Maybe it's just me, but I think neither state law (Colorado or Missouri) quite fits the bill. I like the fact Colorado charges for access to registry. Without that, what's to stop overseas spammers from using the registry to generate an active email address list. After all, so what if the spammers get sued (and lose). They're overseas so you'll never collect. Having to pony up $500 just to see the list is at least a little deterrent to that. Also, this could help pay for maintaining the list, keeping registration free (hopefully).
However, getting only $10 in damages (plus lawyer's fees) isn't going to encourage much punishment of those who do break the law (and can be found). Here, Missouri's damages of $5000 are a bit more reasonable. This much will encourage more people to go after those violators. Laws without enforcement are worthless.
Of course, both are still opt-out, and opt-in is much preferred. However, if this opt-out compromise reduces the number of spam messages I have to filter out, then I say it is doing some good. There is no one easy solution to the spam problem. If there were, someone would have found it by now (although just extenting the junk fax ban would go a long way toward that solution).
...[BSA] if you don't let them in, how can they prosecute/obtain a warrant/whatever?...
When the BSA does decide to do an audit (as opposed to a mass mailing), it's because they already have some evidence of illegal software use. Most of the time, this is from a former employee, disgruntled employee, or the like (i.e. a contractor you pissed off, former customer, etc.).
If you don't let them in, then they go before a judge and get a warrant, and then US Marshals come in, and you won't refuse the marshals entry (for very long).
I know because a friend of mine got raided. The "tip" came from a business rival. The Marshals found everything was in order and the tipster got billed for the cost of the raid.
I was sorely tempted. But then I would be doing something illegal. I already had my butt covered (my boss even co-signed my written objections). Looking back, I'm glad I didn't. It was fun to watch both the admin company and the business manager squirm.
No, the best insurance is a competent admin and management that gives him the support he needs and listens to him (or her).
I speak from experience. At a company I used to work for, the "business manager" decided that connecting a server (admininstered by another company, I couldn't legally touch it) with NO root password (AIX, BTW) to a modem anyone could dial into (no logging either) was a good idea. I objected, in writing, but was overruled.
It was about a week before the hard drive suddenly went blank. The company administring it said it was a bad hard drive. I disagreed, and said someone had broken into it. Again, I was overruled, and they replaced the hard drive and restored the system from the last system backup (charging about $800 for this service). They put the modem back online.
Exactly a month later, same thing. This time the company says it's a bad controller card (and again won't listen to me). The company claimed it would take a very sophisicated attack to do what was happening. Apparently, they never heard of cron and "rm -rf/*"! Anyway, again they restored the last system backup (not checking anything either; I watched). Another bill (unknown amount).
Month 3, same time, same blank hard drive. Now they belived me and did an install off known good media. They refused scan the data backups for leftovers though. Fortunately, it doesn't appear like the visitor left anything there. The business manager also finally gave the ok to disconnect the modem.
They eventually did reimburse for some of the bills for non-faulty equipment, but the billing department (it was "their" server) was down for about 7 days. I have no idea how much that cost.
The best admin in the world can't protect squat if management ties his (or her) hands.
...I have seen quotes that are more expensive for businesses running Windows Servers...
The one thing the article doesn't mention, but I (at least) would find interesting is how the rates vary by OS (and distriubtion). Anyone have any info?
I was there, and I'd call it a failure. The music wasn't very good, it was way too loud, and the metal bras didn't have to be big to cover the models. I left about 8:50 PM in disgust. Overall, it sounds like I made a good decision.
The whole thing was a good idea, just poorly implemented. From the discussion of the people there, this was apparently a second attempt at this sort of thing. I heard that 2 weeks after the first attempt, they still didn't figure out who won.
...The majority opinion talks about the fact that the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out what a "limited time" is, and the fact that the current copyright terms do have a limit, so the test is fulfilled...
