should be turned OFF by default, so anyone who needs them can still use them. Most people have no idea what is and isn't turned on in their software, or even how to check for it.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    7. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

      Bah. I've been jumping out of trees for...well...a few years now and i've never had any problems with that. Even the few times i've gotten scraped up were nothing more than minor annoyances. Jumping out of trees never hurts anyone, or causes damage, or kills OJ's wife!

      You get the idea.

      --


      Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
    8. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by Keithel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that guns (generally) do not go off by themselves. They don't shoot random people across the globe. There is nothing wrong with all the features in Outlook, they just should be turned OFF by default, so anyone who needs them can still use them. Most people have no idea what is and isn't turned on in their software, or even how to check for it.

      Exactly.

      Just as guns need trigger locks when the user is not in control, so should email clients, or other programs with access to the outside world. If the users wish to take the trigger locks off altogether, so be it. They take the risks then.

    9. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For years I've been thinking that Microsoft should really be held accountable for building that capability into Outlook in the first place. Then just a couple weeks ago someone said that is like holding gun makers accountable for murders Er it seems to me that since the problem is the defective microsoft product perhaps a better analogy would be holding gun manufacturers accountable for defective guns that blow up when you fire them...

    10. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Between Microsoft and Redhat, more internet worms are probably on the way...

      OK -- you've got a MS example, but where the hell do you pull RedHat out of? Just because they're the most widely used does not mean that they're necessarily the most evil/insecure/etc.


      -Turkey

      --

      -Turkey

    11. Re:Melissa and David L. Smith by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      t as guns need trigger locks when the user is not in control, so should email clients, or other programs with access to the outside world.

      What you suggest sounds like a good chunk of the functionality that a personal firewall (ala ZoneAlarm et al) provides.

      If Microsoft put a personal firewall into Windows as a valueadd, their Justice Department (et al) prosecuters would have a field day with MS. Microsoft needs to be real careful about the value-adds that they drop into their OS'es now for fear of being "predatory".


      -Turkey

      --

      -Turkey

  22. prodos by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I could well be wrong about this - it's been many years since I've used a ][... I seem to remember that very little of the early Apple software would work with ProDOS. All the little BASIC games were no problem, but most of the commercial titles would boot directly from the floppy (not the System Master disk with DOS 3.3 or whatever it was). I don't recall having a way to save them to my hard disk.

    So anyway, if I get this card and put ProDos on the drive, is there some way I can just load all my floppies onto there as images, and run them after booting into ProDos?

    1. Re:prodos by Halvard · · Score: 1

      I ran them from a hard drive. I had a 40MB Applied Engineering hard drive/beefed up power supply gizmo. Formatted 8MB Apple DOS 3.3, 16MB Apple ProDOS and 16MB MSDOS 3.2. I also has an Applied Engineering card w/ an NEC V-20 chip so by hot key, I could switch out from the Apple ][E to a 12MHZ (I think) PC with PC keyboard and floppies as well as the Apple keyboard and floppies. I had no trouble and used this setup until about 1994. God, AE made better Apple stuff than Apple. I still regret parting this out, selling the RAM Factor board with gel cell battery backup and all.

  23. Re:Great ... by Kircle · · Score: 1

    For Mozilla, that would be true. But Netscape 6.x is considered a final release. Hence Netscape is screwed.

    --

    -- Kircle

  24. IE is really innovative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It had this security bug first!

  25. Re:Great ... by zCyl · · Score: 2

    So what does that make bugs in open source software, "documented features" since the source is open?

    I would say they are "obfuscated features", since yeah, it's there, but if anybody could read the source they would see the bug. :)

  26. Creative VoIP by cfreeze · · Score: 2, Interesting
    buy.com has them still, though not for the price listed on the creative.com website. buy.com

    I'm just glad mine came in via fedex today.

  27. kernal? by PinkFreud · · Score: 1

    Just a nitpick, but I'm absolutely amazed at the number of people who cannot spell 'kernel'.

    A hint for you Linux users (and for those who say it doesn't matter) - www.kernal.org doesn't distribute the Linux kernel.

  28. Another idea for the Spambot trap by Software · · Score: 2, Informative

    IIRC, IE always looks for a "favicon.ico" file. If the browser has a User-Agent corresponding to IE, but doesn't request favicon.ico, it's a spambot. This is easy for the spambot to defeat, but it's one more step.

    1. Re:Another idea for the Spambot trap by wadetemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that's not true. IE6 only looks for favicon.ico when a user bookmarks or creates a shortcut to a URL, or uses a bookmark/shortcut. I just tested this to be sure. As far as I know this is also the case with IE5 and IE4.

    2. Re:Another idea for the Spambot trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half-Correct... I believe the icon support was added in IE5, but not IE4.

      For anyone that cares, Mozilla does request favicon.ico everytime.

  29. Mozilla bug already fixed by davie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I won't post the bug number (bugzilla won't allow links from slashdot anyway), but it's already been fixed as of tonights builds, if I remember correctly.

    --
    slashdot broke my sig
    1. Re:Mozilla bug already fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ?
      Average users just install the critical updated notification and that's it.
      Putting it in a nightly build is hardly a good enough pathc for an issue this serious.

    2. Re:Mozilla bug already fixed by davie · · Score: 2

      mozilla is for developers, not "average users".

      If you want hand-holding, use Netscape's release.

      --
      slashdot broke my sig
    3. Re:Mozilla bug already fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting it in a nightly build is hardly a good enough pathc for an issue this serious.

      Exactly how serious is this? Can it cause the browser to execute foreign code? No. Can it read sensitive data from your Mozilla profile? No. You need the exact filename to retrieve anything. Mozilla is used by a small minority, why would anyone specifically target mozilla users? There are (almost) no average users using mozilla.

      And the fix will be in RC2 or 1.0, whichever comes next.

    4. Re:Mozilla bug already fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a big pile of flaming mucous-coated donkey shit, you know that? your opinion of users is so low you should be barred from software development. mozilla is just as easy to handle as any other browser, and in many cases it's easier than IE (check the preferences menu, NS holdover but still much better than IE's list).

      fucking hell, man. take your holier-than-thou attitude and shove it up your ass until you can taste it.

  30. security hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The bug is a more serious variant of one patched in Microsoft's Internet Explorer in February

    If Microsoft fixed the bug, it must have been pretty serious to begin with.

  31. hm... yes... no... by Error27 · · Score: 3, Funny
    I have to admit that I'm impressed with the little file browser that they wrote for mozilla. It's pretty intuitive, it looks nice and it simply worked.

    On the other hand, I have to think the greymagic guys could have found more productive ways to spend their time. For example, it would have taken 5 minutes to emaile the mozilla secur... well...

    Wait, what am I thinking? Writing a file browser is definately the most productive thing to do...

  32. How many lights do you see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see.....four.....lights!!!!

  33. that's a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Blame the victims for not protecting themselves better.

    "Yes the man broke into your house and stole your money, but it's really your fault for not having better security"

    Is that what you're saying?

    1. Re:that's a good idea by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like he was saying:

      "You invite hundreds of anonymous strangers to randomly walk through your house, with no supervision, and now you want to cry foul because someone ate all your poridge, broke your chair, and slept in your bed? Stop crying and grow up."

  34. I hate when people criticize Opera by inerte · · Score: 5, Informative

    Opera and Omniweb are funded by smaller companies, companies that don't have deep pockets like AOL or Microsoft, so in some small way they can be forgiven for the steps that they take to make money to support themselves. These browsers at least offset their nagging with the ability to block popups and images.

    Now, how about saving sets of opened page to continue browsing them anytime. I have several of them, one for each subject I commonly browse for. And continue to browse the last opened pages if your browser/operating system crashes. Import and Export bookmarks and email contacts. Browse offline content, delete every personal info left on your computer by your browser with two clicks (for the privacy freaks), multiple languages supported, pre defined texts to fills forms, 13 search engines available in a tab. Skins, layout customization, modify settings of html text and link tags, load your own css, zoom, block frames, load only cached images, report Javascript errors. Identify the browser as being another (right, "you must use IE to view this page" crap). Full control over cache and cookies. And password protection. Not to mention fully functionals email and newsgroup clients, low comsumption of computer resources, all in 3.2 megas.

