But following the instructions I gave you, the password is readable only by someone with root access. By storing them in a PHP file, users other than root can read it.
The advice I gave is available from many books on PHP. If it's wrong, please write the authors to correct their mistake.
Use Apache directives to create an environmental variable with the password stored in it. This way, you can store the password in a file only root can read. That's far more secure than storing the password in a PHP file any user can read.
They actually have the goal of being the second most used browser, but are probably still happy being used less than IE, Firefox, and Safari if they're still turning a nice profit.
Regardless they will and do relevant testing, takes days to weeks depending on scope of change its effects... sometimes the effects ripple out to third-parties which can further delay deployment.
Do the testers come in only on certain days of the month? What technical reason is there for delaying patches until a certain day of the month for all users? Why not make the patches available as soon as they're tested for those who want them, and delay them until a monthly rollout for those who want a monthly rollout? Is this an unsolved research problem?
Couldn't they at least make the patch available ASAP to those who want it ASAP, and roll it out in a monthly patch cycle for those who want a monthly patch cycle? For the number and caliber of computer science researchers Microsoft has at its disposal, and the priority they've put on increased security, it's strange that they somehow haven't figured out how to do this. Is there some issue I'm not understanding?
You seem to misunderstand the debate between Darwinists and Creationists. The Darwinists are not saying that Creationists are wrong, or that Intelligent Design did not happen. They are simply saying there's no scientific evidence to support those ideas. Without scientific evidence, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science and should not be taught in a science classroom.
Likewise, scientists should not insist on Darwinism being taught in churches, and bibles should not have labels about evolution, because those concepts are not religion and should not be taught in a church.
That's why it's always good to use two reliable sources of information. Any one reference will have lots of errors, but any two references won't have many errors in common.
When I look something up on Wikipedia, it's usually something I wouldn't find in a general-purpose encyclopedia, even one that spans multiple shelves. Generally when I look something up in Wikipedia, the only alternative at hand is to use Google. What I find is that it's far easier to get the information I want on Wikipedia, and it's generally higher quality than information of the sites Google finds. And if Wikipedia doesn't have the information, I use Google to get it and add it to Wikipedia. The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't need to be as good as a paper or CD encyclopedia to do its job; it only needs to be better than the best search engines. In fact, it's often better than other enecyclopedias for me because of its incredible breadth of topics.
Re:I'm the only GNU/Linux user in the office
on
Why Windows is Slow
·
· Score: 1
Internet Explorer can't be fully removed. It can't even be fully disable since it's needed by Windows Update. (Although Windows Update is blocked by viruses on half of the computer).
To attempt to make IE safer, I set all the web zones to high security level. In order to access Windows update, I had to set the trusted zone to medium security and add http://*.update.microsoft.com, https://*.update.microsoft.com, and http://download.windowsupdate.com to my trusted sites. Most importantly, I use IE only for Windows Update and testing my sites in IE.
Of course, I have firewall, anti-virus, and anti-adware software, too, and also don't do stupid things such as download executables from untrusted sources. I'm still not 100% safe, but I can tell I'm not getting battered with malware like lots of other Windows users.
But doesn't Firefox take up more RAM than other browsers? Bring on the spyware. I need my RAM. What if another application needs it? I'll get a horrible "system is running low on memory" dialog. And then what would I do? Boo hoo.
I just make the site look good in Firefox and make the site verify, then fix what IE users complain about. I have better things to do with my time than to keep dicking around with a site until it looks perfect in IE.
There's just one subtle flaw in your argument. People do use Firefox. And sites do work in Firefox. Two! Two flaws in your argument. People use Firefox, sites work in Firefox, and sites are programmed to work in Firefox. Three! Three flaws in your... wait, let me come in again.
It isn't that Firefox/Opera/Safari isn't 100% safe... just that people don't go after them quite as much.
No, it's not just that people don't go after other browsers quite as much. Most of the time, only Internet Explorer has known highly critical security flaws. From this chart you can see that IE for Windows has had a known highly critical vulnerability for over two years. Currently, the only other browser that has such a serious flaw is Mozilla, and that's been for less than two months — and that flaw will be fixed in a week or two with the release of Mozilla 1.7.13 (or you could use SeaMonkey 1.0 instead of the old nearly abandoned Mozilla).
