Around 10 years old head hunters started telling me it would be easier to find work for for me if I rewrote my resume to hide my true age and years of experience.
Yeah - I'd find the prospect of hiring a 10 yr old a bit of a leap as well.
The original definition of a virus was malware that could embed its own executable code into other executables (incl boot loaders or even later on Word docs that allowed scripts). The idea was that the infected executable would still (mostly) work. So that when that infected executable was run it would activate and invisibly spread to other executables by embedding copies of itself. You had to run an infected executable to get infected.
The virus analogy was around the way real world viruses infect cells and use the cells own machinery to replicate themselves. Viruses need living cells to reproduce and are inert otherwise
It was worms that propagated over networks exploiting remote vulnerabilities (eg the Morris worm). Of course modern malware will often use multiple techniques and could very well be a combination of virus and worm (and trojan).
But these days 'virus' just seems to mean malware in general.
"Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did"
Good fucking Grief on a Candy Stick, would you please take this self serving revisionist rewriting of history elsewhere, to a fiction writing forum perhaps, like Wikipedia...
Dave Cutler joined MS to work on NT in 1988. Work on the web appears to have started in 1990, and NT was well underway by the time the web was publically announced in 1991. So what is your problem? Do you have some alternate history we should hear about?
Trumpet Winsock.. provided TCP/IP functionality.. back in 1994-1995
What the fuck has Trumpet Winsock in 1994-1995 got to do with design work on NT starting before the web existed? Let alone anything to do with whether NT was designed for internet security or not?
You sound like a raving lunatic bringing that up. Nothing you link to even relates to the stuff you're railing against.
The only thing you've shown so far is that you have a massive irrational chip on your shoulder about wikipedia for some unknown reason.
I can't really tell WTF your point is. Linking a reference to a Win 95/98 web server? Those systems definitely weren't designed for internet security.
Is this "Internet Server" mentioned in your management presentation link what would eventually be shipped as IIS 1.0 - an optional addon for NTs 3rd release (3.51) in 1995? And then only included in NT4 by 1996 (IIS 2.0)? The same IIS that was extremely insecure up until version 6 when they started properly designing it for internet security?
NT was being designed long before 1995, and already had two versions released by then. Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did - let alone any ecommerce.
Having a web server addon available for later NT versions does not mean the NT was designed with internet security in mind. Even Windows 95 had web, mail and proxy servers available and the first version of Win95 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack. Even MS provided a web server for Windows 95 (Personal Web Server). You even point that out with your first link. The presence of web servers for a platform has nothing to do with whether that platform was originally designed for internet security or not.
The security focus with NT in the 90s was all about centralising authentication, enforcing policies and controlling what your internal employees could see and do. All the NT4 exams I sat (shudder) had no questions at all about internet security - just endless domain topology questions and far too many questions about Netware migrations. Technet had next to no information about hardening NT for the internet either. It was an afterthought and left to 3rd party material (O'Reilly had a really good book on this) that would often come with warnings about the functionality and product support you'd break by hardening certain bits. Disabling risky functionality and tweaking/tuning security settings would often involve a lot of unsupported registry hacking.
You're going to have to do a lot better to dispute that.
That statement seems perfectly accurate to me. Internet security was an afterthought for NT.
Everything (documentation, exam content etc) about NT security in the 90s was purely about access control features for already authenticated LAN users. There was no focus on internet hardening at all. MS fought a long and bloody reactive battle against relatively easy and obvious TCP/IP stack exploits with NT4. That patching hell was what made me switch to Debian and OpenBSD where ever I could.
IMO Windows 2008 was the first server version that really took internet security seriously. 2003 kinda did, but not to the same extent.
Say what now? Precaution against what? And browsers cache assets transferred over HTTPS just fine.
I think our anonymous friend is a little out of date, but was kinda right in the past for at least some browsers.
Firefox was one of the last browsers to not cache HTTPS resources even if the headers said to. I think this changed with Firefox 3 (?). The reasoning was that anything transferred over HTTPS was assumed to be private, and shouldn't be saved to disk. And yes this included images and stylesheets etc.