    And if everything here didn't catch your attention, two words:

    "Mouse gestures".

    That alone is worth a thousand dollars. Hover a link, right click and up+down with mouse. Page loads at the background. Open 25 links this way, hold mouse button, down+right, close current window. Do it for every page you have found. Hold mouse button and press another, back to pages you previously visited. Another way of buttons, forward the pages.

    Opera was worth every cent I paid for. With it, my productivity raised so much I can't live without anymore. I do programming for living, and if having +20 windows opened at the same time, searching for information with Google, discussing at newsgroups, and reading mailing lists, weren't delivered so fast and nice over the last years that I am using Opera, I know a lot of work would not have been done.

    1. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by snol · · Score: 1
      Opera is pretty nice, true. But in mozilla if you happen to have a middle button you can set things up so's you can middle-click a link and open in the background (nicer for me than down-up gesturing since I do a lot of this, and yes I did start out with opera gestures.) Further, you can get gestures in mozilla easily using optimoz. Up till recently they wouldn't work right with the right button but now they seem to, and in any case middle button works fine. There's also a few installation issues with linux (have to install as root and chmod a+rx manually...) but once they're set up they're as good as opera's. You can also edit the gestures in some .js file or another.

      You're right about a few of those features you mentioned in the first paragraph. Saving your current set of pages to be reopened on startup in case of a crash would be nice, as would easier user-agent modification. But if it's gestures that's worth a grand to you, mozilla's already got them.

    2. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      Opera is SWEET.>

      It IS annoying though that they charged me $15 extra so that I could use Opera under Win32 AND Linux on the same friggin box

      OTOH, Opera does remember groups of sites/windows I open so I guess the money I saved balances out the bitching from above ;)

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    3. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not spread misinformation!!!!

      The gestures are not as good as Opera's, definitely not in Linux.

      - The right mouse button still brings up context menu, although the gestures actually work now (GASP)
      - The gesture detection is very poor, you have to be far more precise than in Opera
      - There are far less, far less intuitive gestures by default
      - There is a bug in which using gestures makes you have to right click twice in order to bring up the context menu each time you open a new tab (via any means)

      The list goes on.

      Please refrain from spreading misinformation when your brain power is extremely low.

    4. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by StuffYourReligion · · Score: 1

      I was surprised by the first poster's mention of using a gesture to open a link in the background, because that seems like a PITA to me.

      In Opera, I do exactly what you are speaking of in Mozilla--middle-click a link and it opens either:
      A) in another window in the background
      B) in another window in the foreground

      (user-definable preference)

      And I also use Galeon, which does a wonderful job of saving windows when I exit the program or when it crashes. Galeon also can usually display the few web pages that don't work with Opera (usually because of cruddy HTML).

      Neither one has figured out how to support Java properly in linux, but that's only a minor bother (more bothersome are web devvies who use Java applets in the first place).

      --
      I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
    5. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by FrenZon · · Score: 1

      If you like Opera's mouse gesturing, try stroke-it - it's a mouse gesturing system for windows, and with a bit of configuration, (changing 'launch browser from 'W' to '\', for example), you will find that you don't even bother clicking on icons to launch them, since it's easier to use a gesture.

      Highly recommended.

    6. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is incredibly fast and renders pages (say, with css2) in general better than IE, but not quite as well as Mozilla. (tho Mozilla is *much* slower)

      Mozilla has (or will) adopted many of the features that make Opera stand out, except it's less "elegant", ie, bigger and slower. (Try taking a huge text file, rename it to .html, add <p> and &lt/p> tags at either end of the file, and load it. Mozilla takes forever, IE is decent, Opera is a little faster.)

    7. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Cocksmack,

      You could've saved yourself fifteen bucks by getting the serial off google.

      If that doesn't sit well with you then you could've just paid for the lunix version and cracked the Windows version.

      Much Love,

      Troll-I-Suck-the-AIDsy-Diarrhea-from-Malda's-Ass -a x0r

    8. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by snol · · Score: 1
      Please refrain from spreading misinformation when your brain power is extremely low.

      heh, I like that.

      Anyway, I could be mistaken about the right-button problem being fixed, but middle mouse works very nicely (once you disable the default behavior under unix of automatically trying to open as an URL whatever happens to be on the clipboard at the moment...) If the gestures are less intuitive, then ain't it nice you can change them? And if detection is poor then I haven't noticed... maybe I'm just a precise gesturer or something.

      Like I say, not trying to discredit opera at all, just saying Mozilla has a very usable gesture package of its own, so don't go getting defensive. silly AC

    9. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by stevey · · Score: 1
      "Mouse gestures".
      That alone is worth a thousand dollars

      Yeah I like them too, which is why I use Mouse Gestures in Mozilla - both at home under Linux, and at work with Windows 2000.

    10. Re:I hate when people criticize Opera by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Opera's CSS support is not that good. OK, it's not bad, but it's also nothing to shout from the rooftops about.

      Now, let's talk about DOM. Oh wait, Opera's DOM support is weaker than IE4's

  35. VoIP by JDizzy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nothing wrong with the linkage to the VoIP, it has not been removed from their production web site. I ordered my 4 units days after the initial /. post!

    http://www.americas.creative.com/products/produc t. asp?maincategory=7&category=&product=203&nav=spec

    So if you can see that link then it proves them wrong! Unless they have run out of stock, they seem to be still selling units.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:VoIP by Jester998 · · Score: 2

      Going to that link,

      "Our apologies...

      The document you requested does not exist on this server or cannot be served.

      It is possible you typed the address incorrectly, or that the page no longer exists.
      "


      - Jester

    2. Re:VoIP by pbryan · · Score: 2

      Did you notice that the "Buy Now" button, which was on the page when they were selling it, and is present for virtually every other product on their site, is now gone?

      --

      My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

    3. Re:VoIP by JDizzy · · Score: 2

      actually... now that I take the time to spider their site.. I can find many things having issue, not just this product. It appears that the Creative web team must be messing with the image path, or system there in. It seems to mainly be the images.

      For some reason the link I posted above doesn't work for me now, but when I click here I get to the site. But it doesn't have the "buy now" button, and the drop-down menu for the single or two-fer deal. However, many other pages don't have that image, and the ones that do have it all seem to have a different face to the image... like the price is $99, or $45 on others. So my guess is they ahve to recreate the button whent he price changes... however, that does't explain the other issues the site is having with the other images on the site.

      Anyways, I'm glad that I got to purchase mine, and that I can confirm they are in transite. I did get mine after, like two days, the slashdot article. I got 2 kits of 2 each, 4 in all for under $40 USD.

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
  36. $14 is for the flash, not the interface card by sitruc37diesel · · Score: 1

    You couldn't get hard drive interfaces manufactured for $14 a piece for something that will draw as little interest as this.

    ProDOS supported 32mb partitions, so i'm assuming the $14 is for a 32mb flash card.

    1. Re:$14 is for the flash, not the interface card by zeno_2 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here is a pic

      Its a 64mb flash card

  37. Punishments for melissa by BLiP2 · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine who's a judge joked about how they should approve the death penalty for the writer of Melissa back during its heyday. The really funny and/or worrisome part is that now he's a State Supreme Court Justice in VA.

    --
    Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
    1. Re:Punishments for melissa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should find some more respectable friends.

  38. A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please note, this is intended as a joke. It has been done before, but it is intended as a joke.

    If you get a spam from China, reply with a message (in Chinese if possible) stating :
    Thank you for your continued support of the Falun Gong movement. It's great to see that people even in China understand the horrible oppression under which members of Falun Gong live. I look forward to your future e-mails on this issue.

