I own the domain name for my highschool, and I have been called no less than 4 times by Network Solutions since we bought it in 1998. First they were asking if we wanted northernsecondary.org and.net to go along with our.com - they said that if we didn't buy them, students might and use them maliciously. Then they started recommending we buy things like mynorthernsecondary.com and northernsecondarysucks.com and so on.
So if you're wondering why your school owns so many, maybe you ought to start telling your school administration to stop listening to the phonecalls from netsol:)
Am I the only one who sees a quick solution to this problem, that doesn't even require a patch?
When you're typing in your password, don't type it in fluidly. Just wait a second here or there between random letters when you enter it. It'll confuse the heck out of anyone trying to sniff it from you;)
Think about it - to join the beta test you have to fill out a relatively large survey that most people, when presented with, would ignore and pass off as market research. Philips has a damn good thing going for them, all they do is give away 50 of these units for free, which probably costs them nothing, and they get zillions of suckers like us to fill out their free market research hubub. Hey, it's cheaper than a focus group, non?
One interesting thing we've been discussing lately is how the DMCA effects other countries. One such example is that Excite@Home was recently ordered to remove the some newsgroups from their servers by the MPAA. They complied, removing them not only from their American servers, but their Canadian ones aswell.
Now, as a Canadian, I'm not all that thrilled about having US law applied on a server that's located on Canadian soil, available only to Canadian subscribers. However, according to the DMCA, the server is owned by Excite@Home, based in the US, and that's enough for the DMCA to apply to it. So there's no Canadian law barring me from downloading movies from USENET (though I didn't anyways... honest!), but I'm being banned from doing so by an American law, which shouldn't apply in Canada. Hrmph.
Comments?
IBM seems to be forgetting something here... computers, quite simply, don't run themselves. They never have, and until AI gets a little more advanced, they never will. Computers are only as good as those who program/design them, and last I checked, even high and mighty IBM programmer/engineers weren't perfect (albeit they may tell you otherwise...).
Computers themselves don't make mistakes. The people who make the computers, make mistakes.
It's not a port scan per se, in that they don't go scanning your system for open ports. Because of the threat of a UDP last year (because so many @Home customers with insecure proxy software were letting spammers post through their news proxies), @Home initiated a network-wide scan for open news ports. To their credit, they have continued proactively searching for news servers to keep the hatches buttoned down, so there will be no further usenet service interruption threats to their subscribers. I have found dealing with @Home in matters such as this to be actually very pleasant. When I first installed linux, I had no idea what anything was and I accidentally killed sendmail's relay protection. Well, a large spam of about 12,000 e-mails got relayed through my machine one night (unbeknownst to me). When I woke up in the morning, I noticed my @Home connection was down, so I called tech support. I was immediately put through to the "Network security" dept who told me what happened, how to fix sendmail so it's not relaying anymore, and then asked me to please abide by the AUP and stop running servers and then they reconnected me to the network. I was totally blown away by the professionalism I encountered on their parts during this experience, so obviously (believe it or not) @Home does care about abusers of the network and keeping you secure.
The SMB blocking (and Windows file sharing, for that matter) is quite obviously done for security reasons, and I can't say I blame them (@Home) for doing this, since the majority of their customers are not exactly tech savvy and have no idea how to secure their own systems.
As for not being able to connect to other computers in your city, I've found that this is usually a routing issue, but not always on @Home's. Try adding a static route to the other subnet through your gateway - worked for me.
I don't see anything at all wrong with this, and as an @Home user, I'm very happy with it. There is also a tremendous advantage here for large web sites.
Face it - @Home is massive. With well over a million people with multimegabit per second connections, you can believe that @Home generates a LOT of traffic (I did the math once, and they have over 5Gbps of peering alone). Now, let's say for arguements sake that at any given time, 30Mbps is moving between Yahoo! and @Home. When Yahoo! realizes that they can in essense, colocate a server within @Home, and save that extra 30Mbps, it may be much cheaper to do that than to use up their external peering.
There is an advantage for @Home as well - not only do they save money on peering since they need fewer external links, but also now @Home users have access to this content over much faster connections.
I see how you are saying that companies are paying for performance, but I don't see how that's any different from the current situation. Some companies can afford an OC-3 and can send 300KB/s to an @Home user, while some companies can afford a T1 and can send 20KB/s to an @Home user. Nothing's changing. @Home's peering will not cease to exist when this new service is being offered, so people who cannot afford to place servers on @Home will still be able to send content to @Home users at the same speed as they can now. Since @Home's peering is actually quite nice to most networks (most notable exception is UUNet), their end of the connection can handle as fast as yours can send it.
