Second, blocking all inbound pings can (potentially) cause problems with things such as DHCP.. (most DHCP servers attempt to ping an address before they issue it, to determine if it's in use or not..) if the DHCP server's lease database becomes corrupt/invalid (because of a network/hardware failure, for example), it could give your IP address to someone else, because your machine doesn't answer the ping..
My ISP yelled at me the other day for this very reason. I had to update the rule set to answer the pings from my ISP
Ignoring the rest of your troll post (and I hope you're trolling...if not your ego needs to be wacked with a reality stick) you brought up a common misconception
There are no processes running as servers because it's a default Win2K Professional box.
Like its predecessor, Win2kPro installs with peer-to-peer networking (read shares) enabled by default -> the Server service is set to automatic startup. RPC and Remote Registry service are also ON by default. If they're listening, they're hackable
Question to the Python zealots
on
Perl 6 Showcase
·
· Score: 1
What makes Python better than Perl?
I hear that Python code is more maintainable. Why? Does the enforced indentation style make it easier to read than 1 liners within {}?
The syntax is said to be more elegant than Perl (which isn't pretty). Is it more elegant or less hard? e.g. easier to learn
Does it somehow prevent the use of bad logic or obsfucated variables?
The common bitch from the Python camp is about the ability to write bad Perl. I guess I'm missing how a "language" can prevent a bad programmer from programming badly.
Re:Mantra = Perl does what ever I want.
on
Perl 6 Showcase
·
· Score: 1
Moderators - Score 4 Insightfull??! Where's the insight? |deity| rants about not liking Perl but doesn't offer anything other than *I thinks perl sux*
perigeeV likes perl. it makes him/her/it happy. if you don't like perl (i don't think you do), then don't use it (i don't think you do).
Here is how experts believe Microsoft was hacked:
An unknown employee received e-mail carrying the dangerous software payload and inadvertently installed it. The virus-like software disguised itself as Notepad, a Windows program used for reading text messages.
Still sounds like a C program to me...unless you know how to make a VBScript act like Notepad. You are right, MS employees probably use Outlook..then again any mail client that supports attachments could have delivered the program to a user...don't see how it's outlooks fault
Discussion topic: Highly sensitive data was e-mailed from within M$ to Russia. Majority Response: MS security / Outlook / VBScript / NT sux!
Did I miss some facts in the article stating that VBScript / Outlook / NT expolit was used to send the data? Or is the majority (there are some level headed posts intermixed) enjoying some FUD spreading?/. is quick to scream FUD when it's pointed at your favorite OS but just as quick to throw it around. Anyone know for sure that it wasn't a Perl script or C program that sent the SMTP data?
BTW, why all the cracks about the MS network getting real security? Seems to me that they must do a fairly decent job or they would be getting cracked all the time. Should the MS security people be reduced to common hacks b/c of this one incident? I had a boss with this mind set. After 3 LONG days trying to troubleshoot a production problem, it was finally resolved. When I explained the fix, his only comment was 'why didn't you try that 1st'...It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback
Red Hat, being an open source software company, needs to rely on support revenue to make a buck. If they want to remain a viable company, they have to sell a lot of service contracts.
Large companies are risk averse. Selecting popular technologies / vendors is percieved as safe e.g. no on gets fired for buying microsoft, ibm, etc.
*Thinking out loud* Why do so many/.'s bash RedHat? Yet no one bitches about Mandrake who've released 12 security/functionality fixes for 7.1 since RedHat 7.0 was released. Is it b/c they have become a mainstream representitive of Linux, thus it is no longer 31337. Most/.'s want to see Micro$oft replaced with Linux. 31337 distros like 'Mike rolled a distro while rolling a fatty' aren't going to achieve the mainstream recognition that will be required to supplant MS
However, this problem shows one problem with open source: Quality control on open source software.
So, RedHat releases a.0 product and a bug is found. Bugs don't occur in closed source software?!
A patch, for the bug, being released within a few days of the bug being found doesn't often happen in closed source software. Bugs happen..you patch them...I guess I'm missing your point
David Ranch's Trinity OS is a GREAT place to start securing your install. Examples for RedHat and Slack. Reviews network services, file system, tcp wrappers etc. Tells you HowTo and WHY!
The firewall script supports port forwarding as well! I have port 80 forwarded to an internal web server and ssh running above 1000. Nmap on the ip address of my external nic shows nada!
Also check out Bastille Linux. Another great hardening script that tells you what it is going to do and WHY!