    A friend of a friend did this (and now if you tell the story, you can say it was a friend of a friend of an anonymous guy posting on a weblog :), after reporting the spam numerous times to abuse@domain. This was the only one to elicit a response, which followed the lines of "What are you trying to do? Get me killed?"

    The spammer had to call his local government agency as soon as he received the e-mail to let them know that it did *not* reflect his opinion.

    1. Re:A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the spammer told your friend's friend that he/she/it had to call a government agency? talkative for a spammer... (although not totally unbelievable)

    2. Re:A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you make friends with the spammers, maybe they won't email you anymore. :)

    3. Re:A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as I said, it was a second-hand story. But from what I was told, there was a brief exchange of e-mails - not just the one.

    4. Re:A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After downloading ~2000 emails last night over a modem, of which ~98% were spam I can't say I'd mind seeing some spammer flayed and drug through the street. I would pay for the privilage. Seriously.

  39. Slashdot running MICROSOFT commercials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot running Microsoft Commercials. I want to puke.

  40. Bugzilla Bug 141061 by DVega · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bug 141061 - XMLHttpRequest allows reading of local files

    When an http server redirects the user to a local file, XMLHttpRequest gets tricked into thinking the page came from the http server.

    Bug Reported on 2002-04-29 17:46
    Bug Fixed on 2002-05-01 09:11

    --
    MOD THE CHILD UP!
  41. You can't beat the SpamBots by nautical9 · · Score: 1
    In the evolutionary ladder, SpamBots are just crawling out of the ocean. It's only a matter of time before they will look and feel exactly like a human surfer - HTTP is too simple a protocol to allow otherwise.

    It'd be a simple matter to write a SpamBot that gets pages with a random delay in between hits, that spoofs the Referer, User-Agent, and other headers, that actually downloads images to /dev/null, etc.

    So how does one fight it? Unfortunately, you just have to do what most big weblog sites are doing - obfuscation, either with random text strings, or by dynamically generating an image with the email address in it.

    Or, you can offer an online HTML form that will send the email out to the address you have on file (but don't display it in plain text anywhere). Not a great solution, as the email will come from your server, and most people like to use their own mail agent, but at least there's no way for the SpamBot to gain access to the email list.

    I think trying to develop automated "traps" for SpamBots is a battle we just can't win, at least until every ISP in the world doesn't allow their users to send out spam (read: never).

    1. Re:You can't beat the SpamBots by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time I wrote a spambot (assingment for a begining Java Class I never did distribute this accursed thing), and from that I figured out that most spambots are probibly pretty dumb.
      They follow links parsing for @ signs and then compare what they find to a pattern that can find a valid email address.
      but at the same time these (and most other) spiders never actualy "see" the web page.
      So it is not too dificult to crapflood them. Give them links to endless series of pages with valid looking, but probibly bogus email address (or better yet the address of people you don't like). just make these links in font size 1 with a color that closly, but not exactly matches the background (using the hex colorcodes you can choose a close color that is not web safe and it often renders the same color as the background), also be kind enough to include the files that start this endless loop of crap data in the exculded portion of your robots.txt to keep legitmit spiders out.

      True that we will not "win" the battle against spam until it is absoulutly ilegal and enforced but with enough angry webmasters you canrender spambots absolutly useless

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  42. I can out-evil this. by Wntrmute · · Score: 2

    Think spyware which harvests every single email address that crosses your computer. Everything from web pages you visit to emails you send and recieve. Viruses have used this technique, why not spy/marketingware?

    Of course, I do concider this evil, and would rather beat my head into a brick wall than code something like that.

  43. Galeon plz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    galeon may have a bug here or there, but is so clean and fast, and un bloated that its worth it. its like (IE - M$ + Gnome == Galeon)

  44. That's pretty damned cool by John+Miles · · Score: 1

    Any links available to that text in Chinese?

    --
    Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    1. Re:That's pretty damned cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah - friend-of-a-friend as I said. But you could try asking slashdot :)

  45. My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Instead of an active SPAMBOT defense as mentioned in this post, I use a passive system. I might have mentioned this in the orginal story but I think it bears repeating.

    What I do is include on every web page I produce an invisible 1x1 gif with a mailto: to a special e-mail address. My goal is not to prevent SPAMBOTS or even try to confuse them. I want them to scarf up the special e-mail address. When SPAM is sent to this address, I have scripts on my Mac OS X system that downloads the e-mail and scans it for headers, subject and body message. Once it collects this information, it sends a copy to SpamCop and then it sends the info to my postfix e-mail server to scan other accounts for the same message and then updates my postfix configuration to block further e-mails. I give my "special e-mail address" a name that will alphabetically sort before any other e-mail addresses in my domain. I have noticed SPAMMERS tend to send SPAMs out in alphabetical order to my domain so this works fairly well. I have never had a false positive with this method.

    The great thing about this system is that 90% of the time I report SPAM to SpamCop, it says its a fresh SPAM. So not only am I helping to prevent SPAM to my users, I am hopefully helping others that are using SpamCop's RBL.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by pnatural · · Score: 2

      The great thing about this system is that 90% of the time I report SPAM to SpamCop, it says its a fresh SPAM. So not only am I helping to prevent SPAM to my users, I am hopefully helping others that are using SpamCop's RBL.

      How certain are you that they are unique spammers, and not just the same spammers with new tricks?

    2. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I give my "special e-mail address" a name that will alphabetically sort before any other e-mail addresses in my domain. I have noticed SPAMMERS tend to send SPAMs out in alphabetical order to my domain so this works fairly well.

      Not any more...

      Yours Truly, Spambot Author Extraordinaire,
      Dmitry Sklyarov

    3. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2
      How certain are you that they are unique spammers, and not just the same spammers with new tricks?

      With my system, I am expecting to receive SPAM not stop it at the source. So I do not care if the SPAMMER is unique or not. What matters to me is the SPAM itself. With that, I can check out my users mailbox to see if it has gotten to them yet and update my mail server to block the SPAM based of its characteristics. I send the info over to SpamCop in hopes that it helps out others. Don't cost me nuttin' to do it.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    4. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Please try! It only makes my system better. The more is sent, the better it gets at preventing it. Feed the "special e-mail address" with more SPAM!!!

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    5. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was doing something similar, then recently checked out the alexa site for my site and saw that the contact e-mail address was "fuckinspammers@thatdomain" -- not good for my employer! heheheheh

      I assume they just lifted the first mailto tag they found on the home page and figured that was the contact address (and ignored the meta tag that explicitly tells you who the contact is...)

      Sigh...

    6. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by mblase · · Score: 2

      You should publish this little trick as a script tool for Apache or other web servers, or encourage SpamCop to make it available for them -- it may not last, surely the popular SpamBots will figure a way around it eventually -- but it's clever and clearly effective.

    7. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2
      No need for Apache or web server scripts. Its as simple as this:

      <A HREF="mailto:special.email@mydomain.com"> <IMG SRC="invisible.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="Don't Send E-Mail To This Address"> </A>

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    8. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      Where is this image? I can't find it on your web site.

    9. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by mblase · · Score: 2

      Yes, but I meant the server-scripts that capture the requests to that email address and send them to SpamCop auto-magically. 'Twould be nice to automate that all over the WWW.

    10. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Sorry. You are going to have to buy a Mac and Microsoft Office v.X. That part runs under AppleScript. Entourage downloads the e-mail for the SPAM catching account which triggers a rule that activates the AppleScript which relays a copy of the SPAM to SpamCop before sending it over to my perl scripts for scanning the SPAM for my postfix servers.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    11. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by asackett · · Score: 2

      I do a very similar thing, (local rbldns instead of postfix, ORDB instead of SpamCop, Debian instead of OS-X) and it works very well. I have also got a local address that I can bounce mail to for reporting and inclusion in my local (self-maintaining) blocklist. My system was more effective before ORBZ got Cindied, but it still catches 90% or more of the spam that would have been delivered here.

      On average, I block 72 deliveries per day, and five or six spam messages get through; each of those five or six gets manually bounced to my local reporting address.

