That's no vigilante. What he/she does with this information could make them a vigilante. Generally the definition of vigilante requires that some crime be committed, and that the labelled punish it. Right now, this user looks to be just a responsible member of the community.
Reading further, I guess this email is annoying, but not really illegal. I wouldn't say that the definition of vigilante is (yet) warranted from anyone's actions so far.
Smaller and smaller factors that have escaped my sordid attempt at quick scientific thought. This, despite my attempt to head off the almost half light/always half dark loophole with eclipses. I've thoroughly learned my lesson!
Looks like I started a nice debate, and have convinced several people that their inaccurate textbooks are correct. They are not. I though through the problem just far enough to get to the common (incorrect) habit of referring to the earth's side of the moon (the face, rabbit, woman, etc) as the light side. It's only light about half the time. The far side of the moon is light the other half (this of course ignores the effects of lunar eclipses, but they affect only the near side of the moon).
So, there is a light side and there is a dark side, but they change across a period of a month. If you have a textbook that says there is part of the moon that's always exposed to the sun, it's dead wrong.
I think it was firmly planted on the light side of the moon. If it's still rotating at all, it will be thousands, if not millions of years before dark falls on that flag. So it's really a great budget-saver.
Stretch the idea a little. You take notes in class. Asynchronously (to keep CPU and power requirements down) the tablet translates your handwritten notes to machine-readable text. (Don't worry about how. Assume a magical handwriting-recognition engine.)
It then indexes your notes and stores them away. Four months later when you're studying for your final, you can use something like Spotlight technology to search all the notes you've ever taken--all the emails you've ever sent or received, all the electronic textbooks on your tablet, all the PDF-format handouts your prof gave you, all the audio recordings of all the lectures you attended.
Sounds a lot like the windows journal (part of tablet pc), microsoft imaging (part of office, among others), and the indexing service (part of windows). Minus the proprietary PDF crap, that is. You can scan in, import, or handwrite stuff, it's recognized, and entered into the filesystem's index. It's been available for about a couple of years now.
It's not like Google hasn't participated in some fraud of their own. I used to have their ads on my web sites. After my account got to just over a grand, they decided that I had generated false clicks and cut me off. Quite patently untrue, but rather hard to prove. Of course they can't share any evidence, because it would reveal their "proprietary calculation scheme". Scheme is right . . .
I accept that but would argue that a Windows system comes "out of the box" poorly configured for security. Only has poor as you make it. Of course there's going to be a single default admin account on a fresh system. Just like root on *nix. When you need a user, just add them. There are all sorts of flashy wizards for users that can't grasp "net user username password/add".
Also, take a script on UNIX/Linux and it's permissions are determined purely by the user who ran it, hopefully not root - therefore its effect on the system must be limited. I don't see how this is different from windows?
On Windows, you can disable ActiveX and VB scripts from running, for example, but I do not know of a way of running them safely with limited permissions. (I possibly bow to your greater knowledge of Windows security here.) I don't see why you're picking on one class of program or one scripting language. ActiveX in web pages is bad, and I'm sure you'll agree - there's no need to install binaries from random web pages, ever. But why single out vbscript? As far as permissions or system access, it's no different from ECMAscript, Perl, or PHP, on windows. They all go through the same script host and have the same system interfaces exposed. And they're all limited by the permissions of the account ultimate running them.
Finally, I'd ask you to consider Windows user general mentality anyway. Most home user types are going to be running their systems at home with Admministrator accounts or with themselves set as Administrators for everything they do. On the otherhand, UNIX people do what they can at their own user levels while only resorting to root to do what they need to at that time.
All of these facts illustrate how a virus/trojan program has more (potentially) devastating effects on a Windows system than a UNIX one.,/i> I really don't think it's one mentality vs the other (at least at this level). I think it's more an absolute measure of skill. Some people know how to use a computer, some don't. Simple education will fix that.
2. Windows is built with a major security flaw in as much as certain core system applications always have full access to the system. Therefore, if a virus attacks via an application, it can get system-wide permissions. On a poorly administered Linux system, this can also happen but the tendency now is to run applications at a user account level, rather than at root level. Most users are also educated enough not to run constantly as root. Therefore, assuming that you are running a common application version (in 1. above), the effect will be limited by permissions if everything is running as a normal user account.
