With port forwarding, you can have any service (HTTP, VNC, etc) running on the local machine, and only accesible to people who can already connect via SSH, no more need for securing each protocol, and being vulnerable to the world with every exploit that comes out.
Thanks for that advice! Now I can port forward my telnet service over ssh so that I can finally have secure shell access!
With all their paid training they've received, they're perfect for landing jobs in the private sector. In the last year, we've seen a huge initiative for private ventures to go into space. Who better to be the vehicles' operators than existing astronauts? Throw in some stock options, and I think they'd do quite well for themselves. Richard Branson wouldn't hesitate to hire them, not just for their experience but also for the PR value it would have.
Re:I hope you have more security than CID..
on
Build Your Own PBX
·
· Score: 1
Jeez, people have become overly paranoid about security.
It is justified though. A client of ours recently had their PBX hacked and someone managed to rack up thousands of dollars of long distance to Saudi Arabia. Let's just say that a bit more paranoia would have probably helped them out in that circumstance.
A good solution to get access to an unrestricted outside line would be to have a one-time pad of n-digit numbers where n is perhaps 6 or more. Every invalid attempt from a particular CID number increases the wait time exponentially. To prevent someone faking your CID and effectively DOS you, you could also have a one-time pad containing long reset numbers. The one-time pad prevents any replay attacks in case you're connecting from an insecure line. Users can make as many free outside calls as they want with normal authentication means, but when placing a toll call, they'd have to go through something like that.
You use this word, "geeks" in your post as if I'm supposed to know what it is. Are you all self-important that defining your words is beneath you? If you're worth your salt, you would have sold me on it so that I would consider your post worthy.
However, for your benefit, I hope slashdot institutes an auto-acronym feature. So that next time there's a story about a new BIOS (Basic Input/Output System), SCO (Santa Cruz Operation), IBM (International Business Machines), or even 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corporation) you'll (you will) know what those acronyms mean.
Well yeah the US voted for Bush. Did you pay no attention to his opponent? The type of guy only a European could love.
So instead you got Bush -- someone the rest of the world doesn't love? I guess almost half of the US is made up of Europeans, since they voted for Kerry.
I, for one, think it's about time the slash overlords created a Legal section. This really doesn't have anything to do with online rights. Similar to the Politics section, a Legal section would hold stories like these, SCO's machinations, and any other article where it's two companies duking it out in court and where my rights aren't affected.
The Mozilla Foundation isn't a wealthy, for-profit entity. They also don't produce extremely expensive pieces of software largely used to crank out highly annoying adverts.
Why would companies care whether the technology they support is produced by a non- or for-profit entity? It's almost like saying that companies should avoid being on the internet as it's largely used to watch porn.
Isn't that like asking: "Will your company develop content for Firefox knowing that the Mozilla Foundation is using it as its own marketing piece?"
I don't care that Mozilla includes various related links with the browser, nor do I care that Macromedia includes other stuff either. If there's a business case for using Flash, my company will use it. Man, if people objected because of co-marketing deals, then nobody would ever develop for Windows based upon the desktop shortcuts that come with it.
"Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages."
MS is left having to pay $565 million, and they claim this a victory? What exactly would be a loss??
It should be read as:
"Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a (lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages)."
I remember reading an interesting article in a book written by a biochemist about five years ago. (I don't remember the name, but the book [blue/yellow cover if this rings a bell] seemed like a "Surely you're joking..." clone.) At any rate, he said that CFCs were "coincidentally" banned at around the time that the patent on producing them expired so that the new patented chemical would have a market. Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.
Sure we can change the channel but the media producers need to show some responsiblity just as parents do.
The discussion at hand is about cable/satellite television, for which you have to subscribe. In other words, you need to go out of your way to get it. I don't get cable because I think the vast majority of it is crap and a waste of time. Heck, how many reality TV shows do people really need anyway?
Why do you feel that media companies should treat you like a child and show some parental responsibility? If you're not an adult, then you can't subscribe to the material anyways and your parents should be the ones to regulate what you watch. If you are an adult, then you can choose not to subscribe and police yourself accordingly.
The producers think they are all high and mighty and don't need to show any responsibility and most people disagree.
How do you conclude that most disagree? Is that just a wild guess or can you back it up?
As one person said here a few months ago, just because you change the channel doesn't mean it goes away...
You're right. It doesn't go away. And just because you don't read that particular book in the library doesn't mean it goes away either. How about we rein in the authors while we're at it?
Slashdot Mirror
Only on slashdot does a post like parent not get modded down as troll.
Netcraft confirms: everybody but you got the joke.
Good luck with that BSD-licensed C compiler. GCC's had/has issues, but that's a big lump of code to replace.
;-)
Good luck with that Linux operating system. Windows had/has issues, but that's a big lump of code to replace.
With port forwarding, you can have any service (HTTP, VNC, etc) running on the local machine, and only accesible to people who can already connect via SSH, no more need for securing each protocol, and being vulnerable to the world with every exploit that comes out.
