Hi First: sometimes google cached copies of pages might be informative.
Changing your browser's User-agent str won't always detect the cloaking, as it is quite likely to be configured to work by ip addr block too (googlebot!). Similarly, babelfish may not show cloaked pages because it comes from a different IP than altavista'a index bots and this can be checked for in the cloaking server's config.
Second: it is *imperitave* that search engines keep unique user-agent strings that identify them. P'haps none of you who suggested the engine change user-agent str runs a website? It would remove a great tool from log analasys, and in the end make no difference to cloakers as they'd just do engine detection by IP anyway.
Actually, my ISP (iiNet) just implemented them. The article below says they block sat users (yeah, unfortunate side effect) but goes on to point out that it is in fact basic 'net responsibility.
Broadband services here have been byte-charged from the word go. They're sold as "user pays", "pay for what you use", "fair", etc. Telstra even bytecharges its-self so that it can "fairly pass on the cost to end-users".
Next step: Expect new "low use" plans for 300mb/month or less, with 5 - 15 c/mb download charges.
It'd also nicely explain the page response times. However, I wasn't aware of a FreeBSD box being able to give a "Directory Listing Denied" message. Perhaps they've moved in stages: BSD -> Win2k with HTTP proxy to original box -> Win2k with broken IIS ?
heh. So _very_ amusing. I wonder how many execs are hiding under tables 'till this one blows over... I personally can't think of a better way of saying "We're just bashing UNIX because we're afraid of it, it actually works well enough that our partners use it by preference" than they've just managed. Extract foot slowly and painfully from mouth *grin*.
Fair enough, they _are_ only guesses. However it is especially bizarre given that the system appears to be clearly identified by everything else, and even tells you it's running IIS in the HTTP header. I've found NetCraft to get it right almost every time - the only time I tricked it was when I hooked my old Mac LCIII up to the 'net and ran some old HTTP server (don't remember what) off it. It got the server right but hadn't the foggiest what the OS was. Anyway - of all the things NetCraft could get wrong, Apache/IIS and *nix/Win are two mix-ups it doesn't tend to make.
Hmm... I don't think that makes sense really. I don't see why NetCraft would report the OS of www.wehavethewayout.com as that of www.pmgdirect.com just because one links to the other (that is, after all, all an action= form element is). I think that, as suggested earlier, a bit of damage control may better explain it. Does anybody know if NetCraft re-queries a site at _every_ user info request, or does it cache the results for a day? After all if it does no caching, the damage control explanation makes no sense - it should've changed in NetCraft too. Bizarre...
Interesting. I wasn't game to nmap them w/o permisson but I'm interested in the result. Either MS has done an amazing job at kludging a BSD system to look like Win2k/IIS - but NetCraft can detect it anyway somehow - or NetCraft has gone mad.
Anybody know more about this? I find it hard to believe that NetCraft would do this as an April 1 joke - its a bit over the line, and not too funny to boot...
(sorry for the stuffed links in my prevous post - serves me right for not previewing)
Count yourself lucky that you _have_ management! I work for a small newspaper and the owner/manager really doesn't do any "managing" at all, he just wants to be one of the journalists. He does some strategic stuff, sure, but the day-to-day management he ignores. So there is no communication, no clear deliniation of responsibilities, and a lot of confusion. *arrgghh*. I love most of the job (login: root) as IT mgr but it is more maddening not having management than having bad management in my experience.
No, but you _could_ sniff and figure out what IP ranges they used, then guess an unused IP in range. Most places don't have in-house firewalling or anything (THEY SHOULD between wireless and rest of net) so you could just jump on.
We may be able to give "don't send Word format" the status of netiquette
Alas, most of the problem users would go cross-eyed at the term "netiquette," let alone actually having the faintest what it involves. As a sysadmin of the most computer-illiterate business in Perth, Western Australia, I can attest to this one.
It needs to be more obvious to the user to send as format X rather than.doc because its easier not becuse they "should." That is the only way things will actually change.
*laugh*
DMCA, CSS-whatever, SS-whatever, etc etc - and you're telling me that other countries' laws are more restrictive? I LIVE IN TERROR of the day that the DMCA etc become applicable to Australian citizens by means of internationnal treaty. Not that Australia is perfect, having the unfortunate tendancy to follow the most idiotic of US legal trends, but at any given point in time we're far from as bad as the US.
2.95.4
Thats what gets me - 2.4.5 works _perfectly_ compiled on the same system.
I think its time to dump those oops()es and submit a bug report in case somebody else has some ideas (or a RTFM because of something I missed of course)
Wondering if anybody else has had this happen - my machine is running a version of 2.4.5 I built about a week ago on Debian (woody). Works perfectly. 2.4.6 boots, loads/sbin/init, and spews a stream of oops()s and such across the screen before hanging completely. SAME CONFIG (though i've 'make mrproper'd & 'make menuconfig' not copied across.config of course).
I can build a 2.4.5 kernel perfectly on the same machine, it works. No complier errors for either 2.4.5 or 2.4.6 builds. Its an AMD Duron 850, KT133A board chipset, scsi & ata66, 2 100mbit ethernet.
Anybody seen this kind of bizarre behavior before?
Slashdot Mirror
Hi
First: sometimes google cached copies of pages might be informative.
Changing your browser's User-agent str won't always detect the cloaking, as it is quite likely to be configured to work by ip addr block too (googlebot!). Similarly, babelfish may not show cloaked pages because it comes from a different IP than altavista'a index bots and this can be checked for in the cloaking server's config.