Helix has been working hard and fast on creating a solid and attractive Gnome distro. It has a tight feel to it that was lacking previously in Gnome (IMHO). With upcoming KDE2 and the Helix / Evolution releases, Linux as a desktop has made great strides. The developers should be congratulated for their efforts.
*mini-rant on** Why all the complaints about package managers?! Automatic (requested) retreival and installation of already installed packages is a bad thing(TM)?! A better solution is to manually search the web for updates? Sure, if you are into computers and like tinkering with your OS, that can be fun, but for the someone using a computer for e-mail, surfing, development etc, the package managers take the pain out of managing their PC.
I don't think a user should be required to know gzip, tar, make et al. to use Linux. For those that like that level of control, therein lies the beauty of Linux, you have a choice. I mostly go the.tgz route but there are times (usually late at night) where I need something installed and am in no mood play the missing dependancy game, rpm is great.
The comments about the Helix design looking too 'Windowish' are funny. I agree that Miguel's admiration of Windows may influence the design a little too much. How would you have it? We can't look like Windows, so we must design a fugly interface to show that we are different?! That's an insecure stance. The design needs to be end user motivated not techno-political. **mini-rant off**
If the goal is to move Linux to the desktops of 'users', familiarity will only help the cause...
...mine's a DEC 433dxLP 32MB RAM running IPMASQ / IPCHAINS / SSHD / TCPD & PORTFW. I downloaded FreeBSD 4.1 (~640MB) in 55 minutes last night while listening to the Red Sox via RealAudio, sending e-mail, web surfing etc. No noticeable latency...
Check out TrinityOS for a good start on locking you machine down
A way to avoid this problem is to point your print server spool to another partition (registry setting) - the disk thrashing associated with printing will not put your OS at risk. It also a security risk to leave the spool in it's defualt location. A large print job (due to lack of disk quotas) could fill the partition causing a server crash.
The stability of NTFS vs FAT is the decision driver. The NTFSDOS utility is very usefull for recovery. Yes, it cost a few dollars but when you spend 60K on a server ~$300 for a recovery util is a non issue (no free software rants pls.).
Imagine, if you will, a time in the future when a Win2K sysadmin is reading mail while logged in to Active Directory with an administrative level ID (big no no)
A script kiddie fresh out of VBScript for ADSI 101 has practiced his new found craft
The unkowing sysadmin opens a msg entitled "Get your MCSE and earn more cash!"
"The virus appears to have originated from the Philippines and has been described by one expert as the 'the most beautifully written virus' he's ever seen. "
I usually stay away from the *nix & holy war but this article is of particular interest due to my observations around the project I am working on. I've been builing a test lab for a large northeast company that offers both the Solaris & NT platforms for web hosting. This lab was to be a replica of the production environment down to the routers / switches used. In building this lab, I had to work with the Unix & NT Web Hosting engineers. During this time, I received awesome exposure to Solaris and Linux (which I was using for the development platform). My learning curve was vertical (I come from a NetWare and NT background). Needless to say, I was stoked at the learning opportunity. Now to my point. Initially, the Solaris builds were tough. I'm a CLI and script guy so the UI wasn't the problem. It was the lack of readily availabe and accurate documentation that was painfull. I can't count the number of contradictory HOWTO's and FAQs that I ran into. However, after working with some of the Unix sysadmins who "knew" their stuff, I "knew" what I needed to look for. I scripted the builds and everything took off from there. When I worked with the NT engineers, it was equally frustrating. The NT build was done through a series of WinInstall packages and PERL scripts. I had to modify the NT build in the lab due to trust dependant security. When I asked for the dependancies, most of the engineers (MCSEs)didn't know what the scripts they were running did! I finally found someone who "knew" (non MCSE)the plumbing of the builds and I was off and running. A platforms ease of use is relative to how much the sysadmin "knows" about it. From my limited experience, *nix requires you to get to "know" it before it is up and running (this is a good thing!). Unfortunatelty, NT allows you to get it up and running without you "knowing" what is going on (NOT a good thing!). If the NT sysadmin "knows" his stuff, it can be a decent and stable platform - as can NetWare and the *nixes etc... Any worthy sysadmin should know that easy isn't always better - although you shouldn't have to spit blood for everything either!
Slashdot Mirror
People have a natural aversion to things that are different.
If your goal is acceptance, you want to avoid being different.
maybe after a sensible day at work, people like to relax and have some fun.....
"so what you are saying is that you want stupid people to be able to use Linux..."
why shouldn't stupid people be able to use linux?
....code crayola returns....
OMG... /.
Taco posted his *gasp* opinion on
the nerve....
