The question isn't who can send mail to local users, the question is which
address ranges are allowed to send mail to anyone. Obviously, trusted
users (those on a trusted network) are allowed to send mail to any domain; spam
is caused in large part by ALL IP RANGES being allowed to send mail off a given
server to anyone they want.
This is an open relay, and this is what needs to be stopped.
>... While certainly useful at times, it's not a business solution I'd personally want to rely on.
I am not suggesting you rely on anything. My point is that it is going to be word of mouth between people that buy software that will start to really Microsoft's marketshare.
Once "they" (the business owners/IT people) start feeling let down by Microsoft or done right by Linux, that will be echoed throughout the business community in the form of B2B gossip.
---------------
Person 1: "Yeah, I had a buddy who set up a couple Linux servers a year ago and they have been going sweet ever since...he hasn't paid a cent for tech support and the uptime is flawless..."
Person 2: "Hmm...." (starts re-thinking their approach to and opinion of Linux)
---------------
Once this happens on a large scale, Microsoft will be in some trouble. It won't be a gradual movement - we are in that phase already. It will be a swift and pervasive movement rooted in people finally starting to believe in Linux as an option for *them*. As it stands now, it's a solution for "those other types".
Because people who have businesses care very much whether or not they succeed or fail. Microsoft has succeeded, in most cases, to convince those that matter that if they go with the alternative, they are taking a risk with their business.
Microsoft, to most businesses, is the "safe bet". It's considered the superior choice only because it's mainstream.
The real threat will come to Microsoft not via some certain tech advance - it will come in the form of a slow penetration of anti-MS and pro-Linux gossip being spread throughout the business community. Once this happens the game will be over and MS will have to *totally* re-invent themselves - another product release won't save them.
Point well taken. I agree with you quite a bit, actually. I just think that there are those who didn't do much at all to get painted with the "hacker" brush, and now are blacklisted.
Some investigation into what actually happened and a quality interview can allow some of these 'criminals' to be seen for what they really are - good people who did something that they perhaps shouldn't have.
Of course, I also know that there are others who just shouldn't be trusted, and I agree with you about both those people and those who you can't assign easily to one of the two categories. It's too much of a risk to play with benefit of the doubt.
My point is that you shouldn't just drop people as options the second you hear the word "hacker". It's often the very ignorant that assign this title and the company doing the hiring can benefit from looking into the issue to some degree before counting them out.
Sure, I agree with that. But the current situation is what needs to be assessed, not what was the case in the past. That's why a face to face interview and some tough questions put forth by someone who knows what they are doing is more important in my view.
It cripples a company to categorically deny those who have a checkered past without doing some research into what the nature of the infractions were. Were they morally wrong or just legally? How young were they? How likely are they to have those sorts of lapses of judgement now? Without answers to these questions, it is haphazard to discard talent that can help the company. I agree that if the line is blurry then you should avoid the risk, but at least investigate where the line is.
The idea that people can accurately make a decision on whether or not someone is going to be a quality employee based on whether or not they have done some Blackhat-oriented activities in the past is ludicrous.
It totally depends on the situation. Some people did very illegal things that hurt no one, others did not get caught doing much of anything, have a far cleaner record, and shouldn't be let within 50 miles of a Security operation.
Moral issues are always complex. All people being looked at for a sensitive position, regardless of history, need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Of course someone's past should be taken into consideration, but an in-depth interview and background check is far more productive than simply writing people off based on a title that they may have had at one point in their lives.
Point the geeks in the direction of the hotties sporting Linux and BSD logos as tatoos - that's what this world needs more of.
An army of the chicks that look like Lana from Smallville who love nothing more than to have a guy help recompile their kernel for them...this is the stuff dreams are made of.
"It's just your post was so bloody obvious an advert it's embarrasing."
How is it an advertisement for the product when I said that it isn't ready for the market and that I am not getting one myself because of that fact? Re-read the post, man; you missed some things (like the fact that I called the event a waste of time in the very first sentence).
