This must be what happened. I lost my password at one point and no longer had access to the email account that I had set it up on. Thinking that I would never have access to this account again, I created a new user account. A while later, I found my password and went back to my original account.
Since I would have been logged on through the same IP address (corporate gateway), perhaps this is why I have permanently lost my moderating ability.
As an ironic aside, the last message that I posted was the very first message I posted with Excellent karma. I had no idea I even gained that lofty goal. of course, my post was moderated off-topic and now I am back to Good karma.
I'm pretty sure that I didn't moderate in that thread, but I haven't been given mod points in months. I used to have them all the time. How does one find out if one has been banned from moderating, I wonder?
"Since our crawler seeks to collect the digital artifacts of our culture for the benefit of future researchers and generations..."
That is, unless the digital artifacts in question are, like Operation Clambake opposed to rich and powerful sects. In which case, they are blocked by the Wayback machine after the Archive caves in to DMCA notices.
Presuming that this is a legitimate question and is not just someone doing a Kevin McBride impression...
Go to the Yahoo SCOX message list and ask this question instead. Rather than being called a phallus smoking teabagger, you will get decent answers from people who understand stock manipulation and how it is performed. And stock manipulation is exactly what SCOX is.
As for your whinging about not having a new speedboat, stop it: it's irritating.
I use the lone Linux workstation in a sea of Windows. I have managed to convince the powers that be to allow me to set up Linux servers for specialized purposes (IDS, SpamAssassin, etc.) but for the rest it's all Windoze.
I'm using Samba for NTLM authentication and it's quite easy. The only manual setup is creating a file that contains my NTLM username, password, and domain name, and changing it each time I'm forced to change my NT password. Beyond that, I can easily mount network drives, print, etc.
However, this will work fine while we keep our Win2K network in mixed mode. I'm a little worried about what will happen when we flip to native mode. When Samba 3.0 came out I installed it and after a bit of work I was able to get Kerberos/AD authentication to function. Unfortunately, smbmount still doesn't support this method except on Samba servers.
If you get this part of the puzzle working let us know!
Other people mentioned it already, but I'll say it again:
Do your own internal audits. Your recommendations may be ignored or outright rejected but at least then a 3rd party audit can't make you look bad for it.
As very simple example, I once undertook to audit the security of a particular HP-UX server. Among other things I found was that most of the programmers were using telnet and FTP to do their work on it. I recommended switching to SSH. My recommendation was politely noted then ignored. A later audit pointed out that this was a huge security risk. If I hadn't already made the recommendation, this would have reflected poorly on me. Fortunately, management forced the issue after reading about it from the 3rd party and now they are finally using SSH.
As a Network Security Analyst for a large financial institution, I welcome 3rd party audits. In fact, one just finished up recently. To me they represent a means of showing the Board and the Executives what a great job I'm doing.
I really don't believe that a respectable firm would use an audit to try to remove an existing employee just as a way to sell their product. For one thing, it leaves them open to lawsuits from the fired employee. No, I think that if a 3rd party auditor labels a Security Analyst as a risk, they most likely have some damn good evidence that the author is a screw-up.
Since the author asked for advice, here it is: if you insist on trying to get another job in the security field and you actually succeed, next time you hear about an upcoming audit:
1) Find out who the auditor is. Check up on them and if you have any concerns about their professionalism, raise your concerns before the contract is signed. 2) Get your act together. Make sure all your servers and workstations are up to date on patches and anti-virus dat files. Make sure your firewall, IDS and other security software is running the latest versions. 3) Make sure everything is documented; change management, DR procedures, incident response, etc. 4) Ensure that your backups are working. 5) When the auditor(s) come, be friendly and helpful.
Follow these simple rules and you should be fine next time.
Bah. I've got 26 branch offices that connect through ISDN or frame relay. Patching requires pushing patches to the branch servers and from there to the workstations. To use SUS I would need to have it installed on each server (and of course it requires IIS) plus I need some means of telling the workstations to get the patches from their local server. I'm sure it works great at one location, but like so much about Microsoft, it just doesn't scale to the real world.
I am happy to entertain any explanation of SCO's behavior as something other than fraudulent stock manipulation, but I haven't heard any that can explain their actions.
Yep. I'm still astonished, though, that IBM made that very statement in their first counter-claim. I'd love it if someone could explain to me how IBM thinks they can prove it. And, if they can, will that mean jail time for SCO's execs?
