It's amazingly EASY to grab someone's cookie information with this technique.
To protect yourself and your users don't store anything in cookies. Or wait until 99.9% of the populaton has a IE version larger than 6. ( which might be forever )
Your site is protected if you use sessions though.
Even if the session ID is saved on the visitors computer. All that would be shown are the last two session IDs.
On the first of Feb 1999, NSI transfered my domain Londontimes.com to The Times.
The Times got someone to fake me and forward a false RNCA ( Registrant Name Change Agreement) form to NSI. NSI then transfered the ownership of the domain.
So I was essentially robbed.
Take a look at what The Times is doing with my domain now http://www.LondonTimes.com
Everytime I emailed a NSI official about this issue, they told me that someone in the Business Dept was looking at the matter. But I still have not heard anything from them
Heck, they have been looking at the issue for 3 months now.
Why did I register Londontimes.com ? I don't know, there was a Times in London. But isn't there a London in Canada and other countries ?
Here is the Article: --------------------------------------------
In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with IBM to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client available.
To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on proceeding.
For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together in hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential names down to which minute components would or would not be included. These meetings included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives here at Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented their case to IBM as a whole.
The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials, technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their strategic directions.
Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond the call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you meet folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2, that their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a whole sets policy.
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Re: Netsol's own gTLD nameserver 6 days behind? From: Chuck Gomes Add to Contacts Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:56:13 -0500
By the time you read this the problem should be fixed. A problem was encountered with hardware.
Chuck
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hayes Merritt, III [SMTP:harter@FEEDING.FRENZY.COM] > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 9:47 AM > To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET > Subject: Re: Netsol's own gTLD nameserver 6 days behind? > > On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > > j.gtld-servers.net had 1999030600 which is nearly a week > > behind the other nameservers > > Blah, its fixed. > [sam@spleef sam]$ soa > a.root-servers.net 199903120 > b.root-servers.net 199903120 > c.root-servers.net 199903120 > d.root-servers.net 199903120 > e.root-servers.net 199903120 > f.root-servers.net 199903120 > g.root-servers.net 199903120 > h.root-servers.net 199903120 > i.root-servers.net 199903120 > j.root-servers.net 199903120 > k.root-servers.net 199903120 > l.root-servers.net 199903120 > > -- > Sam Hayes Merritt, III > http://www.frenzy.com/~harter/ > > > -- > DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to > > To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" > For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
Slashdot Mirror
What happens to writers, and websites which publish excusively through blog tools like diarist.com and blogger ?
Google has also announced it will have a category for Press Releases.
Password protected feeds add real value to RSS for obvious reasons. You won't always want everyone to read your feeds
Diarist.com offers a HTTP Password protected RSS feed here. http://rsstest.diarist.com/
As I write this... There are only two RSS clients which can read it's passworded feeds.
1. NewsGator
2. A beta version of FeedReader
What to do now ?
1. Creat a New Locking System
2. Patent it
3. Charge 1 Cent on each lock that's created.
4. Invest your profits
Your running in a rat race... Get skills which will be almost timeless. Like Managerial skills...
If you already have a bachelors, it will only take 2 years.
Or start your own business...
If you want to develop something that will catch on fast... copy PHP's open source style. (php.net)
1. make it useful
2. make it modular
3. make it flexible
PHP is well suited for Object Oriented programming and structural programming.
PHP works on windows and unix
Make the documentation easy to understand
Provide many examples
AND REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN...
Open Source is fun...
Use short sentences...
Make sure it can at least say "Hello World"...
http://WebmasterBase.com I learnt all my PHP with Kevin Yank at Webmasterbase.
One day this will be worth mentioning: http://ComputingNews.com
It's amazingly EASY to grab someone's cookie information with this technique.
To protect yourself and your users don't store anything in cookies. Or wait until 99.9% of the populaton has a IE version larger than 6. ( which might be forever )
Your site is protected if you use sessions though.
Even if the session ID is saved on the visitors computer. All that would be shown are the last two session IDs.
Ok,
I hereby order you to host your wedding on a
Linux server.
SpaceKow
Roses are red
Slashdot is green
Propose again
And order a new machine
W0000000000000000ttttttttttttttt
Hurry up and join the club Taco
SpaceKow
http://01motors.com
OK,
Can I drive this thing with crutches ??