Don't mistake objectivity for Microsoft facism; it doesn't apply here.
Take off the 'I hate Microsoft' goggles...
on
Bricklin on Tablet PCs
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I actually wasted (I mean 'took') the time to go to a TabletPC launch in Atlanta, and it wasn't half bad. The product concept is in the beginning stages, everyone knows that - even Microsoft. And to those who think they tried to totally steal the idea from the work of others, you need to get a clue. The Microsoft presentation included a fairly detailed history (basically a respectful look back) at the previous products in the genre. They didn't in any way act as if they came up with the idea. Hell, they even gave some props to the Apple product.:)
Basically, don't be so quick to jump on the 'let's bash MS' bandwagon; it's a bit tired. There are actually some very cool things going on with the TabletPC - it's just that the price and the batterly life are too prohibitive to be taken seriously with this generation (for me and most people I have talked to anyway...).
To all those who have mentioned the difficulty of the install, when I made the switch to Gentoo I had only installed maybe 5 or 10 other Linux boxen (Redhat, Mandrake, etc...), and Gentoo wasn't all that different.
It was more INVOLVED, but not more difficult per say. If you print out the instructions from the site and follow them, good things will happen.
For those who think that another distribution (especially a source-based one like this) is pointless and only for the uber-geeks, think again. The idea behind distributions like Gentoo is CONTROL. When you have finished your first Gentoo and compiled everything for your specific hardware it is a distinctly different feeling than throwing in a Redhat disk and pressing 'go'.
Those attracted to Gentoo are those attracted to having everything just the way they like it on their computers (and arguably in their lives as well). It's an approach to computing that many have here on/.; if you don't have that approach then perhaps that is why you don't like Gentoo.
I had a problem with a.11b product, bought a.11a setup, got a replacement.11b setup, and decided to keep it and run both.
Bottom line(s):
1. 802.11b has WAY more range - I would say like almost double. I can go next door (and to my pool) on my.11b network, but if I even try to go next door on my.11a network I get dropped.
2. 802.11a has is WAY faster - I get a solid 25-30Mb over.11a vs. like 4-5Mb on.11b using 64 bit WEP.
3. I have never had my.11a drop while in my house (inside its limited range), whereas I can be right next to my.11b AP and get dropped because of interference. This is important; there is tons of traffic/noise in the 2.4 range.
-------------
Anyway, the setup works well. I can just throw in my.11b card to go next door, and use my.11a card while at home. Either way I am still on my LAN. Plus, I am set whichever way the industry goes (until the next big thing). I am thinking about doing the PDA thing soon too, so it's nice to know I can run it on my.11b network if it won't support.11a.
Remember that when the guy said 'Superman' was white what he really meant was 'Christopher Reeve' was white.
Reeve is the standard. Period. That is the reason that deviation from that type of actor could possibly seem strange - not because of some racial issue.
The people going to see these high-numbered sequels are loyal to the cast and to the very 'essence' of Star Trek The Next Generation.
I am not really a trekkie, but I love STTNG and I will be seeing the movie on DVD if not in the theater. For people who are even more devoted than me it won't matter what the movie is like when it comes to quality because they are going to see it regardless.
A series of phasers fights and scenes where Piccard says things like "Engage" and "Come" would make them a happy bunch.
There is no way this is accounting for the recent OS X phenomonon. Once OS X numbers become known I think Apple is going to be trouncing Linux in a big way.
This isn't to say that Linux isn't great, but OS X is seriously turning some heads.
The real reason Linux is gaining some ground with companies is because you can leave a machine running for days, weeks, months, and even years at a time.
Before I continue, I am an MCSE and I think XP is a decent OS, so I don't play the bashing game. Furthermore, I agree with a poster above who commented that we need to be less elitist here and focus more on gaining some voters from the middle - so to speak.
