There are two ways. The first, is running in safe mode to scan. Windows doesn't load non-system drivers in safe mode, so the rootkits won't load, and you can detect them.
The second is by using the technique that sysinternals uses, which is to read the registry raw (not in the API) and parse it yourself, then find any references to files which mysteriously don't show up through the API. This doesn't remove the threat, but it does help identify it. The reason this works is that in order for a root kit to run, it has to be in a place where the OS can find it, such as the registry. Otherwise Windows won't be able to load it as a driver.
Of course there are some false positives, since a few shareware licensing tools use methods similar to rootkits to hide their licensing information.
My guess is that the next level of rootkit will use virus techniques and attach itself to a legitimate system file to become loaded.
My guess is that they're upset because it means nobody will have any reason to purchase their DSL services, ISDN, and a LOT of lost revenue from phone service where people go to vonage.
Weeks? The idea behind an in-place patch is because of some security flaw. You don't want the old version hanging around for weeks. If there's a security vulnerability, I want to restart ALL of the services that use it immediately.
Not really, Microsoft only promised a reduction in the need to reboot, which actually they've done quite a bit with. Windows 2000 allowed you to change IP addresses without rebooting, XP has done a lot more as well.
This is similar to wording in the Sun patent covenant. Why is that GPL compatible if this isn't? From the Sun covenant:
"Notwithstanding the commitment above, Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation."
I think the issues is that Quinn didn't say "The coference paid" he said "Paid for by the sponsors of the conference". He's saying the sponsors individually paid, not the conferece.
Dude, you really need to use the right tool for the right job. Visual Studio still includes a C compiler that can target standard non-runtime based applications. Though it probably won't be 20K, it could be as small as 60K (32 bit versus 16 bit, plus extra C runtime library startup code, etc...
Now, if you want to build a nice GUI application that does tons of things for you, and uses an extensive framework of code that's pre-written and debugged, then perhaps you won't mind the overhead of a runtime library.
Ok, so various levels are at the highest in x thousands of years. Well, we weren't around x thousands of years ago, so why were they high then? Maybe the same reason they are now?
Not that I don't think we contribute to the polution of this planet, but I would be more concerned if they said "The highest levels EVER" rather than "The highest levels in...." That means they were at these levels before, and clearly the earth survived.
ECMA is just as much a vendor body as OASIS is. The deal is, both ECMA and OASIS can fast track standards to ISO. This was done with Microsoft's C#/CLI implementation, for example. ECMA also is the body that standardized Javascript, and a number of other common tools and languages.
Actually, not really a huge win for everyone. It effectively will castrate OpenOffice/StarOffice acceptance. Sun had ODF going for it, but with an ISO standardized Office format (ECMA is just the first step, they can fast track it to ISO after that, like they did with C#) That means, essentially, that StarOffice/OO have to support the Microsoft format, and at that point, why not just convert to using it as your default format?
Honestly, I really don't understand how being GPL compatible makes something open or not. The GPL itself is incompatible with many other open licenses, such as the BSD license (BSD is compatible with GPL, but not the other way around).
The GPL is a restrictive license (nothing wrong with that, it's just not as permissive as other open source licenses) and has its own encumbrances, so I frankly don't see how that is the litmus for whether a license is open or not.
Actually, they haven't increased the size at all. It's the exact same size as the three menu bars that Office includes by default. It also has a mode to hide the bar. Check out this blog post:
Actually, if you had read further, you will know that the menus scale based on resolution, and that they can even be set to hide. Further, it takes up no more space than previous versions did in their default configuration.
Actually, if you READ the linked articles, especially the ones about the Ribbon under the UI link, you'll learn that the new UI is all about consistency. It was one of the core design tennants. There are no shifting menus, or hidden features. EVERYTHING is available on the ribbon. if it's not there, it doesn't exist in the program. And it never moves.
Of course that's not to say that future versions won't move things. That's the price of progress. Sometimes some pain has to happen to improve things. The old way simply wasn't scaling, with 27 toolbars and hundreds of menu items.
Really, read the linked articles, they're surprisingly full of real information on the justifications behind the changes.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two ways. The first, is running in safe mode to scan. Windows doesn't load non-system drivers in safe mode, so the rootkits won't load, and you can detect them.
The second is by using the technique that sysinternals uses, which is to read the registry raw (not in the API) and parse it yourself, then find any references to files which mysteriously don't show up through the API. This doesn't remove the threat, but it does help identify it. The reason this works is that in order for a root kit to run, it has to be in a place where the OS can find it, such as the registry. Otherwise Windows won't be able to load it as a driver.
Of course there are some false positives, since a few shareware licensing tools use methods similar to rootkits to hide their licensing information.
