I personally do not lock my profiles down for my labs. I used to do this and it was just a waste of time. My preference now is to use guest accounts instead of user accounts. The nice thing about guest accounts is that when you log out they are destroyed, so if they change the background then it makes no difference. I will often redirect the My Documents folder to "c:\temporary work" though or something similar so they can save documents between sessions, although I warn them that they could be wiped at any time. The one caveat to this is that with Windows XP it is now a feature that guest accounts are only guest accounts if the computer is on a domain. However, if you do not have a domain you can join them to a temporary domain and not use it (because the accounts do not need to be domain accounts), but if you have a domain then this works out even easier for you.
I just wish people would use their evil powers for a good purpose. I want a worm that extracts the product activation code and emails it out to everyone on their Windows Address Book and Outlook Address Book contact lists. This would totally ruin Microsoft's activation scheme and then they'd have to remove it along with the other junk they've tacked onto it (Genuine Advantage).
I have had several genuine advantage bugs even on our volume license copies. If you switch out motherboards it sometimes thinks you stole the OS for no reason. I have also seen this happen to computers randomly, where one day it just decides your OS is pirated. And with Genuine Advantage Notifications it likes to remind you, a lot. With Vista your computer would just stop being useful, great.
This really makes me angry and I wish Microsoft would stop stomping on their customers. Product Activation is horrible, Genuine Advantage is horrible and my guess it will only get worse as Microsoft thinks that by pissing everyone off they will somehow increase their profit.
I feel really sorry for the smaller businesses that cannot afford Microsoft's horrible pricing for volume licensed products.
I feel as if Slashdot is nothing more than an advertiser for Apple. And it seems they even do it for free. They announce every single Apple release. I remember when Slashdot used to report on interesting news.
No, it's not like leaving your doors open. No, it's not like leaving your windows open. No, it's not like leaving both open. It's not a house, it is a computer. And they are not doors or windows; it is a daemon that is extremely popular. If you're going to use metaphors then at least come up with a better comparison. Such as, it's like letting someone walk into a bank and giving them a bank account. But, metaphors suck and people just use them to muddle the topic they're arguing so their side of the argument sounds better.
Mac fanboys are always screaming about how their OS is so much better. It used to be that their computers were easier to use, and then Apple tossed out their easy OS. It used to be that SCSI was better, and Apple threw that out. It used to be that G3s, then G4s, and then G5s were better than Intel equivalent, and Apple switched to Intel. And next we're going to find out what we already know, that their computers aren't much, if any, more secure.
And this guy proved that this OS was just as insecure as Windows, Linux, or any other network aware OS. And you can't say it wasn't a remote vulnerability, because it was accomplished through a network and the person was able to do what they shouldn't have been able to do, thus a remote vulnerability. It's an OS, written by imperfect people with imperfect tools. If this were a Windows box that was hacked through TS or RDP then you'd be all over calling Windows so easy to hack.
And yes, this wasn't an anonymous crack but that is no excuse. A password could be guessed through many means and you're saying if that someone guesses a user password then it doesn't matter that they can elevate tasks, and that's a bunch of crap. All computers are firewalled now out the box, but a server is only as good as the services it provides which means you need to open it up. This means that a computer is only as secure as it is when it's doing things.
This has been a problem for me at work. With all of the different versions of Windows it is difficult to produce a one size fits all image that I can make and keep up-to-date. It is already enough I have to use 3rd party programs like Ghost and SysPrep to take a snapshot of a system, but it is even worse when every user has a different OS type. They're just doing this to squeeze more money out of their market, but I really wish they would just take the time to add features that really matter, otherwise they're going to end up losing market share. They're shooting themselves in the foot.
It was nice and easy with Windows 2000 because the only differences were between workstation and server versions, and for the most part I can understand a differentiation there. But, with Windows XP they split it into Home and Professional, and the various server versions of 2003. And then it got even worse with Media Center Edition and Tablet Edition. So, when you make an image you have to do it for every installation type. The Media Center Edition and Tablet Edition are just overlays onto the Professional version, so it should just have been application installs and not a different version of Windows.