Sadly, I agree with your reading. It also means that this court would say a billion years had a limit, and would be ok too.
This is a dark day for the public. As I see it, there is but one ray of hope. I remember from history that at one point the Supreme Court said seperate but equal was ok (regarding education). A later Supreme Court reversed that decision and said discrimination was illegal. Perhaps someday, a better Court will overturn this ruling.
...There are stories of movie studios burning prints of the films that are about to enter the Public domain to prevent them from competing with their current releases...
If those stories are true (I don't have enough info to make a judgement on that), then it's really ironic that the "pirates" might actually be good guys in a sense. Destroying something that's about to enter public domain to stop it from entering public domain is theft (from the public) IMHO. But if a pirate somewhere has a copy, then that art won't be lost.
Just think, a new "pirate" rallying cry: We're not stealing, we're preserving public property.
...Why should they have to suddenly at some arbitrary date no longer be able to exploit their intellectual property?...
Actually, they still can exploit it, just at a much lower rate. Disney could sell copies of the cartoons, and they still own the trademark on the mouse, which doesn't expire. Merchandise can still be exploited under the trademark rules.
...It does not mention the need to prevent them from accessing one interface's IP from another interface...
You are absolutely correct and it will be corrected. However, it's not a total disaster. As I mention in another reply, if you are binding to a private address range (as the example does), then the attacker must be one hop away for the "attack" to work. This is assuming they know what your private address is. Thus, it's still good advice.
...This relies, of course, on having IP routing enabled on the Linux box...
I tested it and it still works even with routing disabled. Scary at first glance, but there is ray of hope. Exploiting the "weak end host" depends on several things being perfect.
First, an attacker has to know the ip address of the "other side" (where the services you want to protect are listening). Second, assuming you are using the private address range for your "other side" (which is standard), the attacker must be one hop away. Otherwise, the routers between the two systems would not know how to route the packet and simply drop it. This one hop rule will kill most attacks (but not all!) without further effort on your part.
Finally, this attack can be filtered by a firewall quite easily. Don't allow packets from the wrong interface through to that port. Or, if you are using a private address range, all packets with a destination to the private address range get dropped.
...why on earth would someone not be firewalling their printer?
In addition to the firewalling, cups can also be portwalled too (see http://www.spotswood-computer.net/portwalling.html for details on this concept). Make sure it's not listening on an internet interface (which it would by default). Assuming your internal interface is 192.168.1.1, comment out the lines
Port 80
Port 631
and replace them with
Listen 192.168.1.1:631
Listen 192.168.1.1:80
and restart the service. Warning: The cups init.d script in Mandrake (at least) will make changes to your configuration file, resulting in cups failing to start if you make the changes listed here. Edit the script and stop it from making the changes before you restart.
... Spammers confirm the functionality of open relays by sending test messages to themselves...
Here, I would manually allow such messages to pass. I wouldn't forward any messages from orbs and a few more blackhole lists simply for fear of whole subnet blocking. Which is too bad. Gettting listed would attract more spammers to my trap.
...If we can get the response rate from spam to drop from a quarter of one percent to maybe a tenth of that, we may start to get close to a position where spam actually becomes uneconomic. It's only by achieving that that we'll see the current volume of spam reduced...
I've been kicking around an idea to reduce the response rate, but don't know how to implement it properly (yet!). My idea is to setup what *APPEARS* to be an open relay. Spammer will try to send their garbage through it, but NOTHING will actually get delivered. That's gotta cut the response rate way down (to zero), plus saving a lot inboxes. If the response rate goes low enough, it becomes uneconomical to send spam and the spammers find a new line of work.
Anyone have any pointers for a Postfix installation?
...Preferably without Mozilla's (1.1+) bothersome "download manager"...
And here I thought it was just me that hated that. Anyway, you can disable the download manager quite easily. Go to Edit -> Preferences ->Navigator -> Downloads and pick the option you like best.
