there was a bittorrent download at suprnova.org earlier today labeled as a server 2003 keygen. it contained the worm client. it appeared to try to connect to some sort of irc server (reported by sygate firewall). It then downloaded about a meg of info from somewhere and created a/winnt/web/(something) folder. once this was done, it tried to do some sort of printer mapping via the internet, using its own explorer.exe (at this point i opted to kill it at the firewall, as well as the process). i ran through the sequence again, this time only blocking at the firewall (without killing the process), and after a few minutes got the RPC 'shutting down windows in 60 seconds' thing.
here is a copy of the worm client for those interested (17k rar).
be warned, this will mess up your system if you're not careful.
yes, i knowingly ran the worm, what can i say, i was bored/curious:)
Please feel free to direct your opinions on this matter HERE. If we don't like what they are doing, lets TELL THEM ABOUT IT instead of yelling at eachother in here. At least this way PCI-SIG will _know_ they are pissing their users off.
I've noticed many of you think SATA can have more than one device per channel. This is currently not true. Also of note is that many motherboards supporting SATA come with a 1 or 2 channel controller.
its an interesting read. they are actually enforcing fair use to some extent. it doesnt allow copying a copy (as long as its attempted with DVDXCopy), and inserts disclaimer warning screens at the start of each backup. sure teh die-hard hacker is going to copy it by a different means anyhow, but this program is tailored to joe-user that just wants a backup of his dvd and could care less about a warning screen at the start of his movie. it seems they made the program as restrictive as possible, covering the necessary fair use bases without overly-annoying the end user in the process.
This may even make the MPAA look bad should 321s lawyers bring up these facts in court.
Re:Interesting tidbit
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 1
http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm
Re:Perfect for cable operations
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 1
...so you're saying that a sub with a very blunt claw is going to grab a multi fiber cable bundle with like a thousand fibers and tap select cables (underwater) without interefering at all with the communications that said fiber is carrying? I hate to say it, but even the Navy is not capable of such a feat.
Interesting tidbit
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
NR-1 is one (if not THE) smallest portable nuclear reactor in the world. The Army tried their hand at this back in the day. They wanted to make some tiny portable field power unit. Unfortunately all they managed to do was pin some poor sap to the ceiling with a control rod.
Luckily the Navy builds their reactors in a safer fashion....yet another 2 cents...
The last time aim tried to "pull the plug" on a client that wasnt their own (trillian), they got a nasty backlash from the press. I think they learned their lesson... for now at least.
Its obvious that if Linus or any of his fellow programmers come up with a section of code that happens to match someone elses patented code, that very pattent should NOT be a pattent in the first place! There shouldnt even be any lawsuit involved. If the holders of the patent are stupid enough to file a suit, its their own fault for bringing the generality of their own patent to the courts attention.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.toyota.co.jp/company/prius/advanced_eq/ pop_ipa.html
note: the real system is likely toned down a bit :).
here is a copy of the worm client for those interested (17k rar).
be warned, this will mess up your system if you're not careful.
yes, i knowingly ran the worm, what can i say, i was bored/curious :)
erm, i was the one attempting to be funny about it. those that take it seriously would be the anal-retentive ones.
> It is very flimsy. no, more like: It was very flimsy.
"its DOT COM" (sorry, couldnt resist. i could just hear homestar reading this post)
its true, we can no longer say we have 'slashdotted everything but the kitchen sink', because we just have...
Please feel free to direct your opinions on this matter HERE. If we don't like what they are doing, lets TELL THEM ABOUT IT instead of yelling at eachother in here. At least this way PCI-SIG will _know_ they are pissing their users off.
I've noticed many of you think SATA can have more than one device per channel. This is currently not true. Also of note is that many motherboards supporting SATA come with a 1 or 2 channel controller.
its an interesting read. they are actually enforcing fair use to some extent. it doesnt allow copying a copy (as long as its attempted with DVDXCopy), and inserts disclaimer warning screens at the start of each backup. sure teh die-hard hacker is going to copy it by a different means anyhow, but this program is tailored to joe-user that just wants a backup of his dvd and could care less about a warning screen at the start of his movie. it seems they made the program as restrictive as possible, covering the necessary fair use bases without overly-annoying the end user in the process.
This may even make the MPAA look bad should 321s lawyers bring up these facts in court.
http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm
...so you're saying that a sub with a very blunt claw is going to grab a multi fiber cable bundle with like a thousand fibers and tap select cables (underwater) without interefering at all with the communications that said fiber is carrying? I hate to say it, but even the Navy is not capable of such a feat.
NR-1 is one (if not THE) smallest portable nuclear reactor in the world. The Army tried their hand at this back in the day. They wanted to make some tiny portable field power unit. Unfortunately all they managed to do was pin some poor sap to the ceiling with a control rod. ...yet another 2 cents...
Luckily the Navy builds their reactors in a safer fashion.
A very good point indeed. I can see it now: "I find the defendant, and everyone else in this room, including myself, GUILTY!".
The last time aim tried to "pull the plug" on a client that wasnt their own (trillian), they got a nasty backlash from the press. I think they learned their lesson... for now at least.
> That said, software patents are stupid.
agreed.
Its obvious that if Linus or any of his fellow programmers come up with a section of code that happens to match someone elses patented code, that very pattent should NOT be a pattent in the first place! There shouldnt even be any lawsuit involved. If the holders of the patent are stupid enough to file a suit, its their own fault for bringing the generality of their own patent to the courts attention.