The rumor is that even though the product line will be confusing and fragmented for Vista it will be simplified by a few different systems. Apparently the differences between the different versions can be downloaded over the web, so if you install the base version you can update to the version that your version supports through a Windows Update type procedure. And apparently volume licensed customers, like myself, can use the most complex version and use SysPrep, or some equivalent, to strip out the unsupported features when you apply it to a specific computer. So, they're simplifying a complicated system, which may not be better than just providing a simple system, but at least it's better than just providing a complex system.
So, let's look at the product line: Vista Starter: Streamlined (aka stripped down). It's not designed for the US, and I'll be surprised if you can even buy it in the US. Vista Home Basic: Just like XP Home. Vista Home Premium: Adds Aero. I imagine this is what most users will use. Vista Business: Most likely supports domains, whereas the Home versions won't. So, this will be like XP Professional. Vista Enterprise: Supports domains but also adds lots of DRM. This will be big in some businesses that do not trust their employees and are paranoid of their computers being stolen. Vista Ultimate: The eXtreme version. It supports domains, DRM and has Aero. This will be the most pirated version and it will consume an inordinate amount of RAM.
So far I don't see the reason I should switch to Vista. I am happy enough with XP. It is also rumored that Vista will support "Hybrid Hard-drives" that will feature fast flash memory that can be used for extremely quick booting and for low power modes, but beyond that feature I haven't heard of anything all that interesting. Most of their features usually involve throwing huge images over my folders so it will be even harder to work.
And even when I (have to) move over to Vista I will most likely do exactly what I did with XP and that is make it look and act like Windows 2000. There were some nice features added to XP, and I am sure there will be nice features added into Vista, but it's going to be hard to justify a 500MB memory requirement.:)
I would have to agree about Symantec software. It is bad for PCs, as well as for Macs, and I don't see it getting better anytime soon.
It is my belief, although I have no proof of this other than the software itself, that Symantec does not employ programmers. They seem to have become a behemoth of a company much like EA Games has become in the video game arena. My guess is that they retain a code base for their products and they pay consulting firms, perhaps located in India and/or China, to implement features and to create the next version. I feel that they have team leaders that come up with possible new features and coordinate tasks with consulting firms, but it seems fairly obvious that they shouldn't be considered a programming company.
I believe the software gets worse and worse with every release. It is a small deal to write a virus scanner, and it should be a simple task to write a virus scanner that runs efficiently. But, instead the program consumes many times for RAM than it should, eats up CPU cycles, has a horrible front-end (and an even worse one for home users), and a complicated support structure. The newest release of Corporate 10 is even worse with the implementation of anti-spyware. It has come to a point that Symantec, even on the PC, is a worse threat than even the malware.
Symantec buys up products from various products and then stamps their name on it. They take control of the project with little understanding of the internals and then it seems they outsource the work for it, which only compounds the problem. Heck, the only product I actually like now is Ghost and that was bought from Binary Research.
And the Norton Internet Security suites are even more evil. The number of times that the NIS has corrupted a computer is beyond counting...
So, from the quality of the work given such a simple concept it should be obvious that Symantec is disjointed and needs major fixing.
I miss the old DOS F-Prot scanner that bulletin board services used because it was small, fast and simple, and it was running on only a handful of MHz. This scanner is now free, and I still use it from time to time, but it is horrible to see how poor software quality has become after all these years.
I would love a solid state hard-drive. But, I don't want it to be volatile like this one is. I want it to be static and I want enough read/write cycles that it doesn't fall apart after a year of heavy use.
I personally want to have my operating system on a 10GB flash drive. But, I don't want to do it with RAM because then it won't be faster to boot.
And I've got the feeling this post was an advertisement anyhow.
The program indexes content as you view it, and it's an option to index secure content. This has nothing to do with Windows being insecure, such as an insecure file system. The program running under the user's privileges should always be able to view their files, this is just common sense. And it has nothing to do with Google writing spyware, because this program operates as it was intended and it doesn't report this information back to a server. If you don't want it to index secure content, then turn the option off in the options.
