Did anyone else notice the parent post was modded +5 insightful around 2:45PM EST, then down to +2 insightful 15 minutes later without any of it being shown in the moderation summary box?
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
If such a list existed, you can bet your bottom dollar that every spammer will pay very close attention to it. It would be a list of 100% valid email addresses!
Perhaps the list could intentionally be flodded with randomly generated e-mail addresses along with real ones. Make the ratio really bad (for the spammer), like 100:1 random:real addresses. That would make the list worthless to spammers.
Speaking of this, I once heard about some program that dynamicly generates webpages full of garbage e-mail addresses for the purpose of being collected by spammer webcrawlers and filling their lists with junk. Does anyone know what the name of this program is? I've been wanting to run it but I can't remember what it is called now.
Oh thats easy! Just type this cryptic command into a shell and voila!
You think "up2date -u" is cyptic? Well I guess microsoft will always have at least a few customers who need their handholding if a command as simple as that blows your mind...
Re:Someone really write a Kerberos extension
on
Mozilla 1.4b Loosed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh, I thought you were talking about a replacement for NTLM in general, not specifically for web browsers. I've never heard of a modern way to use kerberos for http authentication either, unfortunately.
Re:NTLM is good for some people
on
Mozilla 1.4b Loosed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've never really used NTLM but from what I understand it's extremely convenient. Does anybody know if there's an open equivalent for this?
Ok, rephrase, other than the plain text transmission, what's wrong with telnet?
Along the same line of thinking, if you want to get rid of telnet, do you want to get rid of FTP? That's essentially what FTP is - unencrypted uname/pass auth. So, what's the difference?
We still support telnet at Netmar, because our users have telnet on their computers. Joe Blow, with his windows 98, can understand "start - run - telnet login.netmar.com". He may not understand "download putty, change to SSH, port 22, type in login.netmar.com, press connect", or be willing to deal with it. We do, of course, provide documentation on how to do both: http://guide.netmar.com/connect/command-lin e.html [netmar.com]
But, seriously, telnet doesn't hurt anything. We don't allow it for root, our dedicated server customers must enable telnet for themselves (most of the time we don't even install it, or install it and leave it disabled).
I have to agree with you.
Where I work we have a number of linux lan-to-inet routers at small buisness customers. We once tried going all SSH on the routers a number of years ago, but then an OpenSSH remote exploit was discovered and we had a massive problem where we have dozens of routers out there with a vulnerable SSHd, and some of them are very hard to reach, on intermittant dialups where it takes a while to upload and install new software (particularly since the customer is actively using the connection at that time). We got everything patched, but then I think there was another openssh vulnerability discovered, and finally we decided to just turn SSH off and use telnet for remotely managing them. I've never heard of a machine being exploited due to a vulnerability in the telnet server implementation.
Now that's not to say I don't believe in SSH. I haven't installed a production machine aside from these routers with telnet server on it in years. I wouldn't concieve of using it on anything else. But when you've got tons of embedded-like systems in a 500 mile radius of you with intermittant and/or slow internet connections and no other way of reaching them, it is realy crucial that they not get exploited. The best way to do that is to run as few services as possible, and make sure those services are as simple as possible to reduce the possibility of bugs being found. Telnet is pretty damn simple...
There are mechanisms built into jail such that each mail in the system can have its own kernel running (on top of its own userland tools, which is the general use for the jail)
I use FreeBSD jails more than I use UML. They are not even remotely the same. UML is a kernel image running as a user space process. Jails are chroot on stereroids. Root's power in a jail with respect to the kernel is severely reduced. A process running in a jail (even as root) cannot change network interface settings, change sysctl variables, mount filesystems, open raw sockets, escape from the chroot and it can only send IP packets from a certain IP address specified at the time the jail is created and many other things.
And a jail does not have its own kernel running. It shares that of the host system with the above mentioned restrictions. A jailed process is just like any other on the host system, it just has extra restrictions applied to it that not even root can break.
I personally prefer jail for running services and keeping them isolated for security reasons. It has a lot less overhead than doing the same with UML. They can both be used for this purpose, but no, they are not the same at all implementation wise. I have never seen anything like UML before, it is definitely totally different than jail.
Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?
User Mode Linux. A port of the linux kernel to its own system call API. Run a linux kernel and an entire linux OS as an ordinary user-space process. I think this one is defeintely a linux first.
Now, as far as these discs go: Without a separate license agreement, they are not legal to use.
Says who? Microsoft? Are they congress now? Was bill Gates elected a judge? Whoever got a copy of the programs legally obtained a copy of a copyrighted work, period. No additional agreements required.
The fact that Microsoft's own people have this problem is certainly ironic, and highlights just how crazy the world of software licensing is.
