Yes, but I think they they will get it in the end. Look what happened when they realized that they needed an Internet strategy. No matter what you think about their methods, they succeeded in the end. Hopefully they will repeat that success story now.
Isn't the whole point of Microsofts new "security initiative" that things like a zero-day exploit of Outlook wouldn't even be possible? I mean, they're not going to implement the same type of anti-virus softwares/mechanisms that exist today, I would expect them to at least try to attach the problem at its roots so that that kind of software wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
In other news, SCO reports that it has successfully used the Linux IP pirates' own code-comparing tools against them. A perfect match has been found between SCO code and Linux code. The offending code reads:
One comment you often hear from Linux/UNIX people is that their systems can't get infected because all code executes in userspace and cannot do any harm to the system. You can just kill the process/delete the file and all is good again. And if people execute unknown code as root, they have themselves to blame.
But many UNIX worms/virii don't rely on code being executed as root. They spread using security holes such as buffer overflows, and doesn't need anyone to click on an attachment or execute an unknown binary.
I don't have the links to back it up, but wasn't the first worm ever a UNIX worm, written by a kid whose father was in the security business and told him about security holes in UNIX systems?
I don't think that the OS decides whether a system is secure or not. Sure, it is a factor, but sloppy administrators and developers are to blame as well.
I have the solution: use the face-recognition hardware on the camera signals. Then you wouldn't have to store the images themselves, but only the names of the people in front of the camera! Store this in an easy-to-read log format:
20011129 18:30 John Doe at location 23
20011129 18:31 John Doe at location 298
20011129 18:31 KNOWN TERRORIST at location 13
20011129 18:32 John Doe leaves location 23
...
If I understand correctly, this is sort of a middleware for middlewares, sitting in between the legacy systems you want to integrate and the middleware. Doesn't this add to the overall complexity of the system?
The only benefit would be that you can replace your middleware system easier, but how often do you do that? An open-source middleware would be better.
I work as a consultant in banking and finance and I often see these huge webs of interconnected systems with custom programmed interfaces between them. Middlewares help, but they are not the solution to all problems. You still have to interface to the middleware system. Introducing openadaptor would require you to interface to openadaptor, as well as interfacing openadaptor to your middleware (in case your middleware is not of the systems supported directly by openadaptor). How can this make things easier? Or am I missing the point?
Anyway, more complex systems means more work for me, so I guess this is a good thing after all!:)
Slashdot Mirror
And me.
Yes, but I think they they will get it in the end. Look what happened when they realized that they needed an Internet strategy. No matter what you think about their methods, they succeeded in the end. Hopefully they will repeat that success story now.
Isn't the whole point of Microsofts new "security initiative" that things like a zero-day exploit of Outlook wouldn't even be possible? I mean, they're not going to implement the same type of anti-virus softwares/mechanisms that exist today, I would expect them to at least try to attach the problem at its roots so that that kind of software wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
I could do without the hitman, though.
So what's going to stop owners of those numbers in foreign countries to send an email requesting that their number is whitelisted?
My company did exactly that.
Yup, I own a Ti4800 card from XFX. This baby is a standard Ti4800 on steroids; it comes overclocked to 620 Mhz out of the box.
Actually, I replaced a low-end Geforce FX card for this one (don't play many DX9 games anyway).
In other news, SCO reports that it has successfully used the Linux IP pirates' own code-comparing tools against them. A perfect match has been found between SCO code and Linux code. The offending code reads:
#include <stdio.h>
Check this page, it has lots of info on UNIX and cross-platform (yes they do exist) virii.
Down the page there are further references to other pages.
One comment you often hear from Linux/UNIX people is that their systems can't get infected because all code executes in userspace and cannot do any harm to the system. You can just kill the process/delete the file and all is good again. And if people execute unknown code as root, they have themselves to blame.
But many UNIX worms/virii don't rely on code being executed as root. They spread using security holes such as buffer overflows, and doesn't need anyone to click on an attachment or execute an unknown binary.
I don't have the links to back it up, but wasn't the first worm ever a UNIX worm, written by a kid whose father was in the security business and told him about security holes in UNIX systems?
I don't think that the OS decides whether a system is secure or not. Sure, it is a factor, but sloppy administrators and developers are to blame as well.
Looks like they don't offer business class seats. No way I'm sitting behind the curtain!
Wonder if they have a loyalty program though. You could rack up some good miles quickly.
Hmmm. Maybe it's used to test processors designed to be powered by Tesla coils? :)
I have the solution: use the face-recognition hardware on the camera signals. Then you wouldn't have to store the images themselves, but only the names of the people in front of the camera! Store this in an easy-to-read log format:
20011129 18:30 John Doe at location 23
20011129 18:31 John Doe at location 298
20011129 18:31 KNOWN TERRORIST at location 13
20011129 18:32 John Doe leaves location 23
...
Very easy!
The only benefit would be that you can replace your middleware system easier, but how often do you do that? An open-source middleware would be better.
I work as a consultant in banking and finance and I often see these huge webs of interconnected systems with custom programmed interfaces between them. Middlewares help, but they are not the solution to all problems. You still have to interface to the middleware system. Introducing openadaptor would require you to interface to openadaptor, as well as interfacing openadaptor to your middleware (in case your middleware is not of the systems supported directly by openadaptor). How can this make things easier? Or am I missing the point?
Anyway, more complex systems means more work for me, so I guess this is a good thing after all! :)
Don't believe it? Telnet to drscape.com. To this day it still runs on a 4Mhz PC XT with QNX 1.14.
/.
At least it used to, before you posted it to
Poor XT...