You're talking about Microsoft Windows right? The same OS where TCP/IP was at one point a 3rd party addon? How could it possibly have been designed for the internet without having TCP/IP?
Outside of a physics lab, no one would say "I measured myself on my bathroom scales this morning and I massed 74kg".
The pedantic physicist wouldn't say their measured their mass on the bathroom scales either. Unless their bathroom scales were actually a balance.
In ordinary English, we use the word "weighed". A bag of sugar in a supermarket weighs 500g. If someone is skinny they are undrweight. And so on.
Which is fine in everyday life - and that's why I said it was excusable and I never even bat an eyelid about it normally (I'll even conflate the terms in everyday conversation too).
But incorrectly trying to correct someone who was actually correct deserves some correction of its own.
grams measure both... what is wrong with people on this site...
Only if you think weight and mass are the same thing. Which is an excusable mistake for anyone who never learnt any physics at high school, but the way you then criticised "people on this site" for getting it right was kinda cute.
I wonder how many more times it will have to be spelled out to some of the posters on this forum that not everyone has the option of 1280 x 1024...
This is the sad part: 1280x1024 used to be a bog standard resolution.
eg My old (at least 6 years old) lowend Philips 17" LCD does 1280x1024 very nicely. And that's on something too old or too cheap to even have a DVI port. Things have gone backwards.
Not to mention that unprotected steel is probably one of the worst performing mainstream construction materials in a fire. Its thermal expansion will badly warp and buckle members before the heat has had much of a chance to make them go soft yet. Even timber usually does much better.
Of course at 100 storeys, there aren't really any other materials that will work structurally. You just have to use whatever protection you can and hope that you don't get a large prolonged fire fuelled by an awful lot of kerosene combined with serious structural damage (which is usually outside most design parameters and building codes).
No way! I haven't used an Amiga for 15-20 yrs and probably never will again, but I still have a soft spot for it and like to occasionally hear about what's happening with its latest incarnations.
After all it is very nerdy news, and that's what we're here for right?
Have you ever seen a North Korean parade or other choreographed event? They seem to be the most ridiculous over the top displays of patriotism on the planet. North Korea is almost the very definition of extreme patriotism.
Or are you one of those that think patriotism is something that only applies to Americans?
DOS was never interesting or cool - even in the mid to late eighties. Just about every other personal computer patform around at the time was far more interesting and way cooler - Amigas, Apple Macs, Atari STs, Acorns etc.
In those days, IBM a monopolistic corporate behemoth that suppressed innovation to protect their market, and we all suspected that their long term strategy in the PC marketplace was "embrace and extinguish", in favor of the more lucrative mainframe trade that restricted computation to people who could pay a lot.
Microsoft, on the other hand, had a reasonably well-documented OS with lots of hooks to hang extensions on, and decent development tools that weren't too expensive.
MS-DOS opened up the machine and gave you convenient access to it at many levels, you really felt like you could do anything with it.
I can see how that might've seemed good (although not exactly interesting or cool) to the corporate Lotus 123 crowd though.
There's a good reason why the whole structure needs to be that long. The centre of gravity of it needs to be out past geostationary orbit to keep the structure in tension so that it doesn't buckle. Think of it being a cable being swung around rather than a pole.
As for how far up you need to go before you get off I imagine (as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff) that to step off into low earth orbit you'd still need a massive push to reach orbital velocity before falling back to earth. That would still require a lot of engines and fuel (although not as much as from the ground obviously) which negates much of the point of having an elevator in the first place.
Whereas the higher you go the less 'push' you would need, and when you get to roughly 36000km you can practically just step off into geostationary orbit.
Ok, I get it now. You only work with a LAMP stack on a bunch of tiny servers hosting some light PHP applications. And your expectation is that Apache defaults should cater to that.
That would be my expectation too.
The smaller numbers of high traffic sites with lots of hardware are going to be monitored and tuned by experienced sysadmins anyway - no matter what the defaults are. ie they won't be using the default settings.