This is blatant FUD. This can only happen on a poorly-configured windows system. It works just like you describe as how linux works.
It's a slave name, plain and simple. Kinda like the very black man working here named O'Bryan. He was talking about how a black man got a name like that, and said it just came to him one day in his teens. Never occured to me, but I don't have similar ancestry. Makes sense though.
That's usually because the user chooses to install software. That software then runs in the security context of the user. Since most windows users are lazy, they have admin rights on all their accounts. The software then "gains root".
It's a combination of laziness and failing to enact a sensible policy.
A 'power user' still has admin rights, just not permissions to read other user's home directories. The 'power user' group in NT5 is pretty much worthless. You should be using only the administrator and user groups.
No, I've seen plenty of exploits. One that annoys me regularly is the ITS handler (my fix annoys me, not the hole itself). But I've seen plenty more FUD that has never been confirmed.
I just made a good effort to get several of those to work. Not a single actual exploit does (I made sure to disable the virus crap here). There are some piddly ones like being able to execute notepad.exe. But that's as much of an exploit as claiming that you can execute iexplore.exe by linking to something with text/html.
Yes. They've already specified standards that do what these companies want to do. But the standards aren't held exclusively by these companies and tailored to their income needs. So all of this has already been designed and specified and is ready to be implemented now.
That "security hole" you linked would be the user installing software specifically designed for this. That's like saying a perl interpreter has a security hole because you can run someone's script that deletes a file. Guess what - you can install a plugin for your firefox that is just as bad. Doesn't that make firefox just as insecure?
Any chance of sharing that writeup? I use IE and have no problem with it (pretty much all these "security holes" that people whine about are the user's fault, and not caused by IE), but if it helps them support standards and the idea behind web browsers, I'm all for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Already dead. I get a background image, and that's it. Nice try.
That's no vigilante. What he/she does with this information could make them a vigilante. Generally the definition of vigilante requires that some crime be committed, and that the labelled punish it. Right now, this user looks to be just a responsible member of the community.
Reading further, I guess this email is annoying, but not really illegal. I wouldn't say that the definition of vigilante is (yet) warranted from anyone's actions so far.
How did I miss your posts before tonight? Welcome to my friends list.
Looks like I can forget a career in politics too . . .
Smaller and smaller factors that have escaped my sordid attempt at quick scientific thought. This, despite my attempt to head off the almost half light/always half dark loophole with eclipses. I've thoroughly learned my lesson!
Do you have a citation for such a ridiculous thing for a textbook to say?
I don't, but apparently a few repliers to my original post do.
Looks like I started a nice debate, and have convinced several people that their inaccurate textbooks are correct. They are not. I though through the problem just far enough to get to the common (incorrect) habit of referring to the earth's side of the moon (the face, rabbit, woman, etc) as the light side. It's only light about half the time. The far side of the moon is light the other half (this of course ignores the effects of lunar eclipses, but they affect only the near side of the moon).
So, there is a light side and there is a dark side, but they change across a period of a month. If you have a textbook that says there is part of the moon that's always exposed to the sun, it's dead wrong.
Well I guess that will teach me to think half way through a problem. I feel real smart now. Even moreso with the following similar posts. Sigh.
I think it was firmly planted on the light side of the moon. If it's still rotating at all, it will be thousands, if not millions of years before dark falls on that flag. So it's really a great budget-saver.
Apples to oranges. All the programs mentioned can export to standard formats. Then you say you've never used them? Drop the FUD.
Stretch the idea a little. You take notes in class. Asynchronously (to keep CPU and power requirements down) the tablet translates your handwritten notes to machine-readable text. (Don't worry about how. Assume a magical handwriting-recognition engine.)
It then indexes your notes and stores them away. Four months later when you're studying for your final, you can use something like Spotlight technology to search all the notes you've ever taken--all the emails you've ever sent or received, all the electronic textbooks on your tablet, all the PDF-format handouts your prof gave you, all the audio recordings of all the lectures you attended.
Sounds a lot like the windows journal (part of tablet pc), microsoft imaging (part of office, among others), and the indexing service (part of windows). Minus the proprietary PDF crap, that is. You can scan in, import, or handwrite stuff, it's recognized, and entered into the filesystem's index. It's been available for about a couple of years now.
