That is for you to decide. The thing I like best about this movie is that it relies on your imagination (which is why many hate it). Read through the posts for other people's interpretations but realize that there is no correct answer...
I am inclined to believe it was the lower half of Josh's jaw. She didn't tell Mike, that is a debatable decision. On one hand he might have lost it if she told him but on the other hand he probably wouldn't have been so overeager to find Josh. Notice she was a lot more reserved in her movements around the house which explains how Mike easily got a few seconds ahead of her.
It was Mike standing in the corner, this goes back to the killer (wasn't his name Pratt?) forcing one child to stand in the corner while he killed the other. If you accept the idea that Blair could rip out the intestines of all those men on coffin rock then forcing one very irrational and scared man to stand in a corner isn't much of a leap.
There are some interesting theories I've heard about the end that I'd like to throw out. Who was the killer? I don't think it was Blair, remember Pratt heard voices that told him to kill the kids. What if Josh had been possesed like Pratt? That would tie it all in nicely and fits the history. If not what happened to Josh? Another idea is less supernatural, what if Josh and Mike where in it together, remember their conspiratoral laughter after the map was lost? These are not as well supported as the obvious but allow some interesting twists. For all we know, the lights could have come on and everyone yelled "Suprise, happy birthday":)
When conducting a syn flood, you need to use forged addresses. The way a syn flood works is by filling the machine's connection queue with connection requests. After the attacker sends a connection request (a syn packet) with a bogus address, the victim will send an acknowledgement (a syn and an ack for the picky) to the bogus address. The victim will wait a certain amount of time for your acknowledgement. Since you are using bogus, nonexistent ip's, no acknowledgement will ever be received. After the (generally) operating system specific timeout, the incomplete connection will be removed from the queue. The goal is to create the connection requests faster than they can be deleted. An interesting aside, when NT 4 was originally released, it waited an extremely long time before removing connection requests, this made it very sensitive to syn floods.
Well damnit I think I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit on this whole mess. Let's see, you want us to believe that AOL implemented ALL of its security in the client AND some Macintosh guy haxored the shit and released an exploit only for the Mac? Somehow I doubt this, oh and the fact that he calls himself hardcore really doesn't help. This is a farce, the fact that it is moderated to 3 as of this writing is even more of a farce.
I wouldn't bother, x86 Solaris is rather unimpressive, what is impressive however is their Ultra Sparc architecture. Unless there is any reason that you need to learn Solaris (eg for a job) stick with Linux or try a BSD.
I hesitate to post this because I know the author from his posts on FreeBSD mailing lists but I must question the obvious lack of technical details. I assume I am not alone in wanting to know more about things such as the differences in scheduling algorithms than the differences in userbases. It just seems to be spewing out the things most of us have known all along, gee there is a tendency for people to start with Linux only to move to Free or Open BSD. I would much prefer a discussion on the comparative technical strengths on each system.
Try doing that wherever Microsoft's webservers are housed, think it will work? Of course not, while your point is a good one, it bears noting that this does not work on systems with high security requirements.
Actually the human factor is the greatest danger but in a different way than you mentioned. I would concern myself more with the human emotions of anger, jealously, and greed. A disgruntled employee or one who can be bought is far more dangerous than a clueless secretary who holds the door open.
One of the nice things about freeciv is that you can easily fix this sort of thing yourself. Too bad Activision / Loki want to make our gaming experience less pleasant.
X apps should be only executable by members of a specific group (such as xusers). This follows for other notoriously insecure groups of apps. You have to carefully screen just what users can run.
If you're smart you could run untrusted apps in a chroot jail but make sure they cannot obtain root within that jail (ie no fscking suid/sgid available).
Err how are we getting access to write to ~/.somethingrc? It takes a lot more than a 10 line script to break an arbitrary account.
Regarding root being safer... if the attacker has the priveleges to write/root/.somethingrc, it's game over regardless if his shell will actually execute the script.
Yes automatically running login scripts does make things less secure, it also makes them a helluva lot more convenient, use your judgement on what fits your needs.
Whoa, you really wanna be careful with that last paragraph. If you automatically install the packages you have a potentially devastating problem. How do you know it was RedHat you really got the errata/packages from? If you just rely on the hostname (or IP) you are flirting with disaster. Addresses can be spoofed and servers can be broken, you really should rely on cryptography to prove identity.
Also self propagating code is not useful to every cracker, only as a solution to a relatively small class of problems.