It's true, other browsers are not 100% safe, but you're much less likely to get hit by an exploit with other browsers even if hackers go after them, because they just don't have as many vulnerabilities, they're not as serious, and they're patched faster on average. Of course, being less popular than IE means that hackers go after them less, too, but that's hardly the only reason they're safer.
You're still not 100% safe using other browsers — you still should also use firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, and anti-adware programs, as well as not download executables from untrusted sources and practice other common sense safe practices, to minimize your exposure to malware.
Opera has been free (as in beer) for years. It had a tiny little barely noticeable ad banner at the top of the window, but they removed that last year. According to reliable web stats sources, Opera usage has not increased noticeably since then. How much time is it going to take for Opera to get above 1% usage share? All I hear about Opera is excuses, excuses.
Agreed. Although I use Firefox, I also use firewall, anti-virus, anti-adware, and anti-spyware software. I would advise everyone else to do the same, no matter what browser you use. Security is not a product, but a process. All browsers have security vulnerabilities. If using a particular browser is your one and only line of defense against malware, you're making a big mistake!
1. IE is closed source. Firefox is open source. Want to see all of Firefox's bugs? Go to Bugzilla. The lead developer of Firefox is now trying to make all discussions about Firefox public. Good luck trying to see IE's bug database or listen in any any conversations taking place on the Redmond campus.
2. Firefox has an update system that on average every two months automatically patches bugs. Many people complain that the updates come out too often.
3. The latest version of Firefox works on Windows 95 and 98. The latest version of IE requires Windows 2000, XP, or Vista.
Differences in cache size, cache speed, disk access time, and disk throughput, among other things, would cause two computers with exactly the same CPU, RAM, and bus to run at different speeds. This is part of the MHz myth -- there's more to how fast a computer is than the speed of its individual parts.
If you want to get deeper into total awareness, I suggest looking into Jon Kabat-Zinn's work in mindfulness. He's a Ph.D. and Professor of Medicine emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Medical School who teaches mindfulness as a way of relieving stress. Even when you turn off your cell phone, your mind might still be elsewhere.
many problems that exist in Firefox and no other browser... There are major memory management and CPU hogging bugs the Mozilla developers have not been able to fix
My point is not that these problems are okay — they're not. If you find any of these serious problems in any browser, report it right away so the problem can be fixed. My point is just that there's no reason to keep harping on the fact that browser X has problem Y, and acting as if other browsers don't also have a few issues of their own with problem Y.
Your analogy fails because it doesn't take into account the version number. Just like the orange juice in your example, Bon Echo existed before the alpha version was announced. Anyone wanting Bon Echo could have downloaded it. No one was saying that Bon Echo didn't exist, just that it wasn't the final alpha version. In effect, it was a release candidate.
No, Firefox 2 alpha was not released until Mozilla said it was released. What was reported as a release before was a nightly build. The distinction is that if the build is not officially released, there might be more fixes introduced in the final offical version. This distinction is important because perhaps at the last minute a serious crash might be fixed. And we don't want tens or hundreds of thousands of users download a build with a serious problem, do we? Maybe you do...
Slashdot Mirror
The advice I gave is available from many books on PHP. If it's wrong, please write the authors to correct their mistake.
Use Apache directives to create an environmental variable with the password stored in it. This way, you can store the password in a file only root can read. That's far more secure than storing the password in a PHP file any user can read.
They actually have the goal of being the second most used browser, but are probably still happy being used less than IE, Firefox, and Safari if they're still turning a nice profit.
Brilliant idea: just look at the date the bug was opened. I know, I can't believe I figured it out on my own either! ;-)
Couldn't they at least make the patch available ASAP to those who want it ASAP, and roll it out in a monthly patch cycle for those who want a monthly patch cycle? For the number and caliber of computer science researchers Microsoft has at its disposal, and the priority they've put on increased security, it's strange that they somehow haven't figured out how to do this. Is there some issue I'm not understanding?
Sure there are darwinists. I am a darwinist who is not a biologist. There are also biologists who are not darwinists.
Likewise, scientists should not insist on Darwinism being taught in churches, and bibles should not have labels about evolution, because those concepts are not religion and should not be taught in a church.
That's why it's always good to use two reliable sources of information. Any one reference will have lots of errors, but any two references won't have many errors in common.
