Yeah, I installed it way back in the days and forgot it was on my website. I have now gotten several emails from my domain host stating attacks on it using an exploit in phpBB.
Which is why you're supposed to upgrade. The article is incredibly short and doesn't specify, but I'd be willing to bet the exploit was one that has already been patched/revealed.
At least with this attack the computer savvy not running NoScript or the like will be able to avoid getting hit with the payload. And now, time to check to make sure my ASP pages haven't been attacked...
But does that necessarily mean that the employees will be less productive? Take iTunes, for example. I, for one, work better while listening to music. It may be unauthorized and unproductive in and of itself, but for me it actually increases net productivity (something that my coworkers and employer quickly recognized, fortunately).
I understand the problem with people installing games, though. I hope for their sake that they use them only during their breaks or lunch.
Astronauts' meals are color coded on shuttle missions -- and reliable sources tell ABC News some astronauts aren't above switching the colored dots on their dehydrated meals if they have run out of say, lasagna, on day six and have way too much creamed spinach left.
Secondly, IIS is far, far more secure than it was back in the bad old days.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one, and I too am an Apache supporter. On the flip side, though, the newer versions of IIS as much more restrictive and don't let you do nearly as much as Apache, so of course IIS would have less defacing just for that.
If you have bits sent to you that someone else has to pay to transmit in a way that circumvents that person's compensation, you're stealing.
...once again, no I would not be in this case. It is an open URL. You're right in a way, but you would be broadening the argument beyond open URLs.
Your straw-man argument that if it doesn't deny someone else use of it, it isn't "stealing" is against the definition of "steal". Look up the definition of "steal".
And you shouldn't throw around "straw-man". How could it be a misrepresentation of my opponents argument if it was my own argument? The rest of your statement, however, is a straw-man based on mine.
And I, of course, know the definitions of "steal". As it happens there are a lot of them. See how it applies to the online setting.
Just because you see someone accidentally leave something sitting on a park bench it doesn't mean it's moral, ethical, or possibly even legal to pick it up and walk away.
If I wasn't so against doing it I would have copied and pasted my response to this argument over and over again throughout this page. Instead, I'll paraphrase: viewing!=stealing. If you provide an online service with an open URL, expect people to find and use the open URL. They're not stealing if they visit a web page, and there is no such thing as online trespassing and there should not be.
Please limit future argument to cases that involve things online only. I don't want to hear about people leaving stuff on park benches, leaving their front doors open, etc., and you're not helping your point by including such things. They involve physical items and denying others use of such items that belong to them.
Why is it that so many people jump to burglary whenever these online situations arise? By viewing these videos you're not denying someone something, or physically taking anything.
No, the only people I feel sorry for in this case are the people who are paying for the service. They could have been getting it for free.
This was an experiment for Trent, but it cost the **AA more than he could have ever imagined. Yes, I did say **AA. Believe me when I say they are watching what happens to the RIAA with great interest.
And the real kicker? This was also experimental music. Imagine the profit margin if he had used his normal material.
What does this have to do with software patents, though? The problem isn't so much that ideas are patented (since one could send in source code of a program using the idea) but the insane crap that gets patented. Theoretically no patents are supposed to be awarded for obvious extensions of previous patents, but it seems more and more software patents are being awarded for things that are simply a different way of looking at things.
So people already having aids with be out of luck, regardless of what TFA says.
Very true. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of full-blown AIDS run too deep, so that even expelling AIDS would still leave the body in a likely incurable state. Still, that would certainly prolong the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS, so it's still a worthy cause.
Wait, wait...how to release commercial software on par with an untested, alpha Linux flavor and have all their customers switch back to an old version?
SCO claims that its IP rights from UnixWare cover the latest kernel version of Linux, v.2.4, which includes code important in symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) scaling. SCO said it will offer UnixWare licenses to enterprises that use Linux 2.4 and later and will not sue Linux customers for past copyright violations if they buy a UnixWare license.
Right...so how is that working out for them?
And good luck suing Linux users...you may want to ask the RIAA how the whole litigation thing is going, and in this case there isn't even a flimsy legal rock to stand on.
they do this already, and for the most part are very good at it (Limewire and the like can't be used without the user's internet being disconnected).
Of course, many of the people I know simple use uTorrent. So yeah, the legislation won't do much of anything but deny universities money when the US is already lagging worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
I would wait at least a month to make sure any major holes weren't opened up or major compatibility issues introduced. That should probably be enough.