      My slashdot@ address gets the stuffing spammed out of it -- it's a spamtrap address, also, feeding right into my local reporting system. Of all of my spamtrap addresses, it's the most effective. But of all of my in-house methods, the most effective, hands-down, is the blocking of all of Asia.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    12. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by trolliamnot · · Score: 0

      I think he was replying to "SPAMMERS tend to send SPAMs out in alphabetical"

    13. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2
      On average, I block 72 deliveries per day, and five or six spam messages get through; each of those five or six gets manually bounced to my local reporting address.

      That sounds very close to my success. As much as I try and no matter how I try, 5 to 6 slip through every day to my normal e-mail address. Those are usually one-off SPAMs generally selling SPAMMER CDs. :)

      My slashdot@ address gets the stuffing spammed out of it -- it's a spamtrap address, also, feeding right into my local reporting system. Of all of my spamtrap addresses, it's the most effective.

      Damn good idea. Time to post a fake e-mail address to Slashdot. Thanks!

      But of all of my in-house methods, the most effective, hands-down, is the blocking of all of Asia.

      Yep, same here. I hate doing it though but it is super effective.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    14. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by pashdown · · Score: 1

      You should also bounce them into Vipul's Razor so the hash of the body can be used against future spam via the VR client and SpamAssassin.

      For the last week I've been seeding the net with bogus addresses that all pump into the Razor. Its quite entertaining making newsgroup posts and web pages that you know are like sugar-candy for the spammer email harvesters.

    15. Re:My SPAMBOT defense by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Thanks for the info. I will research this option and see if I can integrate it into my system.

      Just curious. What is your e-mail plant to first SPAM timeframe? I average about 1 1/2 weeks before I receive SPAM on a seeded address.

      An interesting side to planting e-mail addresses is the random Outlook based viruses that arrive in the mailbox. A part of my script is to segregate "SPAMs" w/ Windows executable attachments from those without once I discovered this side effect. I manually process SPAM with executables. Since I run Mac OS X, I don't fear dealing with these buggers. :) Have you seen the same thing with your SPAM plants?

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  46. Was that a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're talking about the browser that has been plagued by security bug upon security bug almost every week for the past four years? *That* IE? Or do you know of a different IE?

    I mean, the IE I know has major gaping security bugs such as the Javascript "back button" bug, which MS has known about since last November but still not fixed.

    Do you even read what the updates in Windows XP's automatic updating do? You'd be horrified at the IE bugs you've been sitting with.

    No, clearly you must be talking about a *different* Internet Explorer.

    How can people fall so blindly for propaganda in the face of overwhelming evidence?

    1. Re:Was that a joke? by xWeston · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that some of the bugs that IE deals with are obviously dealt with in some of the other browsers as well...
      This bug that mozilla has was found in IE before and fixed before mozilla got it fixed... less bugs are found because the user base is smaller.

      I agree that IE is the fastest and best browser around currently. I used to always download netscape back in the ie3 days, but now i havent found anything better. There are features that i do like about opera, etc, that i hope get integrated into IE.
      It is nice to know how fast you are downloading a page at, how much longer it will take to download, etc... tabbed windows - that kind of jazz.

  47. Mozilla by tetraminoe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    With 1.0 around the corner

    ...just like it has been for three decades...

  48. What, haven't you heard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information wants to be free! Why do you publish something on the web if you don't want people to download it? Get on the cluetrain already!

  49. Virus Writer Prison Precedent by xee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This does not just set the precedent that virus writers can be put in prison for their code, this sets precedent that writing software can land you in prison. This is a very bad thing no matter how you slice it. This precedent flies in the face of the "Software as Free Speech" argument favored by most slashdotters. I, as a long-time slashdot reader, am appalled at the support for this judgement. A man has been imprisoned for writing software. Not killing, raping, or even dealing drugs. No, just writing software. What will it come to next? Will I be imprisoned for describing a virus in public where anyone could put my ideas to code? Will they be imprisoned for putting my ideas to code?

    SOFTWARE IS FREE SPEECH!!!

    And what of a writer whose essay starts riots? Will we as slashdotters stand behind the writer voicing his opinion or will we say that his speech caused riots in which people died? Don't we, as slashdotters, support free speech in all its forms regardless of the harm it may cause? DeCSS could cause as much damage to the MPAA as Melissa did to the rest of the corporate world. Why do we stand behind DeCSS and its authors and not the poor MPAA victims? Because DeCSS is protected speech, that's why!

    I'm not arguing that what the guy did was right or wrong. That's a matter of opinion. I am arguing that Melissa was free speech. It was exploit code demonstrating a security hole in Microsoft Outlook. Was it irresponsible of someone to spread it in the wild? Hell yes. But it was just plain old exploit code nonetheless.

    --
    Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
    1. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Cowculator · · Score: 1

      You want to argue this in terms of constitutional rights? Fine. Go read the Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. United States (1919), a case where an American Socialist party official was arrested for violating the recently passed Espionage Act. Schenck's crime was the distribution of anti-WWI pamphlets that had the potential to encourage people to evade the draft.

      The Supreme Court upheld both the Espionage Act and Schenck's conviction because national security was at stake. The majority opinion was the source of the famous line about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - you don't have the right to do that because it could cause a panic and result in injuries and other damage. The Court has upheld several times since then (especially in obscenity cases) the idea that speech is only protected when it is meaningful.

      When an essay incites rioting, the damage is voluntary: You don't have to read the essay, you can stop any time you want to, and there's nobody with a gun to your head forcing you to run outside and loot other people's homes. You don't get to stop executing a virus once you've started, and (admittedly thanks to poor security on the part of Microsoft) sometimes it can even start itself without warning you. This is why writing and distributing viruses is illegal: It forcibly causes damage to others. You have the right to swing a baseball bat as much as you want around your own computer, but once you walk up to another person's computer and swing it into his monitor (after all, would you be able to stop someone with a bat?) you've just destroyed his property and made yourself liable for the damages.

    2. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Leeji · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I agree that software is free speech -- just as I agree that designing firearms is free (innovation / art / somethingorother.)

      However, (releasing this software and causing damage) / (pulling the trigger and maiming somebody) is not.

      --
      It all goes downhill from first post ...
    3. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree!

      Now, if only the person responcable handing out sticks at the roit (MS) where in jail too!

    4. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by sheldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let me see if I understand you. Basically you are saying that writing words is free speech.

      Ok, granted.

      But if I spray paint a "LOVE THE WORLD!" on the side of your car is that protected by the 1st amendment?

    5. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by commodoresloat · · Score: 2
      To be fair, Schenck is only cited these days for its elaboration of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, which it really didn't follow (at least, to my knowledge, most constitutional scholars agree that the Court has implicitly acknowledged this). But you're right that national security has always (and will, at least for the foreseeable future, given the current Court) trumped the right to publish and the right to know. Even when the government has been blatantly wrong the Court has been wishy washy at best about protecting speech (see the Pentagon Papers case).

      But that does not mean that writing viruses should be considered incitement
      a priori, especially if there is a good spokesperson for open security models in front of the Court ... writing and distributing viruses in order to better understand them is likely to be considered protected speech, whereas distributing viruses in order to cause damage to computers you have no right to access is likely to be considered conduct outside the protection of the First Amendment. And I don't think it is that hard to draw the line, and while I think this Court has done some outrageous things, I think they are bright enough to draw such a line. At least I hope so.

      By the way, the comment that "The Court has upheld several times since then (especially in obscenity cases) the idea that speech is only protected when it is meaningful" is not backed up by anything I have seen in obscenity law. Or any other First Amendment law. Who decides what is meaningful?

    6. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by weave · · Score: 3, Informative
      He not only wrote it, he also used a hacked AOL account to deliver it.

      I think it's the difference between posession (of a firearm) and the use of one in a crime.