But Linux is currently in a very strong position simply because so many Microsoft products are completely unstable. People accept this only because they don't realize that it can be any different. Look at products like Exchange and ISA server. First BSD is used for Hotmail, and now Microsoft is using Netscreen for some project instead of ISA server. I have messed with ISA server and believe me, regardless of what Netscreen has to offer I am sure it is superior. They simply get away with shoddy stability and reliability because of their market power. This has to change.
The main reason they are so powerful is because any OS that rhymes with sticks strikes fear into the heart of 9 out of 10 Windows admins. They think Linux is some sort of elite and secretive vodoo magic that they can never understand. While this satisfies our egos it doesn't help Linux make headway against Microsoft.
Anyway, I think the true threat comes in the form of Microsoft realizing that they have a major problem and then simply taking the crucial step to fix things. This step, of course, is developing a Linux or BSD distro themselves. Once they do this and stack all of their features, integration, pretty boxes, and market pressure on top of it they are going to be unstoppable.
Imagine the power of Microsoft marketing combined with a rock solid *nix-based product. It would be devestating to competition due to its sheer strength. Imagine Outlook being redone to talk with Exchange (now Qmail based), ISA being based on IPTABLEs, etc...
This would be overpowering.
The window is right now if Linux wants to step up and show the world that it is more stable and security-minded than its overbearing competition. If it doesn't move soon it is going to wait too long and let Microsoft figure things out and bring their *nix. Once they do things will get a whole lot harder.
You can't simply plug these things in and expect them to work perfectly. If you don't know what you are doing with a high-powered IDS then you don't have any business using or judging them.
You need to take quite a while (based on your network) and OPTIMIZE your rules for a product like SNORT so that you are getting alerted to the types of things you want to know about while minimizing false positives.
It is pretty obvious that the tester didn't do that, and as a result he had nothing but bad things to say.
Let's let an experienced Snort user configure his conf files and then run the test again. I think you may find that the results are different.
Slashdot Mirror
The question isn't who can send mail to local users, the question is which address ranges are allowed to send mail to anyone. Obviously, trusted users (those on a trusted network) are allowed to send mail to any domain; spam is caused in large part by ALL IP RANGES being allowed to send mail off a given server to anyone they want.
This is an open relay, and this is what needs to be stopped.
> ... While certainly useful at times, it's not a business solution I'd personally want to rely on.
I am not suggesting you rely on anything. My point is that it is going to be word of mouth between people that buy software that will start to really Microsoft's marketshare.
Once "they" (the business owners/IT people) start feeling let down by Microsoft or done right by Linux, that will be echoed throughout the business community in the form of B2B gossip.
---------------
Person 1: "Yeah, I had a buddy who set up a couple Linux servers a year ago and they have been going sweet ever since...he hasn't paid a cent for tech support and the uptime is flawless..."
Person 2: "Hmm...." (starts re-thinking their approach to and opinion of Linux)
---------------
Once this happens on a large scale, Microsoft will be in some trouble. It won't be a gradual movement - we are in that phase already. It will be a swift and pervasive movement rooted in people finally starting to believe in Linux as an option for *them*. As it stands now, it's a solution for "those other types".
Because people who have businesses care very much whether or not they succeed or fail. Microsoft has succeeded, in most cases, to convince those that matter that if they go with the alternative, they are taking a risk with their business.
Microsoft, to most businesses, is the "safe bet". It's considered the superior choice only because it's mainstream.
The real threat will come to Microsoft not via some certain tech advance - it will come in the form of a slow penetration of anti-MS and pro-Linux gossip being spread throughout the business community. Once this happens the game will be over and MS will have to *totally* re-invent themselves - another product release won't save them.
Dude, I think you need to step back and take another look at things.
You make me sad.
Point well taken. I agree with you quite a bit, actually. I just think that there are those who didn't do much at all to get painted with the "hacker" brush, and now are blacklisted.