Or proxies? That seems like the obvious route to go to me.
Which is why you're supposed to upgrade. The article is incredibly short and doesn't specify, but I'd be willing to bet the exploit was one that has already been patched/revealed.
At least with this attack the computer savvy not running NoScript or the like will be able to avoid getting hit with the payload. And now, time to check to make sure my ASP pages haven't been attacked...
But does that necessarily mean that the employees will be less productive? Take iTunes, for example. I, for one, work better while listening to music. It may be unauthorized and unproductive in and of itself, but for me it actually increases net productivity (something that my coworkers and employer quickly recognized, fortunately).
I understand the problem with people installing games, though. I hope for their sake that they use them only during their breaks or lunch.
[Insert Garfield joke here.]
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one, and I too am an Apache supporter. On the flip side, though, the newer versions of IIS as much more restrictive and don't let you do nearly as much as Apache, so of course IIS would have less defacing just for that.
Working (somewhat) backwards:
If you have bits sent to you that someone else has to pay to transmit in a way that circumvents that person's compensation, you're stealing....once again, no I would not be in this case. It is an open URL. You're right in a way, but you would be broadening the argument beyond open URLs.
Your straw-man argument that if it doesn't deny someone else use of it, it isn't "stealing" is against the definition of "steal". Look up the definition of "steal".And you shouldn't throw around "straw-man". How could it be a misrepresentation of my opponents argument if it was my own argument? The rest of your statement, however, is a straw-man based on mine.
And I, of course, know the definitions of "steal". As it happens there are a lot of them. See how it applies to the online setting.
... it's going to be owning end users.Just as long as they don't whip me and make me pick cotton...
If I wasn't so against doing it I would have copied and pasted my response to this argument over and over again throughout this page. Instead, I'll paraphrase: viewing!=stealing. If you provide an online service with an open URL, expect people to find and use the open URL. They're not stealing if they visit a web page, and there is no such thing as online trespassing and there should not be.
Please limit future argument to cases that involve things online only. I don't want to hear about people leaving stuff on park benches, leaving their front doors open, etc., and you're not helping your point by including such things. They involve physical items and denying others use of such items that belong to them.
Thank you.
So a few cases is proof now?
No. Read my other comment in this thread and stop extrapolating.
Need I say more?
Why is it that so many people jump to burglary whenever these online situations arise? By viewing these videos you're not denying someone something, or physically taking anything.
No, the only people I feel sorry for in this case are the people who are paying for the service. They could have been getting it for free.
No. There is nothing wrong with visiting a publicly available URL. No exceptions.
...and, as such, runs counter to government as we know it.
I'm not stating my position on the matter, just pointing out the fundamental flaw of trying to have a government and wanting privacy.
But there isn't a general answer. In order for anyone to give an accurate assessment of the situation all factors must be taken into account.
We won't get that until out government raises the money for it i.e. raises taxes. For nothing you get nothing.
Personally, I'm more concerned about Florida's education system than under/over-ground transport.
And the real kicker? This was also experimental music. Imagine the profit margin if he had used his normal material.
I can't wait until telemarketers start using exploits to take over mobile phones to make mass calls. I can see the phone bills now...
Or bankrupt and irrelevant. Any of those is fine with me, so long as we finally stop hearing about them.
But it's for your protection! If the government doesn't know when you're eating, watching T.V., or masturbating, how can they protect you?
What does this have to do with software patents, though? The problem isn't so much that ideas are patented (since one could send in source code of a program using the idea) but the insane crap that gets patented. Theoretically no patents are supposed to be awarded for obvious extensions of previous patents, but it seems more and more software patents are being awarded for things that are simply a different way of looking at things.
Very true. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of full-blown AIDS run too deep, so that even expelling AIDS would still leave the body in a likely incurable state. Still, that would certainly prolong the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS, so it's still a worthy cause.
Wait, wait...how to release commercial software on par with an untested, alpha Linux flavor and have all their customers switch back to an old version?
Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?
Right...so how is that working out for them?
And good luck suing Linux users...you may want to ask the RIAA how the whole litigation thing is going, and in this case there isn't even a flimsy legal rock to stand on.
they do this already, and for the most part are very good at it (Limewire and the like can't be used without the user's internet being disconnected).
Of course, many of the people I know simple use uTorrent. So yeah, the legislation won't do much of anything but deny universities money when the US is already lagging worldwide.