Marcel
Ok,
Where do we download it now ?
Marcel
Sounds like Total Recall to me.
You will be missed
It's sad... very sad. I didn't cry... but my eyes filled with water :( . I SpaceKow
I agree, totalnic.net is fine. The tools they provide are straight forward.
I registered my free web hosting service http://signup.loversmail.com on totalnic.net. And I am very HAPPY with the service they provide.
Totalnic is in Austrailia. 30 dollars for two years and a helpful service.
I am not using Network Solutions anymore!
You should do the same.
Actually, when I was a kid I thought I was gonna grow up to be Spiderman. And I really beleived it !
Don't laugh !!!!!
Well, all I can say is that I agree.
On the first of Feb 1999, NSI transfered my domain Londontimes.com to The Times.
The Times got someone to fake me and forward a false RNCA ( Registrant Name Change Agreement) form to NSI. NSI then transfered the ownership of the domain.
So I was essentially robbed.
Take a look at what The Times is doing with my domain now http://www.LondonTimes.com
Everytime I emailed a NSI official about this issue, they told me that someone in the Business Dept was looking at the matter.
But I still have not heard anything from them
Heck, they have been looking at the issue for 3 months now.
Why did I register Londontimes.com ? I don't know,
there was a Times in London. But isn't there a London in Canada and other countries ?
Anyway:
http://www.Joker.com sounds like a good option.
Peace...
Here is the Article:
--------------------------------------------
In 1998, Stardock took the position that if IBM had no current or projected
plans for a new fat OS/2 client, that it was in the interests of OS/2 users
and the computing community in general that a third-party should work with
IBM to license OS/2 technology on an OEM basis and make a new client
available.
To that end, late last year, Stardock prepared a business plan and opened
negotiations with IBM. The wheels of bureacracy grind slowly, but eventually
it was up to "IBM" (executive level) to make the ultimate call on
proceeding.
For the past 6 months, Stardock and IBM have been working closely together
in hammering out the details of an OS/2 client. Everything from potential
names down to which minute components would or would not be included. These
meetings included multiple in-person meetings with IBM staff and executives
here at Stardock's office complex in Livonia Michigan.
With an agreement in principle in place, the last major hurdle was this week
in which the IBMers in favor of our proposal (mostly in Austin) presented
their case to IBM as a whole.
The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock and IBM
has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client of their own.
Though IBM indicated Stardock had the strongest proposal, they have decided
that it is currently not in IBM's or their customer's interests to license
any current OS/2 technology on an OEM-basis.
There was never any discord between IBM and Stardock over financials,
technical viability, target market, or the like. IBM has simply finally
made the decision that a new OS/2 client would be in conflict with their
strategic directions.
Stardock would like to extend a special thanks to all the IBMers (and in
particular Ken Christopher and Timothy Sipples) who went above and beyond
the call in working with us and going to bat inside IBM. Remember when you
meet folks like them, who are and have been intimately involved with OS/2,
that their hands may be just as tied as yours when the IBM Corporation as a
whole sets policy.
Everything that could be done was done.
Brad
---
Brad Wardell
Product Manager: Object Desktop & The Corporate Machine
http://www.stardock.com
---------------------------------------------
The Kow got this 4 U...
Old news by 1 h though
-------------
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: Re: Netsol's own gTLD nameserver 6 days behind?
From: Chuck Gomes Add to Contacts
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:56:13 -0500
By the time you read this the problem should be fixed. A problem was
encountered with hardware.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hayes Merritt, III [SMTP:harter@FEEDING.FRENZY.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 9:47 AM
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
> Subject: Re: Netsol's own gTLD nameserver 6 days behind?
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > j.gtld-servers.net had 1999030600 which is nearly a week
> > behind the other nameservers
>
> Blah, its fixed.
> [sam@spleef sam]$ soa
> a.root-servers.net 199903120
> b.root-servers.net 199903120
> c.root-servers.net 199903120
> d.root-servers.net 199903120
> e.root-servers.net 199903120
> f.root-servers.net 199903120
> g.root-servers.net 199903120
> h.root-servers.net 199903120
> i.root-servers.net 199903120
> j.root-servers.net 199903120
> k.root-servers.net 199903120
> l.root-servers.net 199903120
>
> --
> Sam Hayes Merritt, III
> http://www.frenzy.com/~harter/
>
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to
>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"