Thanks for that advice! Now I can port forward my telnet service over ssh so that I can finally have secure shell access!
Are you feeling lucky?
Man, I hope the buyer uses my referral link for that purchase!
With all their paid training they've received, they're perfect for landing jobs in the private sector. In the last year, we've seen a huge initiative for private ventures to go into space. Who better to be the vehicles' operators than existing astronauts? Throw in some stock options, and I think they'd do quite well for themselves. Richard Branson wouldn't hesitate to hire them, not just for their experience but also for the PR value it would have.
Jeez, people have become overly paranoid about security.
It is justified though. A client of ours recently had their PBX hacked and someone managed to rack up thousands of dollars of long distance to Saudi Arabia. Let's just say that a bit more paranoia would have probably helped them out in that circumstance.
A good solution to get access to an unrestricted outside line would be to have a one-time pad of n-digit numbers where n is perhaps 6 or more. Every invalid attempt from a particular CID number increases the wait time exponentially. To prevent someone faking your CID and effectively DOS you, you could also have a one-time pad containing long reset numbers. The one-time pad prevents any replay attacks in case you're connecting from an insecure line. Users can make as many free outside calls as they want with normal authentication means, but when placing a toll call, they'd have to go through something like that.
Another tactic for call screening that I use is to require the caller to press a number in order to leave a message.
What works really well is to generate a number between 50 and 100, then ask the user to press the corresponding digit of pi in that decimal place.
You use this word, "geeks" in your post as if I'm supposed to know what it is. Are you all self-important that defining your words is beneath you? If you're worth your salt, you would have sold me on it so that I would consider your post worthy.
However, for your benefit, I hope slashdot institutes an auto-acronym feature. So that next time there's a story about a new BIOS (Basic Input/Output System), SCO (Santa Cruz Operation), IBM (International Business Machines), or even 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corporation) you'll (you will) know what those acronyms mean.
Well yeah the US voted for Bush. Did you pay no attention to his opponent? The type of guy only a European could love.
So instead you got Bush -- someone the rest of the world doesn't love? I guess almost half of the US is made up of Europeans, since they voted for Kerry.
But then the first researcher became more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Oh, wait...
Google can suggest some insight: Post Humously
For another perspective on this, please see this informative post.
We've lost machines at work. Big cube farm with lots of lab space. ... It took days for us to find it.
Eject the CDROM tray. Works for me.
I, for one, think it's about time the slash overlords created a Legal section. This really doesn't have anything to do with online rights. Similar to the Politics section, a Legal section would hold stories like these, SCO's machinations, and any other article where it's two companies duking it out in court and where my rights aren't affected.
The Mozilla Foundation isn't a wealthy, for-profit entity. They also don't produce extremely expensive pieces of software largely used to crank out highly annoying adverts.
Why would companies care whether the technology they support is produced by a non- or for-profit entity? It's almost like saying that companies should avoid being on the internet as it's largely used to watch porn.
Isn't that like asking: "Will your company develop content for Firefox knowing that the Mozilla Foundation is using it as its own marketing piece?"
I don't care that Mozilla includes various related links with the browser, nor do I care that Macromedia includes other stuff either. If there's a business case for using Flash, my company will use it. Man, if people objected because of co-marketing deals, then nobody would ever develop for Windows based upon the desktop shortcuts that come with it.
I think they used Ajax and scrubbed it clean.
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.
Given that it's a free download, if you bought Internet Explorer, you *should* be fired.
"Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages."
MS is left having to pay $565 million, and they claim this a victory? What exactly would be a loss??
It should be read as:
"Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a (lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages)."
I remember reading an interesting article in a book written by a biochemist about five years ago. (I don't remember the name, but the book [blue/yellow cover if this rings a bell] seemed like a "Surely you're joking..." clone.) At any rate, he said that CFCs were "coincidentally" banned at around the time that the patent on producing them expired so that the new patented chemical would have a market. Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.
Yes... nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Sure we can change the channel but the media producers need to show some responsiblity just as parents do.
The discussion at hand is about cable/satellite television, for which you have to subscribe. In other words, you need to go out of your way to get it. I don't get cable because I think the vast majority of it is crap and a waste of time. Heck, how many reality TV shows do people really need anyway?
Why do you feel that media companies should treat you like a child and show some parental responsibility? If you're not an adult, then you can't subscribe to the material anyways and your parents should be the ones to regulate what you watch. If you are an adult, then you can choose not to subscribe and police yourself accordingly.
The producers think they are all high and mighty and don't need to show any responsibility and most people disagree.
How do you conclude that most disagree? Is that just a wild guess or can you back it up?
As one person said here a few months ago, just because you change the channel doesn't mean it goes away...
You're right. It doesn't go away. And just because you don't read that particular book in the library doesn't mean it goes away either. How about we rein in the authors while we're at it?
It's amazing how beautiful code can be ... a good lesson here for anyone who's thought about doing anything at code level.
Are there other levels on which to achieve beautiful code?
We could always call it an UNDEAD cd.
That would be very appropriate: http://undeadly.org/