Some investigation into what actually happened and a quality interview can allow some of these 'criminals' to be seen for what they really are - good people who did something that they perhaps shouldn't have.
Of course, I also know that there are others who just shouldn't be trusted, and I agree with you about both those people and those who you can't assign easily to one of the two categories. It's too much of a risk to play with benefit of the doubt.
My point is that you shouldn't just drop people as options the second you hear the word "hacker". It's often the very ignorant that assign this title and the company doing the hiring can benefit from looking into the issue to some degree before counting them out.
Sure, I agree with that. But the current situation is what needs to be assessed, not what was the case in the past. That's why a face to face interview and some tough questions put forth by someone who knows what they are doing is more important in my view.
It cripples a company to categorically deny those who have a checkered past without doing some research into what the nature of the infractions were. Were they morally wrong or just legally? How young were they? How likely are they to have those sorts of lapses of judgement now? Without answers to these questions, it is haphazard to discard talent that can help the company. I agree that if the line is blurry then you should avoid the risk, but at least investigate where the line is.
The idea that people can accurately make a decision on whether or not someone is going to be a quality employee based on whether or not they have done some Blackhat-oriented activities in the past is ludicrous.
It totally depends on the situation. Some people did very illegal things that hurt no one, others did not get caught doing much of anything, have a far cleaner record, and shouldn't be let within 50 miles of a Security operation.
Moral issues are always complex. All people being looked at for a sensitive position, regardless of history, need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Of course someone's past should be taken into consideration, but an in-depth interview and background check is far more productive than simply writing people off based on a title that they may have had at one point in their lives.
Point the geeks in the direction of the hotties sporting Linux and BSD logos as tatoos - that's what this world needs more of.
An army of the chicks that look like Lana from Smallville who love nothing more than to have a guy help recompile their kernel for them...this is the stuff dreams are made of.
Hottie + Linux_Interest = Geek_Love
"It's just your post was so bloody obvious an advert it's embarrasing."
How is it an advertisement for the product when I said that it isn't ready for the market and that I am not getting one myself because of that fact? Re-read the post, man; you missed some things (like the fact that I called the event a waste of time in the very first sentence).
Don't mistake objectivity for Microsoft facism; it doesn't apply here.
I actually wasted (I mean 'took') the time to go to a TabletPC launch in Atlanta, and it wasn't half bad. The product concept is in the beginning stages, everyone knows that - even Microsoft. And to those who think they tried to totally steal the idea from the work of others, you need to get a clue. The Microsoft presentation included a fairly detailed history (basically a respectful look back) at the previous products in the genre. They didn't in any way act as if they came up with the idea. Hell, they even gave some props to the Apple product. :)
Basically, don't be so quick to jump on the 'let's bash MS' bandwagon; it's a bit tired. There are actually some very cool things going on with the TabletPC - it's just that the price and the batterly life are too prohibitive to be taken seriously with this generation (for me and most people I have talked to anyway...).
To all those who have mentioned the difficulty of the install, when I made the switch to Gentoo I had only installed maybe 5 or 10 other Linux boxen (Redhat, Mandrake, etc...), and Gentoo wasn't all that different.
/.; if you don't have that approach then perhaps that is why you don't like Gentoo.
It was more INVOLVED, but not more difficult per say. If you print out the instructions from the site and follow them, good things will happen.
For those who think that another distribution (especially a source-based one like this) is pointless and only for the uber-geeks, think again. The idea behind distributions like Gentoo is CONTROL. When you have finished your first Gentoo and compiled everything for your specific hardware it is a distinctly different feeling than throwing in a Redhat disk and pressing 'go'.
Those attracted to Gentoo are those attracted to having everything just the way they like it on their computers (and arguably in their lives as well). It's an approach to computing that many have here on
I had a problem with a .11b product, bought a .11a setup, got a replacement .11b setup, and decided to keep it and run both.
.11b network, but if I even try to go next door on my .11a network I get dropped.