Second: it is *imperitave* that search engines keep unique user-agent strings that identify them. P'haps none of you who suggested the engine change user-agent str runs a website? It would remove a great tool from log analasys, and in the end make no difference to cloakers as they'd just do engine detection by IP anyway.
Actually, my ISP (iiNet) just implemented them. The article below says they block sat users (yeah, unfortunate side effect) but goes on to point out that it is in fact basic 'net responsibility.
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/794
*sigh*
Broadband services here have been byte-charged from the word go. They're sold as "user pays", "pay for what you use", "fair", etc. Telstra even bytecharges its-self so that it can "fairly pass on the cost to end-users".
Next step: Expect new "low use" plans for 300mb/month or less, with 5 - 15 c/mb download charges.
Yay! Broadband: more expensive and less useful!
It'd also nicely explain the page response times. However, I wasn't aware of a FreeBSD box being able to give a "Directory Listing Denied" message. Perhaps they've moved in stages: BSD -> Win2k with HTTP proxy to original box -> Win2k with broken IIS ?
heh. So _very_ amusing. I wonder how many execs are hiding under tables 'till this one blows over...
I personally can't think of a better way of saying "We're just bashing UNIX because we're afraid of it, it actually works well enough that our partners use it by preference" than they've just managed.
Extract foot slowly and painfully from mouth *grin*.
Fair enough, they _are_ only guesses. However it is especially bizarre given that the system appears to be clearly identified by everything else, and even tells you it's running IIS in the HTTP header. I've found NetCraft to get it right almost every time - the only time I tricked it was when I hooked my old Mac LCIII up to the 'net and ran some old HTTP server (don't remember what) off it. It got the server right but hadn't the foggiest what the OS was.
Anyway - of all the things NetCraft could get wrong, Apache/IIS and *nix/Win are two mix-ups it doesn't tend to make.
Hmm... I don't think that makes sense really. I don't see why NetCraft would report the OS of www.wehavethewayout.com as that of www.pmgdirect.com just because one links to the other (that is, after all, all an action= form element is).
I think that, as suggested earlier, a bit of damage control may better explain it.
Does anybody know if NetCraft re-queries a site at _every_ user info request, or does it cache the results for a day? After all if it does no caching, the damage control explanation makes no sense - it should've changed in NetCraft too.
Bizarre...
Interesting. I wasn't game to nmap them w/o permisson but I'm interested in the result. Either MS has done an amazing job at kludging a BSD system to look like Win2k/IIS - but NetCraft can detect it anyway somehow - or NetCraft has gone mad.
Anybody know more about this? I find it hard to believe that NetCraft would do this as an April 1 joke - its a bit over the line, and not too funny to boot...
(sorry for the stuffed links in my prevous post - serves me right for not previewing)
You know MS/UniSys's new anti-UNIX site www.wehavethewayout.com? Well take a look at what NetCraft reports</a>
- and compare to the results of a<br>
lynx -head http://www.wehavethewayout.com<br>
command. Interesting. Has MS fiddled the server, and NetCraft is pulling some tricks to get the truth, or is NetCraft pulling a "funny" one?
Count yourself lucky that you _have_ management!
I work for a small newspaper and the owner/manager really doesn't do any "managing" at all, he just wants to be one of the journalists. He does some strategic stuff, sure, but the day-to-day management he ignores. So there is no communication, no clear deliniation of responsibilities, and a lot of confusion. *arrgghh*.
I love most of the job (login: root) as IT mgr but it is more maddening not having management than having bad management in my experience.
No, but you _could_ sniff and figure out what IP ranges they used, then guess an unused IP in range. Most places don't have in-house firewalling or anything (THEY SHOULD between wireless and rest of net) so you could just jump on.
We may be able to give "don't send Word format" the status of netiquette .doc because its easier not becuse they "should." That is the only way things will actually change.
Alas, most of the problem users would go cross-eyed at the term "netiquette," let alone actually having the faintest what it involves. As a sysadmin of the most computer-illiterate business in Perth, Western Australia, I can attest to this one. It needs to be more obvious to the user to send as format X rather than
*laugh*
DMCA, CSS-whatever, SS-whatever, etc etc - and you're telling me that other countries' laws are more restrictive? I LIVE IN TERROR of the day that the DMCA etc become applicable to Australian citizens by means of internationnal treaty. Not that Australia is perfect, having the unfortunate tendancy to follow the most idiotic of US legal trends, but at any given point in time we're far from as bad as the US.
2.95.4 Thats what gets me - 2.4.5 works _perfectly_ compiled on the same system. I think its time to dump those oops()es and submit a bug report in case somebody else has some ideas (or a RTFM because of something I missed of course)
Wondering if anybody else has had this happen - my machine is running a version of 2.4.5 I built about a week ago on Debian (woody). Works perfectly. 2.4.6 boots, loads /sbin/init, and spews a stream of oops()s and such across the screen before hanging completely. SAME CONFIG (though i've 'make mrproper'd & 'make menuconfig' not copied across .config of course).
I can build a 2.4.5 kernel perfectly on the same machine, it works. No complier errors for either 2.4.5 or 2.4.6 builds. Its an AMD Duron 850, KT133A board chipset, scsi & ata66, 2 100mbit ethernet.
Anybody seen this kind of bizarre behavior before?