How is a widely respected writer of one of the best network scanning tools 'small-time balck-hat scum'?
Sounds to me like Fyodor had a lot of fun getting the asshole back for trolling him, and just made the troll look like a wanker in front of his troll friends.
You're probably just sorry that you couldn't think up such an imaginative response to being trolled.
How the fuck your post is modded up to 5 I'll never figure out.
Growth funded on defecit and money printed with no real backing is not sustainable. I wouldn't even describe it as real growth. It fed the dot-bomb bubble, and has led to Dubya being the first president in the post-war years to actually reduce the number of jobs in the US economy.
If you run it as part of an inline firewall, then you would need to be extra careful about how your network is configured (personally, I'd only use it as a secondary firewall directly in front of a bunch of boxes that can't make outgoing connections).
Otherwise, you'd be vulnerable to root exploits, which might not be the happiest moment of your security career.
How are your servers distributed across the switches?
If they are all hung from one or two switches, then setting up a couple of monitor ports and dropping them to a hub would allow you to run with a single snort box.
Otherwise, you may have to run one snort per switch, and centralise the logging.
As for virus sigs, I'd rather trust a dedicated virus scanner, unless you know someone who's prepared to open up their virus sig database to you and mail you with new sigs every time there's a new virus.
It's not designed for virus spotting (though a properly constructed rules file could work, it would slow things down a lot), so you'd be doing a lot of work for comparatively little return.
it's another reason to run snort on a one-way segment, though - then if the snort box is hacked, no connections back to the outside could be made.
A carefully set up system should not be exploitable (though it may be vulnerable).
There's no reason to allow outbound connections from the snort box, except to the logging / other snort related servers, which should be protected separately anyway.
Thus even an exploit that sets up an outgoing connection should be covered.
That way, no information can leack back to the cracker, and the exploit is worthless.
Until the US realises that it can't go on forever creating debt that it can never pay, the wise (long term) money will be on currencies like the Euro that don't generate more debt than income, and don't think that they can print their way out of recession.
The recent authorisation of an increase in US debt to over 7 trillion dollars will do nothing for the confidence of those who have to trade in this essentially baseless currency.
IIRC, Alan G's quote was that other countries don't have sufficiently inflationary policies, which makes the dollar look bad.
Nope - U236 only occurs in DU from recycled (used) fuel.
If the DU was purely from the enrichment phase, it would be less harmful, merely giving the troops heavy metal poisoning rather than poisoning + cancer.
Besides, you can recycle a lot of that nuclear waste and drop it on Iraqis (where do you think DU comes from? U236 isn't in the waste from enrichmeent...).
On the other hand, the amount of heavy metal poisining caused by coal and oil burning generators is far higher than most people would ever believe.
What is true, however, is that wind and wave power are genereally neutral, and need to be encouraged so far as is possible.
If I could think up shit like that, I'd move to France and style myself an 'intellectual'.
Unfortunately, I'll just have to keep on writing stable and robust real world applications in C and Java, and not bother my pretty little head about N-dimensional pseudology.
Yeh maaaan - me qualified in all sorta computah, me 'ave red car, me lift 70 pound on me tool every mornin, speak all dem language, me MCSE (Masses of Cone Spliff Experience) is well massive, and most of all me actually like Indians.
Me not so keen on de tomahawks, but fi no way - it's cool...
However, I ended up working with them around 15 years ago, having sworn at the age of 17 never to touch one ever again (those PDP-11s booting off punched tape really were the pits), because I had to.
Guess what I do now?
Fscking programmer, DBA, and sysadmin of course.
Just about the opposite of you (it took me two years to get comfy with a mouse), but I do it because I can, and because the jobs weren't available in the area that I was working in before I fell into computing.
Like you, I make shit work. Unlike you, I hate the bloody things. But throw me an unknown bit of kit or software, and so long as it's documented, I will make the bastard work, come hell or high water.
I've never met a CS graduate that was worth shit.
I once met a MCSE that knew stuff, but he was under the illusion that an MCSE was worth having...
If you're such a fucking genius, where's your published work? (especially your proof of N=NP!)
I've never looked at cache validation, but I think I might now, just to piss you off.
For the record, I'm an ex mathematician, who worked in resin chemistry and formulations for 6 years, avoided computers between the ages of 17 and 28 because I hate the bastards, and am now a programmer by default, and a networks man by preference.
Worse, having to be organised enough to store them?
When are the poor souls supposed to do their mandatory 4 hours window-staring and two hours clock watching per day, not to mention the strenuous shifting from buttock to buttock that most seem to indulge in?
Can't the fscking idiots handle the concept of creating an 'unsuitable' folder in their email, and dumping the crap resumes there?
HR people are generally the least competent form of life after recruitment consultants.