There are many multi "transport" instant message clients out there, the largest being Trillian ( http://www.trillian.cc ) and Jabber ( http://www.jabber.org ). While it is true that they're not supported by their respective owner (AOL, Yahoo or Microsoft), they do function properly. In the past Microsoft tried to block them but recently has supported Trillian by offering them the future specifications of the MSN protocol (although I am sure it somehow is meant to undermine AOL), and AOL has given up trying to block the sneaky clients. I doubt they will ever work together (at least not until an evil and scary merger between AOL and Microsoft happens). I use Trillian personally and I have used Jabber in the past and I feel they are quite professional.
Yes. That says "you can't use VNC". I understand the slight difference (and I wasn't aware of that fine line). However, from what you're saying it means that I cannot log into a friend's XP machine with Remote Desktop because I don't own an XP license. Still absurd. They have a connection limit, that should be enough.
As a UConn student myself I know about this story. It was unveiled several months ago (took you guys long enough to hear of it). It's a very interesting theory he has going. The actual document he has written up for this is quite large and goes into a lot of detail on how it works exactly. It really isn't that useful though as it only allows you to jump back in time to when the machine was created. More like a save and restore feature (expensive one at that). It also sounds more like a dimension skipper. At the creation of the machine someone could walk through it (possibly yourself).
I thought it was bad when they decided to put in their Frontpage EULA that you can't use Frontpage to defame or create pornographic websites. I thought it was worse when they said in the XP EULA that you can't use any other Remote Administration software besides Remote Desktop. But this is rediculous. It's annoying how much they get away with (even though these things may not be defendable in court)... argh.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally do not lock my profiles down for my labs. I used to do this and it was just a waste of time. My preference now is to use guest accounts instead of user accounts. The nice thing about guest accounts is that when you log out they are destroyed, so if they change the background then it makes no difference. I will often redirect the My Documents folder to "c:\temporary work" though or something similar so they can save documents between sessions, although I warn them that they could be wiped at any time. The one caveat to this is that with Windows XP it is now a feature that guest accounts are only guest accounts if the computer is on a domain. However, if you do not have a domain you can join them to a temporary domain and not use it (because the accounts do not need to be domain accounts), but if you have a domain then this works out even easier for you.
I just wish people would use their evil powers for a good purpose. I want a worm that extracts the product activation code and emails it out to everyone on their Windows Address Book and Outlook Address Book contact lists. This would totally ruin Microsoft's activation scheme and then they'd have to remove it along with the other junk they've tacked onto it (Genuine Advantage).
I have had several genuine advantage bugs even on our volume license copies. If you switch out motherboards it sometimes thinks you stole the OS for no reason. I have also seen this happen to computers randomly, where one day it just decides your OS is pirated. And with Genuine Advantage Notifications it likes to remind you, a lot. With Vista your computer would just stop being useful, great. This really makes me angry and I wish Microsoft would stop stomping on their customers. Product Activation is horrible, Genuine Advantage is horrible and my guess it will only get worse as Microsoft thinks that by pissing everyone off they will somehow increase their profit. I feel really sorry for the smaller businesses that cannot afford Microsoft's horrible pricing for volume licensed products.
I feel as if Slashdot is nothing more than an advertiser for Apple. And it seems they even do it for free. They announce every single Apple release. I remember when Slashdot used to report on interesting news.
No, it's not like leaving your doors open. No, it's not like leaving your windows open. No, it's not like leaving both open. It's not a house, it is a computer. And they are not doors or windows; it is a daemon that is extremely popular. If you're going to use metaphors then at least come up with a better comparison. Such as, it's like letting someone walk into a bank and giving them a bank account. But, metaphors suck and people just use them to muddle the topic they're arguing so their side of the argument sounds better.