My guess is that the next level of rootkit will use virus techniques and attach itself to a legitimate system file to become loaded.
My guess is that they're upset because it means nobody will have any reason to purchase their DSL services, ISDN, and a LOT of lost revenue from phone service where people go to vonage.
Weeks? The idea behind an in-place patch is because of some security flaw. You don't want the old version hanging around for weeks. If there's a security vulnerability, I want to restart ALL of the services that use it immediately.
Not really, Microsoft only promised a reduction in the need to reboot, which actually they've done quite a bit with. Windows 2000 allowed you to change IP addresses without rebooting, XP has done a lot more as well.
The extracted files are not executables.
Uhh. JScript *IS* JavaScript, but without the trademark "java" phrase.
Actually, no it's not JavaScript, it's ECMA-script, the standardized version of JavaScript.
You do realize that both files are easily extracatble by using any open source cab file extractor, right? Wait, that blows your argument.
This is similar to wording in the Sun patent covenant. Why is that GPL compatible if this isn't? From the Sun covenant:
"Notwithstanding the commitment above, Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation."
Not really, my current XP setup uses 78MB of memory. Win2k didn't get any less than that from what I can recall.
Sure, if it was 1995. Who uses 3.5 inch floppies anymore?
Probably the same people using Pentium 233's.
You misread what I said. read it again.
By the way, you can reduce the memory consumption of XP to pretty much exactly what 2000 has by disabling unnecessary services.
Hmm.. Most people consider Windows 98 to be the best 9x release. Many people did not want to upgrade to ME, and fewer wanted to stay with 95.
I think the issues is that Quinn didn't say "The coference paid" he said "Paid for by the sponsors of the conference". He's saying the sponsors individually paid, not the conferece.
There's also a selection "Red Hat Enterprise Linux - No Operating System Installed", for the same $0 price.
Dude, you really need to use the right tool for the right job. Visual Studio still includes a C compiler that can target standard non-runtime based applications. Though it probably won't be 20K, it could be as small as 60K (32 bit versus 16 bit, plus extra C runtime library startup code, etc...
Now, if you want to build a nice GUI application that does tons of things for you, and uses an extensive framework of code that's pre-written and debugged, then perhaps you won't mind the overhead of a runtime library.
Ok, so various levels are at the highest in x thousands of years. Well, we weren't around x thousands of years ago, so why were they high then? Maybe the same reason they are now?
...." That means they were at these levels before, and clearly the earth survived.
Not that I don't think we contribute to the polution of this planet, but I would be more concerned if they said "The highest levels EVER" rather than "The highest levels in
And, in case you had any doubts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_12
ECMA is just as much a vendor body as OASIS is. The deal is, both ECMA and OASIS can fast track standards to ISO. This was done with Microsoft's C#/CLI implementation, for example. ECMA also is the body that standardized Javascript, and a number of other common tools and languages.
Actually, not really a huge win for everyone. It effectively will castrate OpenOffice/StarOffice acceptance. Sun had ODF going for it, but with an ISO standardized Office format (ECMA is just the first step, they can fast track it to ISO after that, like they did with C#) That means, essentially, that StarOffice/OO have to support the Microsoft format, and at that point, why not just convert to using it as your default format?
Honestly, I really don't understand how being GPL compatible makes something open or not. The GPL itself is incompatible with many other open licenses, such as the BSD license (BSD is compatible with GPL, but not the other way around).
The GPL is a restrictive license (nothing wrong with that, it's just not as permissive as other open source licenses) and has its own encumbrances, so I frankly don't see how that is the litmus for whether a license is open or not.
No, I don't get it. Are you saying that software should be difficult to use to keep the "low life" out?
Actually, they haven't increased the size at all. It's the exact same size as the three menu bars that Office includes by default. It also has a mode to hide the bar. Check out this blog post:
4 67956.aspx- 9-15-2005.png
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/15/
http://www.sunflowerhead.com/msimages/SizeCompare
That could be because there is no binary key.
/ 17/481983.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/10
And, as far as patent encumbrances, MS has issued a non-discrimatory, royalty free license.
Actually, if you had read further, you will know that the menus scale based on resolution, and that they can even be set to hide. Further, it takes up no more space than previous versions did in their default configuration.
Actually, if you READ the linked articles, especially the ones about the Ribbon under the UI link, you'll learn that the new UI is all about consistency. It was one of the core design tennants. There are no shifting menus, or hidden features. EVERYTHING is available on the ribbon. if it's not there, it doesn't exist in the program. And it never moves.
Of course that's not to say that future versions won't move things. That's the price of progress. Sometimes some pain has to happen to improve things. The old way simply wasn't scaling, with 27 toolbars and hundreds of menu items.
Really, read the linked articles, they're surprisingly full of real information on the justifications behind the changes.