Zealots, please note: Free/Open Source Software is still licensed. You need to very carefully understand your rights and obligations under a software license, be it a Microsoft EULA, the BSD license, or the GPL. Failure to do so may open you up to legal problems, regardless. (Go ahead and incorporate some GPL code into a closed product, and see how the FSF reacts.)
The license you're talking about that comes with open source software isn't even remotely the same thing as the license that comes with commercial software (EULAs). The former assumes you have legally obtained a copy of the copyrighted work. As such, you are perfectly free to do with as you wish to the extent of copyright law. But the open source license, if you choose to accept it (and you are not required to do so to use the software) grants you additonal rights beyond those granted to you by copyright law (right to modify & redistribute usually).
Now commercial software EULAs start from the assumption that you have not legally obtained a copy of the softare. Even if you go out to a store and pay cash for a boxed copy of the software, the EULA baffilingly claims you do not legally own that copy (hence the "warning: unlicensed software. requires separate license" plastered all over MS cd cases). If you would however like to legally use that copy you just bought, the software company is willing to grant you that right - if you agree to a bunch of restrictive terms.
Five (5) years later, some yahoo contacts me with a threat! Yes, a customer of his had aquired a NEW computer, and this software would no longer work! If I didn't IMMEDIATELY fix the problem (not mentioned was what the problem actually was), I would be sued! Or worse...
Hey, if he had sent me a "thank you" note in the first place, I might have responded positively. As it was, I told him to take a flying f*ck at a rolling dougnut. Remember, the ONLY thing I could EVER get out of the release of this utility was ego.
LOL... Did you ever hear back from that guy after you told him to fuck off?
I wonder if you could return software after opening it because you didnt agree to the EULA? For a full refund.
Most EULAs have something in there that say if you don't agree you can get a refund if you want. But most retail stores won't refund opened software. You'd have to work it out directly with the publisher.
It's more like if you go to a Ford dealership to buy an F-150, but in order to buy the F-150, the dealer makes you sign a purchase agreement that says that you will agree not to resell it or publish negative reviews about it. If you refuse to sign the purchase agreement, the dealer refuses to sell you the truck.
But that's not really an EULA then, it is basically a standard contract. 'EULA' usually refers to the meaningless legalese (commonly bundled with software) that tries to dictate a bunch of conditions to something you bought *after* you bought it. Now on the otherhand, if it is presented beforehand, and agreement is a condition of purchase, then I agree, totally legitimate.
Aye, but, IIRC, EULAs can't be applied to physical property. If you want to buy a Ford F150 and chop it down into the shape of a giant shoe, it's yours to do with as you please.
Technically EULAs can't be applied to intellectual property either. The same argument you mention about the F150 being yours to do with as you please applies to intellectual property as well.
If I go out and buy software or music or something, it is mine to do with as I please to the extent of copyright law. I did not agree to give up any additional rights at the time I purchased the copy. Why on earth would I have to give up addional rights to something after I already own it.
Imagine if you went out and bought that F150 and afterwards found a piece of paper sitting in the back seat saying that by driving the truck you thereby agree not to resell it to anyone else or publish negative reviews about it. You'd think that was the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It sounds equally stupid when you find such papers in boxes of software you already own.
A cable modem capable of communicating at 20+mbps goes for about $80. 100 of them can coexist politely on the same broadcast domain.
I think you meant to say collision domain above rather than broadcast domain. Cable modems on the same cable "segment" (if that's the cable word for it) do share bandwidth. In fact, it is possible to hack some cable modems to sniff the traffic it sees. Cable modems usually just filter out everyone else's traffic like an ethernet card when not in promiscous mode.
Great. Every goddamn atom in your computer has its own bloody IP address. Tell me again why this is important?
It means that every subnetwork in your site can have the same size network. By convention, end customers ("subscribers" is the ipv6 term) are assigned a/48, meaning you get 128-48=80 bits of address space to do with as you please. By convention, the first 16 of those bits are used for your subnet addresses, and the remaining 64 are individual host addresses on those subnets.
To put it in more familiar IPv4 terms, imagine if there were so many IP addresses available that even the smallest sites could be given a class B. Now instead of having to subnet your network into efficiently sized CIDR blocks (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.224/28, the billing dept gets 10.123.5.128/27, tech supports dept gets 10.123.5.32/29), you can just say everyone gets a class C (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.x, the billing dept gets 10.123.6.x, tech supports dept gets 10.123.7.x). Much easier for humans to work with that way.