It's not like Google hasn't participated in some fraud of their own. I used to have their ads on my web sites. After my account got to just over a grand, they decided that I had generated false clicks and cut me off. Quite patently untrue, but rather hard to prove. Of course they can't share any evidence, because it would reveal their "proprietary calculation scheme". Scheme is right . . .
And you can whine about usability issues with any older version of linux. We're talking current versions here. Enough FUD.
I accept that but would argue that a Windows system comes "out of the box" poorly configured for security. /add".
Only has poor as you make it. Of course there's going to be a single default admin account on a fresh system. Just like root on *nix. When you need a user, just add them. There are all sorts of flashy wizards for users that can't grasp "net user username password
Also, take a script on UNIX/Linux and it's permissions are determined purely by the user who ran it, hopefully not root - therefore its effect on the system must be limited.
I don't see how this is different from windows?
On Windows, you can disable ActiveX and VB scripts from running, for example, but I do not know of a way of running them safely with limited permissions. (I possibly bow to your greater knowledge of Windows security here.)
I don't see why you're picking on one class of program or one scripting language. ActiveX in web pages is bad, and I'm sure you'll agree - there's no need to install binaries from random web pages, ever. But why single out vbscript? As far as permissions or system access, it's no different from ECMAscript, Perl, or PHP, on windows. They all go through the same script host and have the same system interfaces exposed. And they're all limited by the permissions of the account ultimate running them.
Finally, I'd ask you to consider Windows user general mentality anyway. Most home user types are going to be running their systems at home with Admministrator accounts or with themselves set as Administrators for everything they do. On the otherhand, UNIX people do what they can at their own user levels while only resorting to root to do what they need to at that time.
All of these facts illustrate how a virus/trojan program has more (potentially) devastating effects on a Windows system than a UNIX one.,/i>
I really don't think it's one mentality vs the other (at least at this level). I think it's more an absolute measure of skill. Some people know how to use a computer, some don't. Simple education will fix that.
2. Windows is built with a major security flaw in as much as certain core system applications always have full access to the system. Therefore, if a virus attacks via an application, it can get system-wide permissions. On a poorly administered Linux system, this can also happen but the tendency now is to run applications at a user account level, rather than at root level. Most users are also educated enough not to run constantly as root. Therefore, assuming that you are running a common application version (in 1. above), the effect will be limited by permissions if everything is running as a normal user account.
This is blatant FUD. This can only happen on a poorly-configured windows system. It works just like you describe as how linux works.
It's a slave name, plain and simple. Kinda like the very black man working here named O'Bryan. He was talking about how a black man got a name like that, and said it just came to him one day in his teens. Never occured to me, but I don't have similar ancestry. Makes sense though.
Naw, no dot in "Jeopardy" (see the "dot" in "slashdot"). I'd just say that the site's present existance is in jeopardy.
That's usually because the user chooses to install software. That software then runs in the security context of the user. Since most windows users are lazy, they have admin rights on all their accounts. The software then "gains root".
It's a combination of laziness and failing to enact a sensible policy.
A 'power user' still has admin rights, just not permissions to read other user's home directories. The 'power user' group in NT5 is pretty much worthless. You should be using only the administrator and user groups.
No, I've seen plenty of exploits. One that annoys me regularly is the ITS handler (my fix annoys me, not the hole itself). But I've seen plenty more FUD that has never been confirmed.
I just made a good effort to get several of those to work. Not a single actual exploit does (I made sure to disable the virus crap here). There are some piddly ones like being able to execute notepad.exe. But that's as much of an exploit as claiming that you can execute iexplore.exe by linking to something with text/html.
Yes. They've already specified standards that do what these companies want to do. But the standards aren't held exclusively by these companies and tailored to their income needs. So all of this has already been designed and specified and is ready to be implemented now.
That "security hole" you linked would be the user installing software specifically designed for this. That's like saying a perl interpreter has a security hole because you can run someone's script that deletes a file. Guess what - you can install a plugin for your firefox that is just as bad. Doesn't that make firefox just as insecure?
Any chance of sharing that writeup? I use IE and have no problem with it (pretty much all these "security holes" that people whine about are the user's fault, and not caused by IE), but if it helps them support standards and the idea behind web browsers, I'm all for it.
That's two blocks away from me . . .
Wonder if I can get in too?