.11a vs. like 4-5Mb on .11b using 64 bit WEP.
.11a drop while in my house (inside its limited range), whereas I can be right next to my .11b AP and get dropped because of interference. This is important; there is tons of traffic/noise in the 2.4 range.
.11b card to go next door, and use my .11a card while at home. Either way I am still on my LAN. Plus, I am set whichever way the industry goes (until the next big thing). I am thinking about doing the PDA thing soon too, so it's nice to know I can run it on my .11b network if it won't support .11a.
Bottom line(s):
1. 802.11b has WAY more range - I would say like almost double. I can go next door (and to my pool) on my
2. 802.11a has is WAY faster - I get a solid 25-30Mb over
3. I have never had my
-------------
Anyway, the setup works well. I can just throw in my
Remember that when the guy said 'Superman' was white what he really meant was 'Christopher Reeve' was white.
Reeve is the standard. Period. That is the reason that deviation from that type of actor could possibly seem strange - not because of some racial issue.
The people going to see these high-numbered sequels are loyal to the cast and to the very 'essence' of Star Trek The Next Generation.
I am not really a trekkie, but I love STTNG and I will be seeing the movie on DVD if not in the theater. For people who are even more devoted than me it won't matter what the movie is like when it comes to quality because they are going to see it regardless.
A series of phasers fights and scenes where Piccard says things like "Engage" and "Come" would make them a happy bunch.
There is no way this is accounting for the recent OS X phenomonon. Once OS X numbers become known I think Apple is going to be trouncing Linux in a big way.
This isn't to say that Linux isn't great, but OS X is seriously turning some heads.
The real reason Linux is gaining some ground with companies is because you can leave a machine running for days, weeks, months, and even years at a time.
Before I continue, I am an MCSE and I think XP is a decent OS, so I don't play the bashing game. Furthermore, I agree with a poster above who commented that we need to be less elitist here and focus more on gaining some voters from the middle - so to speak.
But Linux is currently in a very strong position simply because so many Microsoft products are completely unstable. People accept this only because they don't realize that it can be any different. Look at products like Exchange and ISA server. First BSD is used for Hotmail, and now Microsoft is using Netscreen for some project instead of ISA server. I have messed with ISA server and believe me, regardless of what Netscreen has to offer I am sure it is superior. They simply get away with shoddy stability and reliability because of their market power. This has to change.
The main reason they are so powerful is because any OS that rhymes with sticks strikes fear into the heart of 9 out of 10 Windows admins. They think Linux is some sort of elite and secretive vodoo magic that they can never understand. While this satisfies our egos it doesn't help Linux make headway against Microsoft.
Anyway, I think the true threat comes in the form of Microsoft realizing that they have a major problem and then simply taking the crucial step to fix things. This step, of course, is developing a Linux or BSD distro themselves. Once they do this and stack all of their features, integration, pretty boxes, and market pressure on top of it they are going to be unstoppable.
Imagine the power of Microsoft marketing combined with a rock solid *nix-based product. It would be devestating to competition due to its sheer strength. Imagine Outlook being redone to talk with Exchange (now Qmail based), ISA being based on IPTABLEs, etc...
This would be overpowering.
The window is right now if Linux wants to step up and show the world that it is more stable and security-minded than its overbearing competition. If it doesn't move soon it is going to wait too long and let Microsoft figure things out and bring their *nix. Once they do things will get a whole lot harder.
You can't simply plug these things in and expect them to work perfectly. If you don't know what you are doing with a high-powered IDS then you don't have any business using or judging them.
You need to take quite a while (based on your network) and OPTIMIZE your rules for a product like SNORT so that you are getting alerted to the types of things you want to know about while minimizing false positives.
It is pretty obvious that the tester didn't do that, and as a result he had nothing but bad things to say.
Let's let an experienced Snort user configure his conf files and then run the test again. I think you may find that the results are different.