      -- weave, Law and Order syndicated rerun graduate of 2002

    7. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Cowculator · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court has ruled on obscenity laws several times before. In Roth v. United States (1957), it ruled that obscenity is not protected as free speech and appealed to community standards to determine what is obscene. In Miller v. California (1973), it defined obscene material as that which "appeals to the prurient interest" of the average person and has no "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

      And more recently, there was the case whose name I don't remember of the Michigan man who was convicted of cursing in front of women and children - his canoe had tipped over and he just screamed as many obscenities as he could. IIRC, he was fined some trivial amount, but he appealed and his conviction was upheld everywhere because his speech wasn't considered meaningful. This only happened within the last year or so, so the idea that speech must have some value to be protected probably isn't going to be refuted any time soon.

    8. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by aderusha · · Score: 0

      the man in michigan's conviction and fine were upheld in an appeal, and then overturned in the subsequent appeal last month - shouting obscenities is indeed free speech, AND I'M FUCKING HAPPY FOR IT!!!

      http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/opinio ns / inal/coa/20020329_c225747(55)_225747.opn.pdf

    9. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by wyldwolf · · Score: 1

      Next thing you're going to tell me is that my grand-ma's receipe for pound-cake is protected under free speech.

    10. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you're allowed free speech. But if you start shouting it outside my bedroom window at three in the morning, expect the police to show up and charge you with disturbing the peace. If your free speech involves handing a five year old a gun and telling them it would be fun to shoot another kid, well I hope they lock you up for life.

      If he'd just written the program, he shouldn't be in jail. If he'd written the program and put it on a website detailing that this would be a dangerous virus and why, and someone else then released it, well he could claim that his actions should be protected under free speech. But he wrote the virus and set it on others, knowing it would do damage. And for that, he deserves to be locked up.

    11. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      What he really did was more like writing, "WRITE THIS SENTENCE ON CARS!" on the side of a small number of cars. Now, that is a bad thing to do. (But jail? Depends on how many cars he vandalized, I guess.) The sick thing is that other people saw the vandalized cars, and did what they were told. If I write "WRITE THIS SENTENCE ON CARS!" and you obey, then you're responsible for the cars you spraypaint, not me.

      Personal computers are agents of their owners or users. People will say that computers are too complicated and that it's not reasonable to hold people accountable for what their computers do. Yet if I were to harm someone else with a car or a gun and then blame it on the equipment, I would be laughing all the way to jail. And if I deploy such equipment in a manner where it acts independent of my control (let my cat Toonces drive my car, let my chimp play with my gun) the words "criminal negligence" would come up a lot at my trial.

      But when we're talking about computers, suddenly all the rules are different?

      People need to ask themselves when they deploy a certain products, "Am I taking reasonable precautions and due dilligence?" And unless they bury their head in the sand and put their hands over their ears childishly yelling, "la la la I am not listening" then they damned well know they are being negligent and irresponsible. This isn't 1977 anymore, and that certain company's reputation is well-established. I mean, when I say, "Dangerous Active Content" everybody knows who I'm talking about. And yet people still deploy this company's products. Fool me a hundred times, shame on me.

      Anyway, that's why I think the responsibility, the blame, the fines, the jail time, the karma loss, should all be distributed -- not just dumped on this one guy who wrote "WRITE THIS SENTENCE ON CARS" on a few cars.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

      Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...

      You also forgot to click "Make sure I know what the hell I'm talking about".

      It startles me that anyone would wave their flag and cry "freedom of speech!" without the very simple understanding that the right to freedom of speech is NOT unlimited.

      You've heard of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, right? If speech convinces people to behave unlawfully or with disregard for safety, it is not protected.

    13. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by sheldon · · Score: 2

      That's not entirely accurate, since the programmer also put a mechanism in there to force unsuspecting users into writing on the cars.

      The point is, as far as the law is concerned, there was damage done, but more importantly there was intent to commit the damage. There was no accident here, he wrote the virus knowing the entire time what the impact would be.

    14. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      The Supreme Court has ruled on obscenity laws several times before. In Roth v. United States (1957), it ruled that obscenity is not protected as free speech and appealed to community standards to determine what is obscene. In Miller v. California (1973), it defined obscene material as that which "appeals to the prurient interest" of the average person and has no "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

      Ummm, yeah. I know. But they have never said that speech is not protected if it is not "meaningful." It has said that speech is not protected if it is obscene, which is a very different thing, as you explain above. The Miller standard requires that material appeal to prurient interest and lack "serious literary artistic, political, or scientific value" in order to be considered obscene and thereby unprotected. The Supreme Court to my knowledge has never said that only "meaningful" speech is protected (whatever "meaningful" means!)

    15. Re:Virus Writer Prison Precedent by xee · · Score: 2

      Slashdot has some STUPID moderators. :D

      Yeah, my post was bullshit, but it got a +4 Insightful. So i'm ROFLMFAO.

      --
      Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
  50. about time.. by Suppafly · · Score: 2

    Its about time the mozilla mongers got put in there place.. On the plus side, I guess this means mozilla is getting popular enough now that people bother to find exploits.

  51. Re:Great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then, at the rate Mozilla is going, they will never be able to 'drop the ball'.

  52. That's a lot of hair... by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 2, Funny
    Smith should be grateful that his victims weren't allowed to each pluck one hair from his body per Melissa message received.

    Heh. The guy would have to be a 500 foot tall gorilla covered with soft down if the number of copies we got is any indication...

  53. your right to swing your fist (free speech)... by metalhed77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ends at my nose.

    it roughly means that your right to free speech is allowed until it hurts someone else.

    --
    Photos.
    1. Re:your right to swing your fist (free speech)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, thats not what it means. It means that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

      Free speech is something entirely different. One often used quote, some say by Voltaire, though that has been contested: "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I would lay down my life for your right to say it".

      There is major difference between hurting someone (for example physically) and allowing someone to be hurt (for example, some lamer taking offense to what you are saying). Then again, hate speech is appearently forbidden, so perhaps I'm alone in believing this..

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. spelling by Hack+Shoeboy · · Score: 1, Funny
    It seems he finished his port as he sent me all the patches and instructions needed to compile the kernal for the s3c2400x.

    Ahem... I believe it's spelled "k3rn4l"

    --

    IN TEH FUCHAR, LITERSY WLIL EB OPSHANAL!!!!!111
  56. Share! by autechre · · Score: 1

    Have you considered making this script publicly available? If you're generating so many new records, just imagine the good it could do if it spread.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    1. Re:Share! by toupsie · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Have you considered making this script publicly available? If you're generating so many new records, just imagine the good it could do if it spread.

      My system is very tuned to the systems I have available to me. Disclosing my rag-tag collection of Perl scripts, AppleScripts, postfix configurations and e-mail programs that I have cobbled together would compromise my security and most likely would never work on anyone else's setup.

      However, take the concept and run with it. If I can do it, most sysadmins could figure it out -- I am a hack programmer. I find that Postfix is a great alternative to Sendmail and makes SPAM killing a snap.

      I also cheat by blocking China, Korea and Taiwan off from my mail server. My company is USA focused and never does business with non-English speaking countries. No offense folks in Asia, I lived and worked there for 3 years and enjoyed my time. Its just an easy way to whack 1/2 the SPAM sent to my servers.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:Share! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could just give us the e-mail address and we could do the rest, or the site, and we could find it.

    3. Re:Share! by toupsie · · Score: 2

      When you are as good looking as me, it only looks like I am posing to you fugly anons.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  57. Re:hm... yes... no... by theCoder · · Score: 1

    I wasn't very impressed... it didn't work on my system (win2k, moz 0.9.9)! Why can't I get to play with all the fun exploits?

    --
    "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  58. KERNAL was the name of the C=64 BIOS by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I'm absolutely amazed at the number of people who cannot spell 'kernel'.

    "KERNAL" (with an A) was the name of the BIOS in the Commodore 64 computer. It contained some basic drivers and a BASIC interpreter. Don't ask me what it stood for; I was an Apple ][ user.

    "MONITOR" was the name of the BIOS in the Apple ][ computer. It included Applesoft BASIC, some drivers, and a simple machine-level debugger.