When I look something up on Wikipedia, it's usually something I wouldn't find in a general-purpose encyclopedia, even one that spans multiple shelves. Generally when I look something up in Wikipedia, the only alternative at hand is to use Google. What I find is that it's far easier to get the information I want on Wikipedia, and it's generally higher quality than information of the sites Google finds. And if Wikipedia doesn't have the information, I use Google to get it and add it to Wikipedia. The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't need to be as good as a paper or CD encyclopedia to do its job; it only needs to be better than the best search engines. In fact, it's often better than other enecyclopedias for me because of its incredible breadth of topics.
Gosh. I'm glad you told me this. Now I'll know better and ignore all those warnings about extremely critical vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer from Secunia I keep seeing.
Of course, I have firewall, anti-virus, and anti-adware software, too, and also don't do stupid things such as download executables from untrusted sources. I'm still not 100% safe, but I can tell I'm not getting battered with malware like lots of other Windows users.
But doesn't Firefox take up more RAM than other browsers? Bring on the spyware. I need my RAM. What if another application needs it? I'll get a horrible "system is running low on memory" dialog. And then what would I do? Boo hoo.
I just make the site look good in Firefox and make the site verify, then fix what IE users complain about. I have better things to do with my time than to keep dicking around with a site until it looks perfect in IE.
There's just one subtle flaw in your argument. People do use Firefox. And sites do work in Firefox. Two! Two flaws in your argument. People use Firefox, sites work in Firefox, and sites are programmed to work in Firefox. Three! Three flaws in your... wait, let me come in again.
It's true, other browsers are not 100% safe, but you're much less likely to get hit by an exploit with other browsers even if hackers go after them, because they just don't have as many vulnerabilities, they're not as serious, and they're patched faster on average. Of course, being less popular than IE means that hackers go after them less, too, but that's hardly the only reason they're safer.
You're still not 100% safe using other browsers — you still should also use firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, and anti-adware programs, as well as not download executables from untrusted sources and practice other common sense safe practices, to minimize your exposure to malware.
Opera has been free (as in beer) for years. It had a tiny little barely noticeable ad banner at the top of the window, but they removed that last year. According to reliable web stats sources, Opera usage has not increased noticeably since then. How much time is it going to take for Opera to get above 1% usage share? All I hear about Opera is excuses, excuses.
Agreed. Although I use Firefox, I also use firewall, anti-virus, anti-adware, and anti-spyware software. I would advise everyone else to do the same, no matter what browser you use. Security is not a product, but a process. All browsers have security vulnerabilities. If using a particular browser is your one and only line of defense against malware, you're making a big mistake!
2. Firefox has an update system that on average every two months automatically patches bugs. Many people complain that the updates come out too often.
3. The latest version of Firefox works on Windows 95 and 98. The latest version of IE requires Windows 2000, XP, or Vista.
Oh, I see, IHBT! Silly me!
Differences in cache size, cache speed, disk access time, and disk throughput, among other things, would cause two computers with exactly the same CPU, RAM, and bus to run at different speeds. This is part of the MHz myth -- there's more to how fast a computer is than the speed of its individual parts.
If you want to get deeper into total awareness, I suggest looking into Jon Kabat-Zinn's work in mindfulness. He's a Ph.D. and Professor of Medicine emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Medical School who teaches mindfulness as a way of relieving stress. Even when you turn off your cell phone, your mind might still be elsewhere.
My point is not that these problems are okay — they're not. If you find any of these serious problems in any browser, report it right away so the problem can be fixed. My point is just that there's no reason to keep harping on the fact that browser X has problem Y, and acting as if other browsers don't also have a few issues of their own with problem Y.
Your analogy fails because it doesn't take into account the version number. Just like the orange juice in your example, Bon Echo existed before the alpha version was announced. Anyone wanting Bon Echo could have downloaded it. No one was saying that Bon Echo didn't exist, just that it wasn't the final alpha version. In effect, it was a release candidate.
No, Firefox 2 alpha was not released until Mozilla said it was released. What was reported as a release before was a nightly build. The distinction is that if the build is not officially released, there might be more fixes introduced in the final offical version. This distinction is important because perhaps at the last minute a serious crash might be fixed. And we don't want tens or hundreds of thousands of users download a build with a serious problem, do we? Maybe you do...