If you are sent an invoice by SCO, you should immediately sue them. If you pay them money, you agree to abide by the terms of the license you purchase, which will certainly include terms to indemify them from you.
Oh, they'll tell you the breakfast is free until you've eaten it. Then they'll explain that food was in fact supplied to you illegally by HP and that all of the recipes are actually their IP and anyway the original license under which they provided sustenance to you is in fact invalided by federal laws. Then they'll ask you for $699 if you want to avoid any further lawsuits.
As much I enjoy the humourous and fascinating art of picking apart SCO's press releases here, everyone again seems to forget one thing:
Darl and his gang doesn't care about Open Source. They don't care about Linux. They don't care about IBM or Redhat. They don't even care about their own crappy product line. They know that their case has no merit and that SCO will end up bankrupt.
The fact is that the sole purpose of anything that comes out of SCO is to boost their stock price, and this strategy continues to work wonders. It's over $18 now. This is all they care about.
I just hope that when it is all over, they're all in jail.
What lameness. SCO is beginning to sound like a certain cult we all know. Pretty soon they're going to be telling us that 75 trillion years ago, Linus blew everyone up with hydrogen bombs in volcanoes and the only reason we use Linux today is because we are all infected with space cooties.
Man, suing IBM is one thing but threatening to cancel their AIX license is a freakin' death wish.
So SCO tells IBM that they cannot develop or market AIX anymore. IBM says "Fuck you" and carries on without the license. SCO sues again and a court rules that they have no IP claims over UNIX. Bye bye lucrative licensing business... hello Chapter 11.
Slashdot Mirror
This must be what happened. I lost my password at one point and no longer had access to the email account that I had set it up on. Thinking that I would never have access to this account again, I created a new user account. A while later, I found my password and went back to my original account.
Since I would have been logged on through the same IP address (corporate gateway), perhaps this is why I have permanently lost my moderating ability.
As an ironic aside, the last message that I posted was the very first message I posted with Excellent karma. I had no idea I even gained that lofty goal. of course, my post was moderated off-topic and now I am back to Good karma.
I'm pretty sure that I didn't moderate in that thread, but I haven't been given mod points in months. I used to have them all the time. How does one find out if one has been banned from moderating, I wonder?
Not that I particularily care.
"Since our crawler seeks to collect the digital artifacts of our culture for the benefit of future researchers and generations..."
That is, unless the digital artifacts in question are, like Operation Clambake opposed to rich and powerful sects. In which case, they are blocked by the Wayback machine after the Archive caves in to DMCA notices.
Presuming that this is a legitimate question and is not just someone doing a Kevin McBride impression... Go to the Yahoo SCOX message list and ask this question instead. Rather than being called a phallus smoking teabagger, you will get decent answers from people who understand stock manipulation and how it is performed. And stock manipulation is exactly what SCOX is. As for your whinging about not having a new speedboat, stop it: it's irritating.
"Stop right there! I have here the only working phaser ever built. It was fired only once, to keep William Shatner from making another album."
I use the lone Linux workstation in a sea of Windows. I have managed to convince the powers that be to allow me to set up Linux servers for specialized purposes (IDS, SpamAssassin, etc.) but for the rest it's all Windoze.
I'm using Samba for NTLM authentication and it's quite easy. The only manual setup is creating a file that contains my NTLM username, password, and domain name, and changing it each time I'm forced to change my NT password. Beyond that, I can easily mount network drives, print, etc.
However, this will work fine while we keep our Win2K network in mixed mode. I'm a little worried about what will happen when we flip to native mode. When Samba 3.0 came out I installed it and after a bit of work I was able to get Kerberos/AD authentication to function. Unfortunately, smbmount still doesn't support this method except on Samba servers.
If you get this part of the puzzle working let us know!
Other people mentioned it already, but I'll say it again:
Do your own internal audits. Your recommendations may be ignored or outright rejected but at least then a 3rd party audit can't make you look bad for it.
As very simple example, I once undertook to audit the security of a particular HP-UX server. Among other things I found was that most of the programmers were using telnet and FTP to do their work on it. I recommended switching to SSH. My recommendation was politely noted then ignored. A later audit pointed out that this was a huge security risk. If I hadn't already made the recommendation, this would have reflected poorly on me. Fortunately, management forced the issue after reading about it from the 3rd party and now they are finally using SSH.
As a Network Security Analyst for a large financial institution, I welcome 3rd party audits. In fact, one just finished up recently. To me they represent a means of showing the Board and the Executives what a great job I'm doing.