The far more numerous low traffic sites on virtual servers running mostly off the shelf blogs or CMS apps won't have those tuning resources or experience available. ie these sites will (more often than not) be using the default settings.
That is why I reckon the defaults should be oriented towards the low end servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah - I'd find the prospect of hiring a 10 yr old a bit of a leap as well.
Something about pan-dimensional beings (aka mice) comes to mind.
The original definition of a virus was malware that could embed its own executable code into other executables (incl boot loaders or even later on Word docs that allowed scripts). The idea was that the infected executable would still (mostly) work. So that when that infected executable was run it would activate and invisibly spread to other executables by embedding copies of itself. You had to run an infected executable to get infected.
The virus analogy was around the way real world viruses infect cells and use the cells own machinery to replicate themselves. Viruses need living cells to reproduce and are inert otherwise
It was worms that propagated over networks exploiting remote vulnerabilities (eg the Morris worm). Of course modern malware will often use multiple techniques and could very well be a combination of virus and worm (and trojan).
But these days 'virus' just seems to mean malware in general.
Also MS and Mozilla/Firefox get on quite well these days. I suspect MS prefers Firefox around to at least try and keep Googles browser share in check.
And it causes cancer!
Let me guess... You complain about MS Terminal Services in news items about Hyper-V too? Or say things like "my microsoft just crashed!"?
Citrix's terminal server thingy is a completely unrelated product to this.
Dave Cutler joined MS to work on NT in 1988. Work on the web appears to have started in 1990, and NT was well underway by the time the web was publically announced in 1991. So what is your problem? Do you have some alternate history we should hear about?
What the fuck has Trumpet Winsock in 1994-1995 got to do with design work on NT starting before the web existed? Let alone anything to do with whether NT was designed for internet security or not?
You sound like a raving lunatic bringing that up. Nothing you link to even relates to the stuff you're railing against.
The only thing you've shown so far is that you have a massive irrational chip on your shoulder about wikipedia for some unknown reason.
I can't really tell WTF your point is. Linking a reference to a Win 95/98 web server? Those systems definitely weren't designed for internet security.
Is this "Internet Server" mentioned in your management presentation link what would eventually be shipped as IIS 1.0 - an optional addon for NTs 3rd release (3.51) in 1995? And then only included in NT4 by 1996 (IIS 2.0)? The same IIS that was extremely insecure up until version 6 when they started properly designing it for internet security?
NT was being designed long before 1995, and already had two versions released by then. Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did - let alone any ecommerce.
Having a web server addon available for later NT versions does not mean the NT was designed with internet security in mind. Even Windows 95 had web, mail and proxy servers available and the first version of Win95 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack. Even MS provided a web server for Windows 95 (Personal Web Server). You even point that out with your first link. The presence of web servers for a platform has nothing to do with whether that platform was originally designed for internet security or not.
The security focus with NT in the 90s was all about centralising authentication, enforcing policies and controlling what your internal employees could see and do. All the NT4 exams I sat (shudder) had no questions at all about internet security - just endless domain topology questions and far too many questions about Netware migrations. Technet had next to no information about hardening NT for the internet either. It was an afterthought and left to 3rd party material (O'Reilly had a really good book on this) that would often come with warnings about the functionality and product support you'd break by hardening certain bits. Disabling risky functionality and tweaking/tuning security settings would often involve a lot of unsupported registry hacking.
You're going to have to do a lot better to dispute that.
That statement seems perfectly accurate to me. Internet security was an afterthought for NT.
Everything (documentation, exam content etc) about NT security in the 90s was purely about access control features for already authenticated LAN users. There was no focus on internet hardening at all. MS fought a long and bloody reactive battle against relatively easy and obvious TCP/IP stack exploits with NT4. That patching hell was what made me switch to Debian and OpenBSD where ever I could.
IMO Windows 2008 was the first server version that really took internet security seriously. 2003 kinda did, but not to the same extent.
I think our anonymous friend is a little out of date, but was kinda right in the past for at least some browsers.