There is another trick the victim can use that I've used successfully. People like bad news. So give them some. Add to the "slander", but add to it in such a way that's its total unbelievable, i.e. he embezzled money from the company, add so he can support his 36 adopted children and buy a ride on the space shuttle.
I upgraded to 9.0 (from 8.2) and had the same mouse problem, and I did move the wheel. That was one of my two biggest problems.
The other big problem I had was I jumped the gun and moved up to KDE 3.0.2 while still running 8.2. Mandrake migrated my KDE 2.2 settings and not my 3.0.2 settings. They were very similar so it wasn't a big deal to make some changes except for the KDE address book. That's one KDE app that needs work! I also learned after much study that KDE 3.0 stores the addresses in the file std.vcf which is very different from 2.2.
On the positive side, 9.0 found and fixed my sound card problems, which had been flaky for some time. Also, 2.4.19 is the first kernel to fully support my motherboard IDE chipset, so, for me at least, 9.0 solved more problems than it created.
...I'm a Windows user, and will be until another OS, whether it be Mac or Linux etc., starts getting all the first-tier games before Windows...
Actually, nowadays the game consoles are getting the games even before windoze. If you really want the games as early as possible, try a nintendo, or playstation and dump windoze.
Putty is nice, and I use it regularly, but it's tunneling sucks. Never did get smb tunneling working until I used a different windows ssh client. (Of course, after trying it over a wan, I gave up on that idea.)
On a different note, I've found winscp to be an excellent compliment to putty. It's a graphical front end for scp. Great for secure file transfers (unlike ftp where the password passes in the clear), and should be supported everywhere ssh is.
...now that I've run it through their zero-fill utility it's reporting that my "drive is certified error-free" again...
I did the same thing to a drive about 3 years ago. Since then it's still running fine. A second one I've done this too has been up and running for about 4 months so far without a single error showing up in/var/log/messages. My experience says don't worry about it. Anyone have different experiences?
I know a local computer shop owner who quit carrying the 1 year warranty drives. Too many returns, in addition to the complaints after the 1 year was up.
Looking at a couple product specs on Maxtor's website (3 year warranty), they claim the components are supposed to last at least 5 years and the drive(s) have an annual return rate of least than 1%. So a 3-year warranty should cost them little (and considering the 3-year warranty drives are a little more expensive, perhaps it makes them money) and makes customers happy. Why change? Perhaps the drive quality is going down??
I used to like Maxtor drives. Looks like I'll be avoiding them from now on.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's just me, but I think neither state law (Colorado or Missouri) quite fits the bill. I like the fact Colorado charges for access to registry. Without that, what's to stop overseas spammers from using the registry to generate an active email address list. After all, so what if the spammers get sued (and lose). They're overseas so you'll never collect. Having to pony up $500 just to see the list is at least a little deterrent to that. Also, this could help pay for maintaining the list, keeping registration free (hopefully).
However, getting only $10 in damages (plus lawyer's fees) isn't going to encourage much punishment of those who do break the law (and can be found). Here, Missouri's damages of $5000 are a bit more reasonable. This much will encourage more people to go after those violators. Laws without enforcement are worthless.
Of course, both are still opt-out, and opt-in is much preferred. However, if this opt-out compromise reduces the number of spam messages I have to filter out, then I say it is doing some good. There is no one easy solution to the spam problem. If there were, someone would have found it by now (although just extenting the junk fax ban would go a long way toward that solution).
When the BSA does decide to do an audit (as opposed to a mass mailing), it's because they already have some evidence of illegal software use. Most of the time, this is from a former employee, disgruntled employee, or the like (i.e. a contractor you pissed off, former customer, etc.).
If you don't let them in, then they go before a judge and get a warrant, and then US Marshals come in, and you won't refuse the marshals entry (for very long).
I know because a friend of mine got raided. The "tip" came from a business rival. The Marshals found everything was in order and the tipster got billed for the cost of the raid.