And lastly it's better to have a wiped out home and a useable system than a Windows box which won't even boot. Actual work can be done on the former and the latter just makes a good doorstop (the fact that its usefulness has not changed will be ignored)
1. Don't worry about CERT or the FCC, they don't do that sort of thing. 2. Traffic analysis is not a concern, few who are capable care. 3. If the FBI shows up on Malda's doorstep they are getting the access log, period. 4. Don't be stupid, ie regardless of whether you are posting anonymously or not, don't declare your intention to write the macro virus to end all macro viruses. It's just common sense.
The first point is many people spend far to much time worrying about who is monitoring their traffic when the truth is the people who actually have the resources to do it really don't care.
Theres a further point relating to the rash of web page defacements and the FBI but that's even more offtopic:). Let's just say only a fool taunts the US Government, they may be dumb but man do they have resources.
This is no better than MS FUD, if NT could beat Linux (or for that matter any unix) on a quad processor system, then NT deserves the credit. It of course can't but that's not the point. It's about fairness.
It was a joke, NT 3 was an attempt at a microkernel which was so horribly slow that MS went in a totally opposite direction and sucked nearly everything, including much of the GUI into kernel space making it pretty much as far from a microkernel as you can get.
HURD is a microkernel thus the reference to microkernels. Don't always take things so seriously.
Well golly gee whiz maybe cause XFree wanted to become part of the GNU project and linux is merely a kernel, not a project. Then again we could pull a microsoft and say screw microkernels, lets just run everything in kernel space.
Because it was always about the philosophy first. Unfortunately many do not realize that. Guess they are simply used to being able to run a completely free system.
It is important that you understand his nature. It is that of a revolutionary, if you disparage his GNU, you disparage his purpose in life. People often confuse this for egoism but you must realize the sacrifices he has made for his beliefs, these alone demonstrate his dedication to this noble cause.
Do me a favor and read a few operating systems books before you reply to a similar article again. Understand what the features of a kernel are and how it differs from the system a user sees. Then you will understand how your post is lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
That is for you to decide. The thing I like best about this movie is that it relies on your imagination (which is why many hate it). Read through the posts for other people's interpretations but realize that there is no correct answer...
I am inclined to believe it was the lower half of Josh's jaw. She didn't tell Mike, that is a debatable decision. On one hand he might have lost it if she told him but on the other hand he probably wouldn't have been so overeager to find Josh. Notice she was a lot more reserved in her movements around the house which explains how Mike easily got a few seconds ahead of her.
:)
It was Mike standing in the corner, this goes back to the killer (wasn't his name Pratt?) forcing one child to stand in the corner while he killed the other. If you accept the idea that Blair could rip out the intestines of all those men on coffin rock then forcing one very irrational and scared man to stand in a corner isn't much of a leap.
There are some interesting theories I've heard about the end that I'd like to throw out. Who was the killer? I don't think it was Blair, remember Pratt heard voices that told him to kill the kids. What if Josh had been possesed like Pratt? That would tie it all in nicely and fits the history. If not what happened to Josh? Another idea is less supernatural, what if Josh and Mike where in it together, remember their conspiratoral laughter after the map was lost? These are not as well supported as the obvious but allow some interesting twists. For all we know, the lights could have come on and everyone yelled "Suprise, happy birthday"
Oh and I will never, ever go camping again.
Yes you can....
When conducting a syn flood, you need to use forged addresses. The way a syn flood works is by filling the machine's connection queue with connection requests. After the attacker sends a connection request (a syn packet) with a bogus address, the victim will send an acknowledgement (a syn and an ack for the picky) to the bogus address. The victim will wait a certain amount of time for your acknowledgement. Since you are using bogus, nonexistent ip's, no acknowledgement will ever be received. After the (generally) operating system specific timeout, the incomplete connection will be removed from the queue. The goal is to create the connection requests faster than they can be deleted.
An interesting aside, when NT 4 was originally released, it waited an extremely long time before removing connection requests, this made it very sensitive to syn floods.
Well damnit I think I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit on this whole mess. Let's see, you want us to believe that AOL implemented ALL of its security in the client AND some Macintosh guy haxored the shit and released an exploit only for the Mac? Somehow I doubt this, oh and the fact that he calls himself hardcore really doesn't help. This is a farce, the fact that it is moderated to 3 as of this writing is even more of a farce.
Are they not developing a network service? You're right there is a difference, they should know a helluva lot more than your average network engineer.
He is probably referring to The Complete FreeBSD which can be found at most good bookstores.