I really don't believe that a respectable firm would use an audit to try to remove an existing employee just as a way to sell their product. For one thing, it leaves them open to lawsuits from the fired employee. No, I think that if a 3rd party auditor labels a Security Analyst as a risk, they most likely have some damn good evidence that the author is a screw-up.
Since the author asked for advice, here it is: if you insist on trying to get another job in the security field and you actually succeed, next time you hear about an upcoming audit:
1) Find out who the auditor is. Check up on them and if you have any concerns about their professionalism, raise your concerns before the contract is signed.
2) Get your act together. Make sure all your servers and workstations are up to date on patches and anti-virus dat files. Make sure your firewall, IDS and other security software is running the latest versions.
3) Make sure everything is documented; change management, DR procedures, incident response, etc.
4) Ensure that your backups are working.
5) When the auditor(s) come, be friendly and helpful.
Follow these simple rules and you should be fine next time.
Her.
Groklaw is run by a chixx0r.
Bah. I've got 26 branch offices that connect through ISDN or frame relay. Patching requires pushing patches to the branch servers and from there to the workstations. To use SUS I would need to have it installed on each server (and of course it requires IIS) plus I need some means of telling the workstations to get the patches from their local server. I'm sure it works great at one location, but like so much about Microsoft, it just doesn't scale to the real world.
And don't get me started about SMS!
Security hole hits patched Internet Explorer
Microsoft Recalls Botched Browser Security Patch
MS security patch slows XP systems to a crawl
Microsoft withdraws faulty server patch
Microsoft replaces, broadens faulty Exchange patch
Microsoft fixes another faulty patch
Faulty Patch Leaves IE Open to Attack
More patching problems for Microsoft
Minor glitch in Win2K patch
Both that redundant moderation as well as your off-topic moderation have been meta-moderated as unfair.
Now I hope that when a moderator moderates THIS comment as off-topic that their moderation is meta-moderated unfair, too.
I'm going to patent my very own invention: a method of filing patents. Then, everyone who wants to file a patent will have to pay me royalties.
I am happy to entertain any explanation of SCO's behavior as something other than fraudulent stock manipulation, but I haven't heard any that can explain their actions.
Yep. I'm still astonished, though, that IBM made that very statement in their first counter-claim. I'd love it if someone could explain to me how IBM thinks they can prove it. And, if they can, will that mean jail time for SCO's execs?
If you are sent an invoice by SCO, you should immediately sue them. If you pay them money, you agree to abide by the terms of the license you purchase, which will certainly include terms to indemify them from you.
It's always time to sell stock!
Perhaps you would be happier in a tax-free nation?
Like maybe the United Arab Emirates?
Go! Now!
Oh, they'll tell you the breakfast is free until you've eaten it. Then they'll explain that food was in fact supplied to you illegally by HP and that all of the recipes are actually their IP and anyway the original license under which they provided sustenance to you is in fact invalided by federal laws. Then they'll ask you for $699 if you want to avoid any further lawsuits.
What should I ask SCO when I'm there if I get a chance to ask one question?
As much I enjoy the humourous and fascinating art of picking apart SCO's press releases here, everyone again seems to forget one thing: Darl and his gang doesn't care about Open Source. They don't care about Linux. They don't care about IBM or Redhat. They don't even care about their own crappy product line. They know that their case has no merit and that SCO will end up bankrupt. The fact is that the sole purpose of anything that comes out of SCO is to boost their stock price, and this strategy continues to work wonders. It's over $18 now. This is all they care about. I just hope that when it is all over, they're all in jail.
Boisey and his gang are going to get paid whether SCO wins or not.
What lameness. SCO is beginning to sound like a certain cult we all know. Pretty soon they're going to be telling us that 75 trillion years ago, Linus blew everyone up with hydrogen bombs in volcanoes and the only reason we use Linux today is because we are all infected with space cooties.
Man, suing IBM is one thing but threatening to cancel their AIX license is a freakin' death wish.
So SCO tells IBM that they cannot develop or market AIX anymore. IBM says "Fuck you" and carries on without the license. SCO sues again and a court rules that they have no IP claims over UNIX. Bye bye lucrative licensing business... hello Chapter 11.
W00t! Their response is obviously the electronic equivalent of shitting their pants.
If you look in their Opposing Views of Scientology section, you will find no mention of Operation Clambake, the most important web site devoted to revealing the truth about the cult.
Why?