Yes, any competent Linux or BSD adminstrator.
I was sorely tempted. But then I would be doing something illegal. I already had my butt covered (my boss even co-signed my written objections). Looking back, I'm glad I didn't. It was fun to watch both the admin company and the business manager squirm.
Too bad it didn't lead to real changes.
No, the best insurance is a competent admin and management that gives him the support he needs and listens to him (or her).
I speak from experience. At a company I used to work for, the "business manager" decided that connecting a server (admininstered by another company, I couldn't legally touch it) with NO root password (AIX, BTW) to a modem anyone could dial into (no logging either) was a good idea. I objected, in writing, but was overruled.
It was about a week before the hard drive suddenly went blank. The company administring it said it was a bad hard drive. I disagreed, and said someone had broken into it. Again, I was overruled, and they replaced the hard drive and restored the system from the last system backup (charging about $800 for this service). They put the modem back online.
Exactly a month later, same thing. This time the company says it's a bad controller card (and again won't listen to me). The company claimed it would take a very sophisicated attack to do what was happening. Apparently, they never heard of cron and "rm -rf /*"! Anyway, again they restored the last system backup (not checking anything either; I watched). Another bill (unknown amount).
Month 3, same time, same blank hard drive. Now they belived me and did an install off known good media. They refused scan the data backups for leftovers though. Fortunately, it doesn't appear like the visitor left anything there. The business manager also finally gave the ok to disconnect the modem.
They eventually did reimburse for some of the bills for non-faulty equipment, but the billing department (it was "their" server) was down for about 7 days. I have no idea how much that cost.
The best admin in the world can't protect squat if management ties his (or her) hands.
The one thing the article doesn't mention, but I (at least) would find interesting is how the rates vary by OS (and distriubtion). Anyone have any info?
I was there, and I'd call it a failure. The music wasn't very good, it was way too loud, and the metal bras didn't have to be big to cover the models. I left about 8:50 PM in disgust. Overall, it sounds like I made a good decision.
The whole thing was a good idea, just poorly implemented. From the discussion of the people there, this was apparently a second attempt at this sort of thing. I heard that 2 weeks after the first attempt, they still didn't figure out who won.
Sadly, I agree with your reading. It also means that this court would say a billion years had a limit, and would be ok too.
This is a dark day for the public. As I see it, there is but one ray of hope. I remember from history that at one point the Supreme Court said seperate but equal was ok (regarding education). A later Supreme Court reversed that decision and said discrimination was illegal. Perhaps someday, a better Court will overturn this ruling.
If those stories are true (I don't have enough info to make a judgement on that), then it's really ironic that the "pirates" might actually be good guys in a sense. Destroying something that's about to enter public domain to stop it from entering public domain is theft (from the public) IMHO. But if a pirate somewhere has a copy, then that art won't be lost.
Just think, a new "pirate" rallying cry: We're not stealing, we're preserving public property.
Actually, they still can exploit it, just at a much lower rate. Disney could sell copies of the cartoons, and they still own the trademark on the mouse, which doesn't expire. Merchandise can still be exploited under the trademark rules.
Excuse me, what makes you think they haven't already been flushed?
You are absolutely correct and it will be corrected. However, it's not a total disaster. As I mention in another reply, if you are binding to a private address range (as the example does), then the attacker must be one hop away for the "attack" to work. This is assuming they know what your private address is. Thus, it's still good advice.
I tested it and it still works even with routing disabled. Scary at first glance, but there is ray of hope. Exploiting the "weak end host" depends on several things being perfect.
First, an attacker has to know the ip address of the "other side" (where the services you want to protect are listening). Second, assuming you are using the private address range for your "other side" (which is standard), the attacker must be one hop away. Otherwise, the routers between the two systems would not know how to route the packet and simply drop it. This one hop rule will kill most attacks (but not all!) without further effort on your part.