I wouldn't bother, x86 Solaris is rather unimpressive, what is impressive however is their Ultra Sparc architecture. Unless there is any reason that you need to learn Solaris (eg for a job) stick with Linux or try a BSD.
I hesitate to post this because I know the author from his posts on FreeBSD mailing lists but I must question the obvious lack of technical details. I assume I am not alone in wanting to know more about things such as the differences in scheduling algorithms than the differences in userbases. It just seems to be spewing out the things most of us have known all along, gee there is a tendency for people to start with Linux only to move to Free or Open BSD. I would much prefer a discussion on the comparative technical strengths on each system.
Try doing that wherever Microsoft's webservers are housed, think it will work? Of course not, while your point is a good one, it bears noting that this does not work on systems with high security requirements.
Actually the human factor is the greatest danger but in a different way than you mentioned. I would concern myself more with the human emotions of anger, jealously, and greed. A disgruntled employee or one who can be bought is far more dangerous than a clueless secretary who holds the door open.
One of the nice things about freeciv is that you can easily fix this sort of thing yourself. Too bad Activision / Loki want to make our gaming experience less pleasant.
hehe it'd be too easy to come up with a worm :)
If I were using Irix I'd feel like a sitting duck.
X apps should be only executable by members of a specific group (such as xusers). This follows for other notoriously insecure groups of apps. You have to carefully screen just what users can run.
If you're smart you could run untrusted apps in a chroot jail but make sure they cannot obtain root within that jail (ie no fscking suid/sgid available).
Err how are we getting access to write to ~/.somethingrc? It takes a lot more than a 10 line script to break an arbitrary account.
/root/.somethingrc, it's game over regardless if his shell will actually execute the script.
Regarding root being safer... if the attacker has the priveleges to write
Yes automatically running login scripts does make things less secure, it also makes them a helluva lot more convenient, use your judgement on what fits your needs.
Perhaps an explanation for the inclusion of *.c, *.cpp, and *.asm eh? :)
As much as I am against destruction of anyone's work, oh how it would be dripping with irony.
Whoa, you really wanna be careful with that last paragraph. If you automatically install the packages you have a potentially devastating problem. How do you know it was RedHat you really got the errata/packages from? If you just rely on the hostname (or IP) you are flirting with disaster. Addresses can be spoofed and servers can be broken, you really should rely on cryptography to prove identity.
Also self propagating code is not useful to every cracker, only as a solution to a relatively small class of problems.
And lastly it's better to have a wiped out home and a useable system than a Windows box which won't even boot. Actual work can be done on the former and the latter just makes a good doorstop (the fact that its usefulness has not changed will be ignored)
1. Don't worry about CERT or the FCC, they don't do that sort of thing.
:). Let's just say only a fool taunts the US Government, they may be dumb but man do they have resources.
2. Traffic analysis is not a concern, few who are capable care.
3. If the FBI shows up on Malda's doorstep they are getting the access log, period.
4. Don't be stupid, ie regardless of whether you are posting anonymously or not, don't declare your intention to write the macro virus to end all macro viruses. It's just common sense.
The first point is many people spend far to much time worrying about who is monitoring their traffic when the truth is the people who actually have the resources to do it really don't care.
Theres a further point relating to the rash of web page defacements and the FBI but that's even more offtopic
It's now stable as a rock on Alpha's too :)
This is no better than MS FUD, if NT could beat Linux (or for that matter any unix) on a quad processor system, then NT deserves the credit. It of course can't but that's not the point. It's about fairness.
Try attrition
It was a joke, NT 3 was an attempt at a microkernel which was so horribly slow that MS went in a totally opposite direction and sucked nearly everything, including much of the GUI into kernel space making it pretty much as far from a microkernel as you can get.
HURD is a microkernel thus the reference to microkernels. Don't always take things so seriously.
Well golly gee whiz maybe cause XFree wanted to become part of the GNU project and linux is merely a kernel, not a project. Then again we could pull a microsoft and say screw microkernels, lets just run everything in kernel space.
Because it was always about the philosophy first. Unfortunately many do not realize that. Guess they are simply used to being able to run a completely free system.
It is important that you understand his nature. It is that of a revolutionary, if you disparage his GNU, you disparage his purpose in life. People often confuse this for egoism but you must realize the sacrifices he has made for his beliefs, these alone demonstrate his dedication to this noble cause.
Do me a favor and read a few operating systems books before you reply to a similar article again. Understand what the features of a kernel are and how it differs from the system a user sees. Then you will understand how your post is lacking.
:)
It's ok we were all this way at once.
Happy reading,
Jon