Apple's Human Interface Guidelines are a nice introduction to user-fault tolerance, even if you're developing for other platforms.
Are we to understand that Apple is good, or that Apple users are particularly stupid?
Personally, I've never used a Mac for work (I've only dealt with them when setting networks up for others), but the UI has always seemed a few steps ahead of the competition in terms of ease of use, so I'd applaud Apple for taking the time to think of the user and making the interface easy to use.
If 99% of the important DNA is identical, then probability implies that 99% of the rest of the DNA is also identical.
Only if you assume a constant rate of mutation throughout the genome.
This is not a very good hypothesis, since the important genes (in which a single mutation will bollox up the protein coded for) will tend to stay stable through the generations, due to the death of the individuals with bolloxed proteins.
It is very likely (in fact other studies have confirmed) that if you take into account 'junk' DNA, the similarity drops to around 95%.
The New Scientist has a slightly more detailed account of the study here.
If you read this, you'll see that the analysis is based on 97 'critical' genes where a difference in a single base will produce a change in the amino acid coded for, and hence a change in the protein.
If the 'junk' DNA is included, there is more likelihood of variation between humans and chimps, but there is a corresponding rise in the variability within the human population which tends to lessen the overall significance of the inter-species variation.
Other than the fact that evolution would tend to favour the stability of these 97 'critical' genes, I see no problem with this analysis, but think that putting humans and chimps in the same genus is pushing matters slightly.
I was going to post a comment along the same lines (without the gratuitous homophobia), but I looked at the TOC for the book, and saw that the book is far more than a translation of RFCs into English.
I may even buy this book, since it appears to offer some insight into how HTTP is applied in the real world, rather than how it ought to be applied.
Of course it's OK - you wouldn't want the Russian Mafia to get it's hands on that $200 billion, would you?
That money is far better off in the West, where it can be put to work usefully, rather than being used to support gangsters.
Besides, looting hundreds of billions is what western financial institutions do best - look at the complicity of various merchant banks in the Enron collapse. If that isn't looting, I don't know what is.
After the fall of the communist state, the land-grab for political and economic power in the former Soviet Union was won for the most part by criminals and criminal organisations. The systems were never put in place to foster a proper civic society, so the outcome was that a sort of libertarian anarchy prevailed, where criminal activity (including murder, protection rackets, etc.) was par for the course.
The post doesn't state that it is communism that was responsible for the actions of these lads - it can easily be read to mean that the socioeconomic conditions were so bad because of the abrupt collapse of communism and the lack of an adequate civic society to succeed it.
Take a look at the articles, and look where a lot of the stolen money went. Cyprus and Israel are two of the Russian Mafia's favourite places for laundering / stashing ill gotten gains.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, your women are only better looking if you like big lasses with hairy pits and legs.
Even though I read a little German, I found the legal stuff a bit taxing...
How is a widely respected writer of one of the best network scanning tools 'small-time balck-hat scum'?
Sounds to me like Fyodor had a lot of fun getting the asshole back for trolling him, and just made the troll look like a wanker in front of his troll friends.
You're probably just sorry that you couldn't think up such an imaginative response to being trolled.
How the fuck your post is modded up to 5 I'll never figure out.
Growth funded on defecit and money printed with no real backing is not sustainable. I wouldn't even describe it as real growth. It fed the dot-bomb bubble, and has led to Dubya being the first president in the post-war years to actually reduce the number of jobs in the US economy.
Do you know what you're talking about?
Otherwise, you'd be vulnerable to root exploits, which might not be the happiest moment of your security career.
If they are all hung from one or two switches, then setting up a couple of monitor ports and dropping them to a hub would allow you to run with a single snort box.
Otherwise, you may have to run one snort per switch, and centralise the logging.
As for virus sigs, I'd rather trust a dedicated virus scanner, unless you know someone who's prepared to open up their virus sig database to you and mail you with new sigs every time there's a new virus.
It's not designed for virus spotting (though a properly constructed rules file could work, it would slow things down a lot), so you'd be doing a lot of work for comparatively little return.
A carefully set up system should not be exploitable (though it may be vulnerable).
There's no reason to allow outbound connections from the snort box, except to the logging / other snort related servers, which should be protected separately anyway.
Thus even an exploit that sets up an outgoing connection should be covered.
That way, no information can leack back to the cracker, and the exploit is worthless.
Snort 2.0 is apparently not vulnerable to this exploit.
Good heads-up, though.
Until the US realises that it can't go on forever creating debt that it can never pay, the wise (long term) money will be on currencies like the Euro that don't generate more debt than income, and don't think that they can print their way out of recession.
The recent authorisation of an increase in US debt to over 7 trillion dollars will do nothing for the confidence of those who have to trade in this essentially baseless currency.