Slashdot Mirror
I own the domain name for my highschool, and I have been called no less than 4 times by Network Solutions since we bought it in 1998. First they were asking if we wanted northernsecondary.org and .net to go along with our .com - they said that if we didn't buy them, students might and use them maliciously. Then they started recommending we buy things like mynorthernsecondary.com and northernsecondarysucks.com and so on.
:)
So if you're wondering why your school owns so many, maybe you ought to start telling your school administration to stop listening to the phonecalls from netsol
Am I the only one who sees a quick solution to this problem, that doesn't even require a patch?
;)
When you're typing in your password, don't type it in fluidly. Just wait a second here or there between random letters when you enter it. It'll confuse the heck out of anyone trying to sniff it from you
When I first looked at the headline I read "Microsoft loses daily appeal"
:p
Seems like that one would work too
Think about it - to join the beta test you have to fill out a relatively large survey that most people, when presented with, would ignore and pass off as market research. Philips has a damn good thing going for them, all they do is give away 50 of these units for free, which probably costs them nothing, and they get zillions of suckers like us to fill out their free market research hubub. Hey, it's cheaper than a focus group, non?
One interesting thing we've been discussing lately is how the DMCA effects other countries. One such example is that Excite@Home was recently ordered to remove the some newsgroups from their servers by the MPAA. They complied, removing them not only from their American servers, but their Canadian ones aswell. Now, as a Canadian, I'm not all that thrilled about having US law applied on a server that's located on Canadian soil, available only to Canadian subscribers. However, according to the DMCA, the server is owned by Excite@Home, based in the US, and that's enough for the DMCA to apply to it. So there's no Canadian law barring me from downloading movies from USENET (though I didn't anyways... honest!), but I'm being banned from doing so by an American law, which shouldn't apply in Canada. Hrmph. Comments?
IBM seems to be forgetting something here... computers, quite simply, don't run themselves. They never have, and until AI gets a little more advanced, they never will. Computers are only as good as those who program/design them, and last I checked, even high and mighty IBM programmer/engineers weren't perfect (albeit they may tell you otherwise...). Computers themselves don't make mistakes. The people who make the computers, make mistakes.
It's not a port scan per se, in that they don't go scanning your system for open ports. Because of the threat of a UDP last year (because so many @Home customers with insecure proxy software were letting spammers post through their news proxies), @Home initiated a network-wide scan for open news ports. To their credit, they have continued proactively searching for news servers to keep the hatches buttoned down, so there will be no further usenet service interruption threats to their subscribers. I have found dealing with @Home in matters such as this to be actually very pleasant. When I first installed linux, I had no idea what anything was and I accidentally killed sendmail's relay protection. Well, a large spam of about 12,000 e-mails got relayed through my machine one night (unbeknownst to me). When I woke up in the morning, I noticed my @Home connection was down, so I called tech support. I was immediately put through to the "Network security" dept who told me what happened, how to fix sendmail so it's not relaying anymore, and then asked me to please abide by the AUP and stop running servers and then they reconnected me to the network. I was totally blown away by the professionalism I encountered on their parts during this experience, so obviously (believe it or not) @Home does care about abusers of the network and keeping you secure.
The SMB blocking (and Windows file sharing, for that matter) is quite obviously done for security reasons, and I can't say I blame them (@Home) for doing this, since the majority of their customers are not exactly tech savvy and have no idea how to secure their own systems. As for not being able to connect to other computers in your city, I've found that this is usually a routing issue, but not always on @Home's. Try adding a static route to the other subnet through your gateway - worked for me.
I don't see anything at all wrong with this, and as an @Home user, I'm very happy with it. There is also a tremendous advantage here for large web sites.
Face it - @Home is massive. With well over a million people with multimegabit per second connections, you can believe that @Home generates a LOT of traffic (I did the math once, and they have over 5Gbps of peering alone). Now, let's say for arguements sake that at any given time, 30Mbps is moving between Yahoo! and @Home. When Yahoo! realizes that they can in essense, colocate a server within @Home, and save that extra 30Mbps, it may be much cheaper to do that than to use up their external peering.
There is an advantage for @Home as well - not only do they save money on peering since they need fewer external links, but also now @Home users have access to this content over much faster connections.
I see how you are saying that companies are paying for performance, but I don't see how that's any different from the current situation. Some companies can afford an OC-3 and can send 300KB/s to an @Home user, while some companies can afford a T1 and can send 20KB/s to an @Home user. Nothing's changing. @Home's peering will not cease to exist when this new service is being offered, so people who cannot afford to place servers on @Home will still be able to send content to @Home users at the same speed as they can now. Since @Home's peering is actually quite nice to most networks (most notable exception is UUNet), their end of the connection can handle as fast as yours can send it.