"Wall Street Journal suggests Microsoft has fiddled with the registry in its stripped-down Windows offerings and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly, for example."
Nah that's just Windows. *nothing* works properly.
My original point was the concept of causing messages to appear to come from a victims machine thus causing a DDoS against that machine.
If you are inside the network, you don't need to hack something running SMTP - simply send email through it. Couple this with, say, access through a wireless network, and instant competitor DDoS by sending targeted spam by simply getting in range of the wireless - i.e. parking outside.
Of course I am assuming that IBM are inspecting TCP packets to determine the connecting machine's source and not the SMTP headers. That would be silly and ripe for abuse.
What about NAT clients behind a firewall though? Sure it would be simple enough if using a mail relay, but it could cause problems for people who want to deliver directly via SMTP, but via a NAT gateway.
I think more and more we will see SMTP slowly move away from clients delivering directly. Incidentally one of the most amusing solutions I once saw was to reject connections from Windows machines only by using system fingerprinting.
There is a difference between a general zombified machine that belongs to say, a home user that has become infected by users (in)action being used for evil purposes such as spam and a haxx0r targeting a specific system that say for example belongs to someone such as a competitor (which could also be an inside job). Attacker instructs machine to send spam targeted at IBM 'protected' system(s) thus triggering instant DDoS against competitor.
I was referring to the concept. Say a haxx0r compromises a machine on a network belonging to a victim then uses that machine to deliberately target spam at addresses known to be 'protected' by this IBM system.
Most of the graphic artists I know (and I know many) don't understand that concept of why the Internet stops working when they unplug the network cable to make the Mac go 'faster'.
Anyone remember the smurf attack? Send a large ICMP PING to a broadcast address from a spoofed IP of your real victim - all the machines in the subnet then DDoS the victim with replies sent to the spoofed address.
This new DDoS of spamming machines sounds kind of similar. What's to stop haxx0rs exploiting this to cause a DDoS of non-spammers?
As a Mac user, naturally I am afraid of appearing like an individual and thinking for myself. Does this two button change mean that when confronted by people critisising the Apple "single button" policy that I'm supposed to now argue that one button is better still or not?
The BBC. Like I don't get enough hassle from them already for simply not needing a TV License as I don't watch TV.
Cue BBC zealot posts saying how wonderful the BBC is and how we should all pay for it.
Read this very carefully zealots - I DON'T CARE. I don't want to watch TV I just want to be left alone. My issue is the constant harassment I suffer, NOT the fact there is a license - by all means have a license - I really don't care - I don't watch TV, I don't need one. Just respect my choice and leave me the **** alone.
If they want to make me pay tax to simply own a computer however then I WILL have an issue with it.
You are loaning out things that people can pick up and walk away with. How are you going to stop theft..? The biggest problem with loaning portable equipment is not loaning out the equipment, it's making sure it comes back in one piece if at all.
Not all problems have a technological solution. This is one of them. Well, not until we have functional artificial intelligence built into artificial life forms that can do everything humans can.
How I would solve the problem? Hire someone to look after the gear and deal with loans.
We already have wearable computing en masse
on
Whereables?
·
· Score: 1
'Uhh' yes they do. They can take 2Gb DIMMS to a total of 16Gb. The graphic if you care to check the link is hosted on Apple's site.
As I said, Apple don't like to admit it and the official line is they are 'not supported' but then XServe RAID was initially 'not supported' on Windows or Linux either until people started plugging them in and finding that they worked. Now suddenly they are certified for Windows and Linux (and in fact I have two, one of which is connected to a Windows server and works just fine).
Slashdot Mirror
So what you are saying is that if there were more Mac's in use, we'd see Mac viruses.
Once again, Logic Saves:
...therefore...
If
"Violent crime is inspired by media violence" is true;
Games are a form of media
Books are a form of media
The Bible is an inspiration for violence as it contains violence.
Lets see them get out of that. Oh wait - let me guess - there is some law being passed to exempt the Bible for being blamed for anything.
Use wireless and switch all your telephones to VoIP (perhaps using the excellent Asterisk).
Lets see them audit that.
You did graphics like this on Linux? Get back to programming and stop getting big ideas.