Second, blocking all inbound pings can (potentially) cause problems with things such as DHCP.. (most DHCP servers attempt to ping an address before they issue it, to determine if it's in use or not..) if the DHCP server's lease database becomes corrupt/invalid (because of a network/hardware failure, for example), it could give your IP address to someone else, because your machine doesn't answer the ping..
My ISP yelled at me the other day for this very reason. I had to update the rule set to answer the pings from my ISP
Ignoring the rest of your troll post (and I hope you're trolling...if not your ego needs to be wacked with a reality stick) you brought up a common misconception
There are no processes running as servers because it's a default Win2K Professional box.Like its predecessor, Win2kPro installs with peer-to-peer networking (read shares) enabled by default -> the Server service is set to automatic startup. RPC and Remote Registry service are also ON by default. If they're listening, they're hackable
What makes Python better than Perl?
I hear that Python code is more maintainable. Why? Does the enforced indentation style make it easier to read than 1 liners within {}?
The syntax is said to be more elegant than Perl (which isn't pretty). Is it more elegant or less hard? e.g. easier to learn
Does it somehow prevent the use of bad logic or obsfucated variables?
The common bitch from the Python camp is about the ability to write bad Perl. I guess I'm missing how a "language" can prevent a bad programmer from programming badly.
Moderators - Score 4 Insightfull??! Where's the insight? |deity| rants about not liking Perl but doesn't offer anything other than *I thinks perl sux*
perigeeV likes perl. it makes him/her/it happy. if you don't like perl (i don't think you do), then don't use it (i don't think you do).
Here is how experts believe Microsoft was hacked:
An unknown employee received e-mail carrying the dangerous software payload and inadvertently installed it. The virus-like software disguised itself as Notepad, a Windows program used for reading text messages.
Still sounds like a C program to me...unless you know how to make a VBScript act like Notepad. You are right, MS employees probably use Outlook..then again any mail client that supports attachments could have delivered the program to a user...don't see how it's outlooks fault
Discussion topic: Highly sensitive data was e-mailed from within M$ to Russia.
Majority Response: MS security / Outlook / VBScript / NT sux!
Did I miss some facts in the article stating that VBScript / Outlook / NT expolit was used to send the data? Or is the majority (there are some level headed posts intermixed) enjoying some FUD spreading? /. is quick to scream FUD when it's pointed at your favorite OS but just as quick to throw it around. Anyone know for sure that it wasn't a Perl script or C program that sent the SMTP data?
BTW, why all the cracks about the MS network getting real security? Seems to me that they must do a fairly decent job or they would be getting cracked all the time. Should the MS security people be reduced to common hacks b/c of this one incident? I had a boss with this mind set. After 3 LONG days trying to troubleshoot a production problem, it was finally resolved. When I explained the fix, his only comment was 'why didn't you try that 1st'...It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback
Red Hat, being an open source software company, needs to rely on support revenue to make a buck. If they want to remain a viable company, they have to sell a lot of service contracts.
Large companies are risk averse. Selecting popular technologies / vendors is percieved as safe e.g. no on gets fired for buying microsoft, ibm, etc.
*Thinking out loud* Why do so many /.'s bash RedHat? Yet no one bitches about Mandrake who've released 12 security/functionality fixes for 7.1 since RedHat 7.0 was released. Is it b/c they have become a mainstream representitive of Linux, thus it is no longer 31337. Most /.'s want to see Micro$oft replaced with Linux. 31337 distros like 'Mike rolled a distro while rolling a fatty' aren't going to achieve the mainstream recognition that will be required to supplant MS
So, RedHat releases a .0 product and a bug is found. Bugs don't occur in closed source software?!
A patch, for the bug, being released within a few days of the bug being found doesn't often happen in closed source software. Bugs happen..you patch them...I guess I'm missing your point
...warm milk and cookies with every BSOD...
here-> Trinity OS
David Ranch's Trinity OS is a GREAT place to start securing your install. Examples for RedHat and Slack. Reviews network services, file system, tcp wrappers etc. Tells you HowTo and WHY!
The firewall script supports port forwarding as well! I have port 80 forwarded to an internal web server and ssh running above 1000. Nmap on the ip address of my external nic shows nada!
Also check out Bastille Linux. Another great hardening script that tells you what it is going to do and WHY!
Helix has been working hard and fast on creating a solid and attractive Gnome distro. It has a tight feel to it that was lacking previously in Gnome (IMHO). With upcoming KDE2 and the Helix / Evolution releases, Linux as a desktop has made great strides. The developers should be congratulated for their efforts.
.tgz route but there are times (usually late at night) where I need something installed and am in no mood play the missing dependancy game, rpm is great.