    ObTopic: "LINUX" is the name of the kernel (with an E) in the GNU/Linux operating system. It is also the name of the BIOS in computers that use LinuxBIOS.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:KERNAL was the name of the C=64 BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BIOS in the Apple ][ computer. It included Applesoft BASIC

      Don't you mean the ][+? The original ][ had Integer BASIC.

    2. Re:KERNAL was the name of the C=64 BIOS by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      The Kernal of the Commodore 8-bit line is actually an acronym: Keyboard Entry Read Network And Link

      This Commodore Kernal is really the OS of the machine. It is separate from the Basic interpreter and screen editor.

      Fuzzy
  59. IE good? by fermion · · Score: 1
    I often read how good IE is, how compliant it is, how easy it is to use. I hear how much better it is on the Mac than on windows. And yet I have never once had a good user experience using IE. The security setting are impossible to get exactly right, either too much information is exposed or too many buttons have to be clicked. IE seems to want to take up an extraordinary amount of screen real estate for silly information messages. I know that in the fullness of time I could learn to make IE do what I want, but why should I. Netscape never took me more than an hour to set up, and Opera is even better.

    Now, I know that if you are looking at porn or whatever, IE is a very tightly integrated multimedia device. But for most things, it is overkill and overcomplicated. To be sure, I don't want most multimedia to be automagically loaded. It is a waste of my time and a waste of my bandwidth. There are a lot of stupid sites that force inane music on me. I have to disable Flash just to protect myself from silly adverts.

    Furthermore, the assertion that Microsoft is in some sort of unique usability nirvana due to Microsoft's wealth is ludicrous. Everyone uses IE not because it is easy to use, or easy to setup, but because it is the default in windows, and as stated above, is critical for viewing porn. As far as IE being resistant to advertising, remember that IE is a critical building block in MS web services package and it quirks critical to the destruction of other browsers. If IE allows users to block ads, it is merely because MS wants to direct all traffic to it's affiliates, and not have the advertising stream contaminated with pesky competitors.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  60. Interesting by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
    This is a very serious vulnerability in Mozilla. Why wasn't it posted as front-page news during the day?

    Of course the answer is simple: It's not an IE problem. It's not a chance to bash Microsoft. Yet a lot of people who use Linux also use Mozilla (or variants thereof).

    So I ask again, why didn't it make the front page? Nowadays when every scrapping little bug in IE is splashed all over the place and fills up with 400+ posts?

    1. Re:Interesting by ironfroggy · · Score: 1
      True.

      Maybe we do MS bash, but so what? There are plenty of problems with MS other than their software, such as bussiness practices. It's just a way to point out their flaws. It's human nature.

      On the whole, OSS is better. There are always problems with software. But, it gets fixed. At least the open source projects admit they arent perfect, MS just rants about the perfection of their constantly improved software. They improve what they said was so secure? Liers.

      I rant.

    2. Re:Interesting by tantrum · · Score: 1

      maybe because IE is supposedly stable and out of its beta period. As far as I know mozilla 1.0 RC1 is "just another beta release"(TM).

  61. Re:I say... by ironfroggy · · Score: 1
    Not released? I'm using it right now. I really don't care about version numbers. Some projects can be finished, others are on-going. Mozilla will never be "finished"; it will always be changing. Thats a great thing.

    So we found a little bug, big deal. It seems like an easy fix, and maybe even an extra feature. All they need to do is add an option (disallow scripts reading local files, ask before allowing, always allow). Easy as that, default to ask before. Sometimes it would be nice, if you trust the script. Maybe it could be extended even. How about creating a user for each script/site/etc and then you can set that users permissions? something like that. Always up-to-date html based software could do alot. Save emails directly to harddrive from web interface or other way around.

    Every cloud has its silver lining.

  62. Mozilla 1.0RC1 by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

    The bug works. I saw my /bin!

  63. Almost forgot... by ironfroggy · · Score: 1

    Remember the zlib bug? That went daylight front-page, didn't it? We don't hide things... Alot.

  64. He's not joking...it may work by systemaster · · Score: 1

    A quick search on google for "Falun Gong movement" turn up a bunch of stories about the followers in the US trying to sue the Chines gov. Now, the hard part, finding an e-mail that actually works in a spam, assuming you also can figure out which ones are sent from someone in china. Not just bounced thourgh one of their open relays. But I would like to see all those open realy admins get F***ed. They are the root of all evil...as far as that goes.

    --
    LinuxWorx
    Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
  65. I know what ya mean... by cduffy · · Score: 2

    Mouse gestures do indeed kick ass, and sessions do indeed come in damn useful, and zooming is downright essential at some sites -- after using new releases of Galeon for a while (with mouse gestures and tabbed browsing turned on), I wouldn't ditch it for the world... well, at least not for Minnesota. If it were, say, northern California on the table, I'd have to think...

    Opera's a nice browser -- but it's not the only one out there. And given the choice between using a nice browser that's commercial software or one I can put on every machine I own (and my work boxen, and my friend's boxen, &c) for free... well, let's say it ain't Opera I use.

  66. Comp USA online still shows the VOIP Blaster..... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    For $19.95. It took my order now let's see if they deliver.

  67. I have Vonage by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    The quality is very good. I have a 201 area code which has a real local number. Unfortunately, the local 201 number is in Oradel, NJ (the middle of nowhere). Your number is hard coded into the Cisco adaptor. The service is best for making outgoing calls. For that purpose, 40 bucks a month is a steal. I think I'm going to try to change my number to a 212 (NYC) one. The 201 is useless to me because of where it is.

  68. Don't loose hope. It's still available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The VoIP blaster is still available from several online stores, though at ~$20 a pop.

    I've just ordered 10 more from buy.com

    Spock

  69. Re:Screw with SPAMBOTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spambots are already way, way, way beyond this.

  70. Re:The thing with spambots is they _can't_ read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and understand english or any other human language AFAIK.

    Of course some humans may not be able to send an email without a mailto link.

  71. advanced search languages chinese simplified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The google search returns in english, text you can use to express his suport for Falun Gong.
    google.com> advanced search> languages> chinese simplified "falun gong movement"

  72. You Say You Want Porn? by krmt · · Score: 2
    Now, I know that if you are looking at porn or whatever, IE is a very tightly integrated multimedia device.

    Everyone uses IE not because it is easy to use, or easy to setup, but because it is the default in windows, and as stated above, is critical for viewing porn.

    You must be new around here if you haven't heard about the mighty pornzilla. Check out the modifications section to improve both your porn and general websurfing experience.
    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  73. Virus Actions and Warnings by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    A man has been imprisoned for writing software. Not killing, raping, or even dealing drugs. No, just writing software. What will it come to next? Will I be imprisoned for describing a virus in public where anyone could put my ideas to code? Will they be imprisoned for putting my ideas to code?


    SOFTWARE IS FREE SPEECH!!!


    I follow what you're saying here. And I generally agree. But in this case, the author is being imprisoned for not just writing code but using it.


    This is a really important distinction. In most cases, potentially destructive tools are generally legal as long as they are not used for illegally destructive acts (your local laws my varry). Some examples include firearms, knives, hammers... and exploit code.


    But, unless I am mistaken, Smith did not simply post the code on a site warning the world of the vulnerability he found. He released it. He used it. He put in motion the events that lead to infamy.


    Because of this act, I can understand the conviction. Although, I don't find myself as thrilled as some here seem to be.


    Virus writers seem to be, for the most part, an annoying messanger. A vandalistic Paul Revere. Damages accredited to these outbreaks seem to be mostly the man hours billed in detecting, stopping, and removing the malicious code. Yet these worms and virii ("viruses" my be correct, but its clumsy) could very well have done MUCH more damage if their writers were so inclined. Instead, they propogate and (again - for the most part) leave their host systems' valuable data intact.