Mac fanboys are always screaming about how their OS is so much better. It used to be that their computers were easier to use, and then Apple tossed out their easy OS. It used to be that SCSI was better, and Apple threw that out. It used to be that G3s, then G4s, and then G5s were better than Intel equivalent, and Apple switched to Intel. And next we're going to find out what we already know, that their computers aren't much, if any, more secure.
And this guy proved that this OS was just as insecure as Windows, Linux, or any other network aware OS. And you can't say it wasn't a remote vulnerability, because it was accomplished through a network and the person was able to do what they shouldn't have been able to do, thus a remote vulnerability. It's an OS, written by imperfect people with imperfect tools. If this were a Windows box that was hacked through TS or RDP then you'd be all over calling Windows so easy to hack.
And yes, this wasn't an anonymous crack but that is no excuse. A password could be guessed through many means and you're saying if that someone guesses a user password then it doesn't matter that they can elevate tasks, and that's a bunch of crap. All computers are firewalled now out the box, but a server is only as good as the services it provides which means you need to open it up. This means that a computer is only as secure as it is when it's doing things.
This has been a problem for me at work. With all of the different versions of Windows it is difficult to produce a one size fits all image that I can make and keep up-to-date. It is already enough I have to use 3rd party programs like Ghost and SysPrep to take a snapshot of a system, but it is even worse when every user has a different OS type. They're just doing this to squeeze more money out of their market, but I really wish they would just take the time to add features that really matter, otherwise they're going to end up losing market share. They're shooting themselves in the foot.
:)
It was nice and easy with Windows 2000 because the only differences were between workstation and server versions, and for the most part I can understand a differentiation there. But, with Windows XP they split it into Home and Professional, and the various server versions of 2003. And then it got even worse with Media Center Edition and Tablet Edition. So, when you make an image you have to do it for every installation type. The Media Center Edition and Tablet Edition are just overlays onto the Professional version, so it should just have been application installs and not a different version of Windows.
The rumor is that even though the product line will be confusing and fragmented for Vista it will be simplified by a few different systems. Apparently the differences between the different versions can be downloaded over the web, so if you install the base version you can update to the version that your version supports through a Windows Update type procedure. And apparently volume licensed customers, like myself, can use the most complex version and use SysPrep, or some equivalent, to strip out the unsupported features when you apply it to a specific computer. So, they're simplifying a complicated system, which may not be better than just providing a simple system, but at least it's better than just providing a complex system.
So, let's look at the product line:
Vista Starter: Streamlined (aka stripped down). It's not designed for the US, and I'll be surprised if you can even buy it in the US.
Vista Home Basic: Just like XP Home.
Vista Home Premium: Adds Aero. I imagine this is what most users will use.
Vista Business: Most likely supports domains, whereas the Home versions won't. So, this will be like XP Professional.
Vista Enterprise: Supports domains but also adds lots of DRM. This will be big in some businesses that do not trust their employees and are paranoid of their computers being stolen.
Vista Ultimate: The eXtreme version. It supports domains, DRM and has Aero. This will be the most pirated version and it will consume an inordinate amount of RAM.
So far I don't see the reason I should switch to Vista. I am happy enough with XP. It is also rumored that Vista will support "Hybrid Hard-drives" that will feature fast flash memory that can be used for extremely quick booting and for low power modes, but beyond that feature I haven't heard of anything all that interesting. Most of their features usually involve throwing huge images over my folders so it will be even harder to work.
And even when I (have to) move over to Vista I will most likely do exactly what I did with XP and that is make it look and act like Windows 2000. There were some nice features added to XP, and I am sure there will be nice features added into Vista, but it's going to be hard to justify a 500MB memory requirement.
I would have to agree about Symantec software. It is bad for PCs, as well as for Macs, and I don't see it getting better anytime soon.
It is my belief, although I have no proof of this other than the software itself, that Symantec does not employ programmers. They seem to have become a behemoth of a company much like EA Games has become in the video game arena. My guess is that they retain a code base for their products and they pay consulting firms, perhaps located in India and/or China, to implement features and to create the next version. I feel that they have team leaders that come up with possible new features and coordinate tasks with consulting firms, but it seems fairly obvious that they shouldn't be considered a programming company.