*mini-rant on**
Why all the complaints about package managers?! Automatic (requested) retreival and installation of already installed packages is a bad thing(TM)?! A better solution is to manually search the web for updates? Sure, if you are into computers and like tinkering with your OS, that can be fun, but for the someone using a computer for e-mail, surfing, development etc, the package managers take the pain out of managing their PC.
I don't think a user should be required to know gzip, tar, make et al. to use Linux. For those that like that level of control, therein lies the beauty of Linux, you have a choice. I mostly go the
The comments about the Helix design looking too 'Windowish' are funny. I agree that Miguel's admiration of Windows may influence the design a little too much. How would you have it? We can't look like Windows, so we must design a fugly interface to show that we are different?! That's an insecure stance. The design needs to be end user motivated not techno-political.
**mini-rant off**
If the goal is to move Linux to the desktops of 'users', familiarity will only help the cause...
Agreed.
Before I had broadband, I chose my downloads carefully. Now, I get a copy of every distro and service pack that is released. Why? Because I can....
...mine's a DEC 433dxLP 32MB RAM running IPMASQ / IPCHAINS / SSHD / TCPD & PORTFW. I downloaded FreeBSD 4.1 (~640MB) in 55 minutes last night while listening to the Red Sox via RealAudio, sending e-mail, web surfing etc. No noticeable latency...
Check out TrinityOS for a good start on locking you machine down
A way to avoid this problem is to point your print server spool to another partition (registry setting) - the disk thrashing associated with printing will not put your OS at risk. It also a security risk to leave the spool in it's defualt location. A large print job (due to lack of disk quotas) could fill the partition causing a server crash.
The stability of NTFS vs FAT is the decision driver. The NTFSDOS utility is very usefull for recovery. Yes, it cost a few dollars but when you spend 60K on a server ~$300 for a recovery util is a non issue (no free software rants pls.).
Imagine, if you will, a time in the future when a Win2K sysadmin is reading mail while logged in to Active Directory with an administrative level ID (big no no)
A script kiddie fresh out of VBScript for ADSI 101 has practiced his new found craft
The unkowing sysadmin opens a msg entitled "Get your MCSE and earn more cash!"
The Active Directory Tree is felled....
this from securityfocus.com
"The virus appears to have originated from the Philippines and has been described by one expert as the 'the most beautifully written virus' he's ever seen. "
some expert...
This link may have already been posted. I haven't been following the thread...
http://a912.g.akamai.net/5/912/51/7f33d9e39a6b87/If not enjoy...the movie looks fantastic..will be tough to wait
d80669d84574a 8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382f668c9329e0375e81785ea61
d36a40938a41385e948b71d7cf058bd1 c8ef765c c3f/lotr_640_full.mov
Taco's lameness filter prevented me from creating the proper link.
Append the garble into to one long url and download at will
I usually stay away from the *nix & holy war but this article is of particular interest due to my observations around the project I am working on. I've been builing a test lab for a large northeast company that offers both the Solaris & NT platforms for web hosting. This lab was to be a replica of the production environment down to the routers / switches used. In building this lab, I had to work with the Unix & NT Web Hosting engineers. During this time, I received awesome exposure to Solaris and Linux (which I was using for the development platform). My learning curve was vertical (I come from a NetWare and NT background). Needless to say, I was stoked at the learning opportunity. Now to my point. Initially, the Solaris builds were tough. I'm a CLI and script guy so the UI wasn't the problem. It was the lack of readily availabe and accurate documentation that was painfull. I can't count the number of contradictory HOWTO's and FAQs that I ran into. However, after working with some of the Unix sysadmins who "knew" their stuff, I "knew" what I needed to look for. I scripted the builds and everything took off from there. When I worked with the NT engineers, it was equally frustrating. The NT build was done through a series of WinInstall packages and PERL scripts. I had to modify the NT build in the lab due to trust dependant security. When I asked for the dependancies, most of the engineers (MCSEs)didn't know what the scripts they were running did! I finally found someone who "knew" (non MCSE)the plumbing of the builds and I was off and running. A platforms ease of use is relative to how much the sysadmin "knows" about it. From my limited experience, *nix requires you to get to "know" it before it is up and running (this is a good thing!). Unfortunatelty, NT allows you to get it up and running without you "knowing" what is going on (NOT a good thing!). If the NT sysadmin "knows" his stuff, it can be a decent and stable platform - as can NetWare and the *nixes etc ... Any worthy sysadmin should know that easy isn't always better - although you shouldn't have to spit blood for everything either!