    Yea, its a pain in the butt to deal with these things. Especially when an outbreak blossoms within a client's or employer's environment. But the ugly truth is that these malicious agents take advantage of completely insecure environments organizations insist on using. And I have come to realize that many managers and IT reps will not pay attention to infosec issues unless they directly experience the consequences to these issues.


    That's right. Virus writers are doing us a favor. Sofar. Its when an individual or organization with a much more malicious intent (damage, espionage, etc) begins to employ these methods that we should REALLY be worried.

  74. VoIP Blaster is just really just this by Blackbox42 · · Score: 1

    The VoIP Blaster was just a repackaged InfoAccel USB VoIP bridge. You can find more info on this product here: http://www.innomedia.com/consumer_products/infoacc el_USB/index.htm

  75. One additional technique to defeat the spambots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Filling their database by hundreds of false email :
    Just add an hidden link (for example a 1x1 image)
    to a page where there is hundreds of random-generated emails. If many sites use this most of their database will be filled with noise, and may be unusable.

  76. Grammar police by artg · · Score: 1

    It's _NOT_ 'wallah'
    It's VOILA.

    1. Re:Grammar police by cduffy · · Score: 1

      If I were spelling the word, yes. However, that wasn't inserted as a written word, but rather as an exclamation I'd have made if speaking the post. Blurtations I spell phonetically as a matter of course -- many of them aren't words in the first place, and it seems easier to treat them categorically than to keep track.

      That is to say, you're right of course -- but the status on that bug is WONTFIX.

  77. one of the most popular misquotes in US history by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    The majority opinion was the source of the famous line about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - you don't have the right to do that because it could cause a panic and result in injuries and other damage.


    The actual statement from the majority opinion is: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

    That single omitted word, "falsely", offers an enormous difference in meaning. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre if there is a fire is probably protected speech, even if it might not be the most intelligent manner of addressing a clear and present danger.

  78. wanna know what spam companies say? by 4444444 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If your interested in what the scum that sell spam software have to say check this out

    --

    http://Lenny.com
    4 great justice!
  79. Umm, if you show this to kids... by gosand · · Score: 2
    jamie writes: "'If I ever have children,' says Rich Dreher, 'I would want them to see and touch one of the very first 'real' personal computers, not some simulation of an Apple in a window on a Pentium VIII running Windows 2012.'

    And they would probably find that as interesting as a parent today showing their kid an old black and white TV with no remote control.

    I am getting old. I find myself saying "I remember when there was no internet!" to people.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  80. Next P2P filesharing program.... by jjsjeff · · Score: 1

    Throw away . Download the new Improved Mozilla web browser!

    It slices, it dices, it lets you share your files with anyone!

    -Jeff

  81. The exploit crashes my Mozilla 1.0RC1 build by tdye · · Score: 2

    Fun fun fun! I suppose you could call that 'fixed'...

  82. Keyboard equivalents by Fencepost · · Score: 2

    Consider using Alt-LeftArrow and Alt-RightArrow instead.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  83. The spammers' response ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    If you get a spam from China, reply with a message (in Chinese if possible) stating:

    Thank you for your continued support of the Falun Gong movement. It's great to see that people even in China understand the horribleoppression under which members of Falun Gong live. I look forward to your future e-mails on this issue.


    Of course the spammers' response will be to provide return addresses pointing to their enemies (such as chinese anti-spammers, sysadmins, etc.) or other innocent parties.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  84. Re: In Chinese? by Filter · · Score: 1

    This might say that, it's from babelfish

    Falun &# 32493;&#20 255;, &# 35299; Falun &# 21487;&#12 290;&#2641 0;

    --

    "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

  85. Microsoft executives to jail for Melissa II by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    In Redmond, Washington, 14 Microsoft executives were arrested by the Dept. of Justice under the RICO Act.

    DoJ Attorney General announced that due to a tribe of typing monkeys hammering out random Visual Basic macros. One of the VB Macro bore the title "Melissa II", in ONLY ten lines, infecting 43.8 million Windows platforms world-wide in under four hours.

    DoJ AG announced that since the monkeys are not fit for trial, the U.S. Code "Deep Pocket" kicks in, and that Windows O/S is next to be blame.

    The maximum sentence possible for 14 executives totals 2,651 years.

  86. FUD by aonaran · · Score: 1

    IE Advantage pshaw!

    IE has the same exact tie-ins as Netscape, deault start page is MSN. Default set of bookmarks Hotmail, MSN, Microsoft... Default search engine is microsoft's.

    AND it goes DEEPER! Default media player (since version 6.0) is built-in version of MS Media Player, where does this guy get off saying that IE doesn't have these sorts of tie-ins?

  87. VoIP devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, Creative does not intend to sell these devices in europe.

    After searching a bit, I found http://www.ame-group.com/ who have similar devices. (They also got 'Linux Products', but i'm not an expert on these products.)

    After an inquiry at this company I again found out another company overlooked Europe, though, this company is actively looking for a European partner/distributor.

    If Anyone knows a possible (European) distributor please get them in contact with this company.

    Their products range from wireless camera's to microscopes and video phones. Very interesting devices :) (the layouts fit thinkgeek.com..)

  88. The Red Hat by moncyb · · Score: 2

    Well I suppose there are other bad Linux distros out there, but RedHat is quite popular and it is bad. Maybe you don't think so, however, from all that I've read and seen, their distro seems pretty bad--using releases of programs from the unstable branches, they used to have insecure default settings, apparently they even have their own people add patches and modify the kernel. (I believe the "pure" Torvalds kernel is the best choice)

    I haven't ever used their distro just because by the time I may have considered trying it, I already knew about the stupid things they do (I only listed what relates to security above). I have read a lot about them and have helped some people that use their distro, so I do know about the subject. Yes, they fixed the default settings on their systems and I haven't been keeping track of them recently, however the way they do things in terms of software quality, security and "usability" seems to be exactly the same as Microsoft. Therefore I have zero confidence in RedHat.

    I don't remember saying they're evil, however it does seem they are becoming the mark of the beast for Linux. Why else would everyone insist upon using their packaging format to distribute binaries (now official in the Linux Standard Base) when tar is good enough? It's fine that they use their own internal packaging system, however it's annoying to have that forced upon me when I don't use their distro.

    1. Re:The Red Hat by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      You don't actually qualify a single statement that you make in here. Either you're opinionated just because they're the mose widely used distribution, have no idea what you're talking about, are a troll, or all of the above.

      I haven't ever used their distro
      So how could you possibly have a valid opinion on the subject?

      I believe the "pure" Torvalds kernel is the best choice
      This is just plain dumb. Best choice for what? The only "pure" Torvalds kernels are the unstable/development (read: 2.5.x now) kernels (and there are still hundreds of developers contributing to it). You want any kind of journaling filesystem? Touch tacos -- no Torvalds there...RH added EXT3 to their kernel in order to provide JFS with backwards compatibility with EXT2 -- a pretty slick move IMHO. As far as the kernel goes, Linus didn't write the whole damn thing -- and he doesn't manage the stable kernel releases.

      what insecurities are you talking about? I mean -- find me a Linux distro that has no exploits. If you really want somehting secure -- go with OpenBSD.

      however the way they do things in terms of software quality, security and "usability" seems to be exactly the same as Microsoft
      Qualify that. How do they do things the same way as Microsoft?

      Why else would everyone insist upon using their packaging format to distribute binaries (now official in the Linux Standard Base) when tar is good enough?
      Have you ever used Linux in a professional setting? Package management is essential. Sure -- the BSD ports tree is great, but RPM gives it a pretty good run for its money. Does this mean that you resent .debs too?

      It's fine that they use their own internal packaging system, however it's annoying to have that forced upon me when I don't use their distro.
      Nothing is being forced on you. You can build and install tar'ed & gziped source just like with any other *nix.

      I can go on and on about how dumb your post is, and how unsubstantiated your opinion on RedHat seems to be, but its pretty clear that you're a troll and trying to get a rise out of me. If you're actually serious, please back up your opinion with some facts, rather than spewing out broad generalizations.