IIRC, Alan G's quote was that other countries don't have sufficiently inflationary policies, which makes the dollar look bad.
If the DU was purely from the enrichment phase, it would be less harmful, merely giving the troops heavy metal poisoning rather than poisoning + cancer.
On the other hand, the amount of heavy metal poisining caused by coal and oil burning generators is far higher than most people would ever believe.
What is true, however, is that wind and wave power are genereally neutral, and need to be encouraged so far as is possible.
If I could think up shit like that, I'd move to France and style myself an 'intellectual'.
Unfortunately, I'll just have to keep on writing stable and robust real world applications in C and Java, and not bother my pretty little head about N-dimensional pseudology.
Me not so keen on de tomahawks, but fi no way - it's cool...
However, I ended up working with them around 15 years ago, having sworn at the age of 17 never to touch one ever again (those PDP-11s booting off punched tape really were the pits), because I had to.
Guess what I do now?
Fscking programmer, DBA, and sysadmin of course.
Just about the opposite of you (it took me two years to get comfy with a mouse), but I do it because I can, and because the jobs weren't available in the area that I was working in before I fell into computing.
Like you, I make shit work. Unlike you, I hate the bloody things. But throw me an unknown bit of kit or software, and so long as it's documented, I will make the bastard work, come hell or high water.
I've never met a CS graduate that was worth shit.
I once met a MCSE that knew stuff, but he was under the illusion that an MCSE was worth having...
Where to begin?
Did you mean P=NP?
Did you mean ignoramus?
If you're such a fucking genius, where's your published work? (especially your proof of N=NP!)
I've never looked at cache validation, but I think I might now, just to piss you off.
For the record, I'm an ex mathematician, who worked in resin chemistry and formulations for 6 years, avoided computers between the ages of 17 and 28 because I hate the bastards, and am now a programmer by default, and a networks man by preference.
CS degree?
Fuck em.
Having to read all those resumes?
Worse, having to be organised enough to store them?
When are the poor souls supposed to do their mandatory 4 hours window-staring and two hours clock watching per day, not to mention the strenuous shifting from buttock to buttock that most seem to indulge in?
Can't the fscking idiots handle the concept of creating an 'unsuitable' folder in their email, and dumping the crap resumes there?
HR people are generally the least competent form of life after recruitment consultants.
Expect me to feel no sympathy for either.
but it bounced!
Orang-utan maybe, but definitely not a chimp.
Are we to understand that Apple is good, or that Apple users are particularly stupid?
Personally, I've never used a Mac for work (I've only dealt with them when setting networks up for others), but the UI has always seemed a few steps ahead of the competition in terms of ease of use, so I'd applaud Apple for taking the time to think of the user and making the interface easy to use.
Only if you assume a constant rate of mutation throughout the genome.
This is not a very good hypothesis, since the important genes (in which a single mutation will bollox up the protein coded for) will tend to stay stable through the generations, due to the death of the individuals with bolloxed proteins.
It is very likely (in fact other studies have confirmed) that if you take into account 'junk' DNA, the similarity drops to around 95%.
OTOH, Bubbles feels violated.
If you read this, you'll see that the analysis is based on 97 'critical' genes where a difference in a single base will produce a change in the amino acid coded for, and hence a change in the protein.
If the 'junk' DNA is included, there is more likelihood of variation between humans and chimps, but there is a corresponding rise in the variability within the human population which tends to lessen the overall significance of the inter-species variation.
Other than the fact that evolution would tend to favour the stability of these 97 'critical' genes, I see no problem with this analysis, but think that putting humans and chimps in the same genus is pushing matters slightly.
I may even buy this book, since it appears to offer some insight into how HTTP is applied in the real world, rather than how it ought to be applied.
That money is far better off in the West, where it can be put to work usefully, rather than being used to support gangsters.
Besides, looting hundreds of billions is what western financial institutions do best - look at the complicity of various merchant banks in the Enron collapse. If that isn't looting, I don't know what is.
The reason?
After the fall of the communist state, the land-grab for political and economic power in the former Soviet Union was won for the most part by criminals and criminal organisations. The systems were never put in place to foster a proper civic society, so the outcome was that a sort of libertarian anarchy prevailed, where criminal activity (including murder, protection rackets, etc.) was par for the course.
The post doesn't state that it is communism that was responsible for the actions of these lads - it can easily be read to mean that the socioeconomic conditions were so bad because of the abrupt collapse of communism and the lack of an adequate civic society to succeed it.
Take a look at the articles, and look where a lot of the stolen money went. Cyprus and Israel are two of the Russian Mafia's favourite places for laundering / stashing ill gotten gains.
Guess what! It's all Ronnie Reagan's fault!