Firefox was one of the last browsers to not cache HTTPS resources even if the headers said to. I think this changed with Firefox 3 (?). The reasoning was that anything transferred over HTTPS was assumed to be private, and shouldn't be saved to disk. And yes this included images and stylesheets etc.
They did come to their senses thankfully.
You're talking about Microsoft Windows right? The same OS where TCP/IP was at one point a 3rd party addon? How could it possibly have been designed for the internet without having TCP/IP?
The pedantic physicist wouldn't say their measured their mass on the bathroom scales either. Unless their bathroom scales were actually a balance.
Which is fine in everyday life - and that's why I said it was excusable and I never even bat an eyelid about it normally (I'll even conflate the terms in everyday conversation too).
But incorrectly trying to correct someone who was actually correct deserves some correction of its own.
Ahh they drive on the left in Japan too, so that explains the extensive history behind the Mitsubishi Lancer.
Just as well the article had a nice picture explaining it all. They must have anticipated you.
Only if you think weight and mass are the same thing. Which is an excusable mistake for anyone who never learnt any physics at high school, but the way you then criticised "people on this site" for getting it right was kinda cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
This is the sad part: 1280x1024 used to be a bog standard resolution.
eg My old (at least 6 years old) lowend Philips 17" LCD does 1280x1024 very nicely. And that's on something too old or too cheap to even have a DVI port. Things have gone backwards.
Huh? Not even close.
It sounds like you're thinking about TCL rather than Python.
Really? Apparently only 1% of their revenue came from the printed encyclopedia.
The rest is from online services and other products. It sounds like they made that adjustment ages ago.
Well the standard answer would be because of the apps, but those architectures had close to zero NT apps available anyway, so yeah good question.
Not to mention that unprotected steel is probably one of the worst performing mainstream construction materials in a fire. Its thermal expansion will badly warp and buckle members before the heat has had much of a chance to make them go soft yet. Even timber usually does much better.
Of course at 100 storeys, there aren't really any other materials that will work structurally. You just have to use whatever protection you can and hope that you don't get a large prolonged fire fuelled by an awful lot of kerosene combined with serious structural damage (which is usually outside most design parameters and building codes).
No way! I haven't used an Amiga for 15-20 yrs and probably never will again, but I still have a soft spot for it and like to occasionally hear about what's happening with its latest incarnations.
After all it is very nerdy news, and that's what we're here for right?
Have you ever seen a North Korean parade or other choreographed event? They seem to be the most ridiculous over the top displays of patriotism on the planet. North Korea is almost the very definition of extreme patriotism.
Or are you one of those that think patriotism is something that only applies to Americans?
DOS was never interesting or cool - even in the mid to late eighties. Just about every other personal computer patform around at the time was far more interesting and way cooler - Amigas, Apple Macs, Atari STs, Acorns etc.
I can see how that might've seemed good (although not exactly interesting or cool) to the corporate Lotus 123 crowd though.
There's a good reason why the whole structure needs to be that long. The centre of gravity of it needs to be out past geostationary orbit to keep the structure in tension so that it doesn't buckle. Think of it being a cable being swung around rather than a pole.
As for how far up you need to go before you get off I imagine (as someone who doesn't know much about this stuff) that to step off into low earth orbit you'd still need a massive push to reach orbital velocity before falling back to earth. That would still require a lot of engines and fuel (although not as much as from the ground obviously) which negates much of the point of having an elevator in the first place.
Whereas the higher you go the less 'push' you would need, and when you get to roughly 36000km you can practically just step off into geostationary orbit.
Well that's my guess at least.
That would be my expectation too.
The smaller numbers of high traffic sites with lots of hardware are going to be monitored and tuned by experienced sysadmins anyway - no matter what the defaults are. ie they won't be using the default settings.
The far more numerous low traffic sites on virtual servers running mostly off the shelf blogs or CMS apps won't have those tuning resources or experience available. ie these sites will (more often than not) be using the default settings.
That is why I reckon the defaults should be oriented towards the low end servers.