      -Turkey

      --

      -Turkey

    2. Re:The Red Hat by moncyb · · Score: 2

      I said: I haven't ever used their distro

      the response: So how could you possibly have a valid opinion on the subject?

      More of what I said that you conveniently left off: I have read a lot about them and have helped some people that use their distro, so I do know about the subject.

      If I read from countless sources that Ford Explorers with Firestone tires are dangerous to drive, hear countless stories about how accidents have been caused by such a combination, and know a friend who was in a car wreck because his Firestone tires fell apart on his Ford Explorer, then I think I would know a bit about the subject. I suppose according to you I should start driving Ford Explorers with Firestone tires just to see if I can get in an accident.

      what insecurities are you talking about? I mean -- find me a Linux distro that has no exploits.

      Obviously you are clueless. Read the SecurityFocus Vulns Stats note the table marked "Number of OS Vulnerabilities by Year". Now lets see you tell me that RedHat's distro is just as secure as other Linux distros. Compare the figures with MS NT/2000--they look close to me...

      Qualify that. How do they do things the same way as Microsoft?

      Geee...so many choices--where to begin. How about their "configurator" program. I only had to deal with it once--but it was a nasty experience. For one, everytime it was run it would reset the real settings (edited by me in the /etc directory) to whatever it's internal system said they should be--apparently from some other RedHat config file--they made it so that anyone who learned on a normal Linux system would have their settings clobbered as soon as RedHat's program started up.

      How about the fact that they use a single script file for every service run at startup? This makes booting any RedHat system painfully-ass slow. That's just like when Microsoft uses single files per item for their "favorites" and cheap symbolic link substitutes.

      What about the whole gcc 2.96 mess? Read about it here and here and here

      Have you ever used Linux in a professional setting? Package management is essential.

      Do you know anything? Slackware uses tar files for their packages--I've never seen any problem with Slackware's package management system.

      It doesn't keep track of dependencies, however I usually have to do nodeps with rpms because the program only checks what it has installed--not anything compiled from source or installed through other packaging systems. However, tar could contain a package dependency file inside if it was necessary.

      They don't have an apt-get, however that just checks dependencies and downloads files--it could be done using tar files if need be.

      A really great packaging system would check the binaries to see what libraries they required and go from there. "This executable requires libuberssl.so.2--not present on system, but found in package ubernetlibs. Do you wish to download and install?" Unfortunately I haven't seen a packaging system like this, and I know the rpm program doesn't do this--it uses the files in /var/lib/rpm and complains if the dependencies aren't listed there.

      Does this mean that you resent .debs too?

      I would if nearly every Linux developer insisted on using .debs to distribute their binaries, therefore requiring me to install the packaging system on every Linux computer I use, just for the ability of installing binaries.

      You can build and install tar'ed & gziped source just like with any other *nix.

      Obviously you haven't tried to compile many programs from source. Not only does it take lots more time (try installing XFree86, Mozilla, or GIMP this way), there are also quite a few programs that take much time dicking around with them to even get them to compile. They'll be written for every OS under the sun and very tempormental. Or they'll have stupidly written makefiles. Or they'll have straight out errors in the makefiles/compile scripts/code that takes an hour to correct the problem. Etc. etc. etc... "./configure; make; make install" doesn't always work!

      I can go on and on about how dumb your post is, and how unsubstantiated your opinion on RedHat seems to be, but its pretty clear that you're a troll and trying to get a rise out of me.

      The same can be said about you. I could go on and on about how idiotic your ideas about what a decent distro is and how to run it. Like how it is bad to just add patches to the kernel for some newfangled gee-whiz buzzword and put it in a major distro. Those patches should only be added by people who really need them--everyone else can wait until the patch goes through the review process and is confirmed stable.

    3. Re:The Red Hat by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Nice Firestone example...The difference is -- RedHat is free, and you aren't going to kill yourself trying to use it (unless you're really really dumb). If you haven't tried it because you hold it against RedHat that alot of developers like RPM -- then you are just dumb. Do you not realize that its the developers that insist on RPM for their packages and not RedHat who holds a gun to their head and commands their use of RPM-only?

      As far as security focus goes -- I do read it. I have no problems with applying a few patches. As far as RedHat being like MS for their security issues -- If RedHat were MS, they'd wait for an exploit to be written, and for every script kiddie around to launch attacks and then write a patch...rather that have a patch released a day after a vulnerability (read: not exploit) is realeased. The number of vulnerabilities-per-year is a stupid gauge that's really only used by FUD chuckers anyway. Tell me how many outstanding security holes there are?

      Like I said -- if you want secure, go OpenBSD...othersise, stop whining.

      As for slackware's amazing tarballs...whatever -- you can download a tarball for any package (even slack's tarballs) and install it. And building source tarballs is not that time-consuming. It doesn't sound like you've ever used the BSD ports tree. Check it out sometime...its pretty cool, and not as tempermental as you suggest. Also -- check out SRPMS. They're quite cool as well, and both of these support automake (or some variant), so you don't have to go futzing with makefiles and the like. Please point out to me a few packages that are RPM-only? -- cause I've never encountered them...but then again, I've never really looked. If I'm using RedHat, I just use RPM, or build my own RPMs...if BSD, I either use the ports tree, or make my own packages so I can install them in whatever machine in my environment.

      RedHat's configuration tools do kind of suck -- youre right. They always have (although they're getting a little better). Linuxconf isn't that bad, but not that great -- but they didn't write it anyway. If you want good configuration tools, use mandrake. If you're the elite hacker super-Unix man that you imply you are, use vi to edit the damn config files yourself like you have to with every other *nix on the market -- you're not required to use anything (see RPM).

      How many more CPU cycles does it take to read service startup scripts from individual files rather than 1 file? Just a few. BTW -- in case you don't know -- that's how SysV inits work, dummy!. They did it to make their Linux feel more like a SysV Unix. If you don't like it -- use BSD, or a distro with BSD-style inits.

      I knew that you were going to bring up the GCC 2.96 example...and I'll answer that with the same answer I have for compiling their kernels with nonstable modules. RedHat needs to remain competitive in the enterprise (ie to compete with Microsoft & Sun), and that means that they have to be on the bleeding edge...supporting the latest whiz-bang hardware and what-not. That's their market. If you don't want bleeding-edge -- use an older version and update it with what you want. I try to stay away from anything even close to a .0 RedHat system for a production box...but for a desktop -- fine -- gimme the bleeding-edge shit .0 release, 7.3, whatever. Have you ever read RedHat's responses to the criticism over GCC 2.96? It might not excuse what they did, but it seems good enough for me, and along the lines of what I just said...and what's so damn hard about downloading the new gcc rpm and doing an rpm -Fvh gcc? Oh, right -- you don't like RPM.

      Hey -- its cool if you want to hack around with Slackware in your mom's basement. If you've ever used Linux in a large environment, you'd understand how valuable good package management, support, and tracking is -- as well as support for the latest hardware right out of the box (remember, nobody is making you use RPM, apt-get, or whatever). If you don't like that some binaries are only released as RPM's -- why don't you write the developers (instead of bitching to me) -- or moreover, get off your lazy ass, make tarballs, and send them to the developers?

      Now, remember, I didn't start this. You did by perpetuating the idea that there's an implicit Slashdot consensus that RedHat sucks (or in your case, is a security nightmare). Well, I do not follow the Slashdot sheep. I have my own opinions, and refuse to hate a product because its the most commercially viable. All I did was ask you to substantiate your opinion -- and you sort of skirted around the subject and (IMHO -- and in case you miss this, it's a paraphrase) said 'Well, it just sucks!'. All I said is that's not good enough to convince me -- you didn't cite any real examples, and I thought that you were trolling...which I still do, but I gave you the benifit of the doubt here. I don't care if you use RedHat or not -- I have nothing to gain or lose...but in the future, you may want to substantiate your opinions before throwing them out and expecting the whole world to say -- oh yeah, I totally agree.


      -Turkey

      --

      -Turkey

  89. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you such a spastic?

    Heh.