Finally, this attack can be filtered by a firewall quite easily. Don't allow packets from the wrong interface through to that port. Or, if you are using a private address range, all packets with a destination to the private address range get dropped.
In addition to the firewalling, cups can also be portwalled too (see http://www.spotswood-computer.net/portwalling.html for details on this concept). Make sure it's not listening on an internet interface (which it would by default). Assuming your internal interface is 192.168.1.1, comment out the lines
and replace them with and restart the service. Warning: The cups init.d script in Mandrake (at least) will make changes to your configuration file, resulting in cups failing to start if you make the changes listed here. Edit the script and stop it from making the changes before you restart.Here, I would manually allow such messages to pass. I wouldn't forward any messages from orbs and a few more blackhole lists simply for fear of whole subnet blocking. Which is too bad. Gettting listed would attract more spammers to my trap.
I've been kicking around an idea to reduce the response rate, but don't know how to implement it properly (yet!). My idea is to setup what *APPEARS* to be an open relay. Spammer will try to send their garbage through it, but NOTHING will actually get delivered. That's gotta cut the response rate way down (to zero), plus saving a lot inboxes. If the response rate goes low enough, it becomes uneconomical to send spam and the spammers find a new line of work.
Anyone have any pointers for a Postfix installation?
I agree it does need one in the main tree, and should have one. In the meantime, you can download a workable spellchecker http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/installation.html
And here I thought it was just me that hated that. Anyway, you can disable the download manager quite easily. Go to Edit -> Preferences ->Navigator -> Downloads and pick the option you like best.
There is another trick the victim can use that I've used successfully. People like bad news. So give them some. Add to the "slander", but add to it in such a way that's its total unbelievable, i.e. he embezzled money from the company, add so he can support his 36 adopted children and buy a ride on the space shuttle.
I upgraded to 9.0 (from 8.2) and had the same mouse problem, and I did move the wheel. That was one of my two biggest problems.
The other big problem I had was I jumped the gun and moved up to KDE 3.0.2 while still running 8.2. Mandrake migrated my KDE 2.2 settings and not my 3.0.2 settings. They were very similar so it wasn't a big deal to make some changes except for the KDE address book. That's one KDE app that needs work! I also learned after much study that KDE 3.0 stores the addresses in the file std.vcf which is very different from 2.2.
On the positive side, 9.0 found and fixed my sound card problems, which had been flaky for some time. Also, 2.4.19 is the first kernel to fully support my motherboard IDE chipset, so, for me at least, 9.0 solved more problems than it created.
Actually, nowadays the game consoles are getting the games even before windoze. If you really want the games as early as possible, try a nintendo, or playstation and dump windoze.
The only security Microsoft really cares about is the security of M$'s profits rather than the user's data.
Putty is nice, and I use it regularly, but it's tunneling sucks. Never did get smb tunneling working until I used a different windows ssh client. (Of course, after trying it over a wan, I gave up on that idea.)
On a different note, I've found winscp to be an excellent compliment to putty. It's a graphical front end for scp. Great for secure file transfers (unlike ftp where the password passes in the clear), and should be supported everywhere ssh is.
I did the same thing to a drive about 3 years ago. Since then it's still running fine. A second one I've done this too has been up and running for about 4 months so far without a single error showing up in /var/log/messages. My experience says don't worry about it. Anyone have different experiences?
I know a local computer shop owner who quit carrying the 1 year warranty drives. Too many returns, in addition to the complaints after the 1 year was up.
Looking at a couple product specs on Maxtor's website (3 year warranty), they claim the components are supposed to last at least 5 years and the drive(s) have an annual return rate of least than 1%. So a 3-year warranty should cost them little (and considering the 3-year warranty drives are a little more expensive, perhaps it makes them money) and makes customers happy. Why change? Perhaps the drive quality is going down??
I used to like Maxtor drives. Looks like I'll be avoiding them from now on. :(