I believe the software gets worse and worse with every release. It is a small deal to write a virus scanner, and it should be a simple task to write a virus scanner that runs efficiently. But, instead the program consumes many times for RAM than it should, eats up CPU cycles, has a horrible front-end (and an even worse one for home users), and a complicated support structure. The newest release of Corporate 10 is even worse with the implementation of anti-spyware. It has come to a point that Symantec, even on the PC, is a worse threat than even the malware.
Symantec buys up products from various products and then stamps their name on it. They take control of the project with little understanding of the internals and then it seems they outsource the work for it, which only compounds the problem. Heck, the only product I actually like now is Ghost and that was bought from Binary Research.
And the Norton Internet Security suites are even more evil. The number of times that the NIS has corrupted a computer is beyond counting...
So, from the quality of the work given such a simple concept it should be obvious that Symantec is disjointed and needs major fixing.
I miss the old DOS F-Prot scanner that bulletin board services used because it was small, fast and simple, and it was running on only a handful of MHz. This scanner is now free, and I still use it from time to time, but it is horrible to see how poor software quality has become after all these years.
I would love a solid state hard-drive. But, I don't want it to be volatile like this one is. I want it to be static and I want enough read/write cycles that it doesn't fall apart after a year of heavy use.
I personally want to have my operating system on a 10GB flash drive. But, I don't want to do it with RAM because then it won't be faster to boot.
And I've got the feeling this post was an advertisement anyhow.
The program indexes content as you view it, and it's an option to index secure content. This has nothing to do with Windows being insecure, such as an insecure file system. The program running under the user's privileges should always be able to view their files, this is just common sense. And it has nothing to do with Google writing spyware, because this program operates as it was intended and it doesn't report this information back to a server. If you don't want it to index secure content, then turn the option off in the options.
: Vernalex.com malware guide
There are many multi "transport" instant message clients out there, the largest being Trillian ( http://www.trillian.cc ) and Jabber ( http://www.jabber.org ). While it is true that they're not supported by their respective owner (AOL, Yahoo or Microsoft), they do function properly. In the past Microsoft tried to block them but recently has supported Trillian by offering them the future specifications of the MSN protocol (although I am sure it somehow is meant to undermine AOL), and AOL has given up trying to block the sneaky clients. I doubt they will ever work together (at least not until an evil and scary merger between AOL and Microsoft happens). I use Trillian personally and I have used Jabber in the past and I feel they are quite professional.
Let me try this again... Which is more funny? The fact that this article is a repeat or that everybody points it out repeatedly?
Which is more funny? The fact that this article was is a repeat or that everybody points it out repeatedly?
Ha ha ha. Damn. Good call. :)
Yes. That says "you can't use VNC". I understand the slight difference (and I wasn't aware of that fine line). However, from what you're saying it means that I cannot log into a friend's XP machine with Remote Desktop because I don't own an XP license. Still absurd. They have a connection limit, that should be enough.
Wow, the Anonymous Coward decides to attack me for a spelling error. If you want to be such a stickler it is also "dumbass".
As a UConn student myself I know about this story. It was unveiled several months ago (took you guys long enough to hear of it). It's a very interesting theory he has going. The actual document he has written up for this is quite large and goes into a lot of detail on how it works exactly. It really isn't that useful though as it only allows you to jump back in time to when the machine was created. More like a save and restore feature (expensive one at that). It also sounds more like a dimension skipper. At the creation of the machine someone could walk through it (possibly yourself).
I thought it was bad when they decided to put in their Frontpage EULA that you can't use Frontpage to defame or create pornographic websites. I thought it was worse when they said in the XP EULA that you can't use any other Remote Administration software besides Remote Desktop. But this is rediculous. It's annoying how much they get away with (even though these things may not be defendable in court)... argh.
Oh yeah. It sounds like a bad cyberpunk movie. I guess it's almost time to become a decker...