...the names of the design team, except Jef Raskin.
Because they would be bankrupt from all the prior art for starters.
"Wall Street Journal suggests Microsoft has fiddled with the registry in its stripped-down Windows offerings and the result is that video clips embedded into Microsoft Word documents don't run properly, for example."
Nah that's just Windows. *nothing* works properly.
Whatever.
...that is, list of addresses at different servers.
It's DDoS if one compiles a list of 'protected' IBM email addresses and sends lots of spam to them.
My original point was the concept of causing messages to appear to come from a victims machine thus causing a DDoS against that machine.
If you are inside the network, you don't need to hack something running SMTP - simply send email through it. Couple this with, say, access through a wireless network, and instant competitor DDoS by sending targeted spam by simply getting in range of the wireless - i.e. parking outside.
Of course I am assuming that IBM are inspecting TCP packets to determine the connecting machine's source and not the SMTP headers. That would be silly and ripe for abuse.
What about NAT clients behind a firewall though? Sure it would be simple enough if using a mail relay, but it could cause problems for people who want to deliver directly via SMTP, but via a NAT gateway.
I think more and more we will see SMTP slowly move away from clients delivering directly. Incidentally one of the most amusing solutions I once saw was to reject connections from Windows machines only by using system fingerprinting.
There is a difference between a general zombified machine that belongs to say, a home user that has become infected by users (in)action being used for evil purposes such as spam and a haxx0r targeting a specific system that say for example belongs to someone such as a competitor (which could also be an inside job). Attacker instructs machine to send spam targeted at IBM 'protected' system(s) thus triggering instant DDoS against competitor.
Which bit do you not understand?
I was referring to the concept. Say a haxx0r compromises a machine on a network belonging to a victim then uses that machine to deliberately target spam at addresses known to be 'protected' by this IBM system.
Most of the graphic artists I know (and I know many) don't understand that concept of why the Internet stops working when they unplug the network cable to make the Mac go 'faster'.
I wish I were kidding.
Anyone remember the smurf attack? Send a large ICMP PING to a broadcast address from a spoofed IP of your real victim - all the machines in the subnet then DDoS the victim with replies sent to the spoofed address. This new DDoS of spamming machines sounds kind of similar. What's to stop haxx0rs exploiting this to cause a DDoS of non-spammers?
As a Mac user, naturally I am afraid of appearing like an individual and thinking for myself. Does this two button change mean that when confronted by people critisising the Apple "single button" policy that I'm supposed to now argue that one button is better still or not?
Why am I reminded about the Star Wars Holiday Special? (incidentally I just got given a copy on DVD and I didn't even ask for it)
The BBC. Like I don't get enough hassle from them already for simply not needing a TV License as I don't watch TV.
Cue BBC zealot posts saying how wonderful the BBC is and how we should all pay for it.
Read this very carefully zealots - I DON'T CARE. I don't want to watch TV I just want to be left alone. My issue is the constant harassment I suffer, NOT the fact there is a license - by all means have a license - I really don't care - I don't watch TV, I don't need one. Just respect my choice and leave me the **** alone.
If they want to make me pay tax to simply own a computer however then I WILL have an issue with it.
See subject.
You are loaning out things that people can pick up and walk away with. How are you going to stop theft..? The biggest problem with loaning portable equipment is not loaning out the equipment, it's making sure it comes back in one piece if at all.
Not all problems have a technological solution. This is one of them. Well, not until we have functional artificial intelligence built into artificial life forms that can do everything humans can.
How I would solve the problem? Hire someone to look after the gear and deal with loans.
It's called a Smartphone with belt clip.
'Uhh' yes they do. They can take 2Gb DIMMS to a total of 16Gb. The graphic if you care to check the link is hosted on Apple's site.
As I said, Apple don't like to admit it and the official line is they are 'not supported' but then XServe RAID was initially 'not supported' on Windows or Linux either until people started plugging them in and finding that they worked. Now suddenly they are certified for Windows and Linux (and in fact I have two, one of which is connected to a Windows server and works just fine).
Any relation to Rooby Roo?
The Apple XServe supports 16Gb of RAM, the just don't like to admit it. I found this image on their site while looking for stuff last year.