To put in in IPv6 terms again, every site gets assigned a/48 (say, 2002:6f2d:9ffe) because the address space really is that big now. By convention, the next 16 bits are for your subnets (eg, the lab upstairs gets 2002:6f2d:9ffe:0001:x:x:x:x, the billing dept gets 2002:6f2d:9ffe:0002:x:x:x:x, tech supports dept gets 2002:6f2d:9ffe:0003:x:x:x:x). When assigning subnets within your site, you only have to keep track of 4th group of bits in the address. See how much easier this makes your life as a network administrator? You can still used small CIDR blocks if you wanted to, but you don't need to. Just giving everyone the same sized subnet is easier for you to work with,
There's also the autoconfiguration thing (host addresses can be assigned based on their NIC hardware addresses, since the IPv6 subnet space is bigger than ethernet address space)...
You love sucking dick, don't you? You love the feel of a big black cock deep inside you, right? You love to have grown men defecate on your face. You love to smear it in after they've done this. And by the way, amazing intellect such as mine does not only exist in the American mind, as you were obviously concluding. No, there are some other white people who are not U.S. citizens who have intellects such as mine. Of course, you aren't one of them since you're a fucking idiot and obviously a spic.
Your powers of generalizations and bad reasoning are inspiring. BTW, I'm an 'American' as well.
I'm speaking from experience here. I grew up in the midwest, where you're gay or a "faggot" for having anything but a right-wing pro-christian mindset. Or being any number of other things that someone may not like.
Most americans hate and fear people that aren't just like they are, and use of the term 'faggot' is usualy evidence of that mindset. I guess it stems from their fear and hatered of gay people...
Actually, the license can limit you to what you can do with the DVD, CD, or piece of software. Its like a contract and if you agree to the contract, you're stuck.
Yes, if I agree to it. Most software, however, can be purchased without agreeing to any contract. It is still a copyrighted work and those rules apply, but I now legally own a copy of it, and I did not agree to any license or contract that further limits my ability to do what I like with my newly acquired property.
For example, its illegal to watch your DVD under Linux with DeCSS based players.
Well that doesn't have anything to do with software licenses, that's the DMCA...
Under the latest Microsoft OS'es, you can't use VNC to remotely access them, etc.
Assuming you agreed to the terms of the license agreement.
So yes, even for personal use, licenses can limit you to what you can do legally.
Only if you contractually agreed to limit yourself to their terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else notice the parent post was modded +5 insightful around 2:45PM EST, then down to +2 insightful 15 minutes later without any of it being shown in the moderation summary box?
If such a list existed, you can bet your bottom dollar that every spammer will pay very close attention to it. It would be a list of 100% valid email addresses!
Perhaps the list could intentionally be flodded with randomly generated e-mail addresses along with real ones. Make the ratio really bad (for the spammer), like 100:1 random:real addresses. That would make the list worthless to spammers.
Speaking of this, I once heard about some program that dynamicly generates webpages full of garbage e-mail addresses for the purpose of being collected by spammer webcrawlers and filling their lists with junk. Does anyone know what the name of this program is? I've been wanting to run it but I can't remember what it is called now.
Oh thats easy! Just type this cryptic command into a shell and voila!
You think "up2date -u" is cyptic? Well I guess microsoft will always have at least a few customers who need their handholding if a command as simple as that blows your mind...
Oh, I thought you were talking about a replacement for NTLM in general, not specifically for web browsers. I've never heard of a modern way to use kerberos for http authentication either, unfortunately.
I've never really used NTLM but from what I understand it's extremely convenient. Does anybody know if there's an open equivalent for this?
Yes. Kerberos.
What's wrong with telnet?
Ok, rephrase, other than the plain text transmission, what's wrong with telnet?
Along the same line of thinking, if you want to get rid of telnet, do you want to get rid of FTP? That's essentially what FTP is - unencrypted uname/pass auth. So, what's the difference?
We still support telnet at Netmar, because our users have telnet on their computers. Joe Blow, with his windows 98, can understand "start - run - telnet login.netmar.com". He may not understand "download putty, change to SSH, port 22, type in login.netmar.com, press connect", or be willing to deal with it.
We do, of course, provide documentation on how to do both:
http://guide.netmar.com/connect/command-li
But, seriously, telnet doesn't hurt anything. We don't allow it for root, our dedicated server customers must enable telnet for themselves (most of the time we don't even install it, or install it and leave it disabled).
I have to agree with you.
Where I work we have a number of linux lan-to-inet routers at small buisness customers. We once tried going all SSH on the routers a number of years ago, but then an OpenSSH remote exploit was discovered and we had a massive problem where we have dozens of routers out there with a vulnerable SSHd, and some of them are very hard to reach, on intermittant dialups where it takes a while to upload and install new software (particularly since the customer is actively using the connection at that time). We got everything patched, but then I think there was another openssh vulnerability discovered, and finally we decided to just turn SSH off and use telnet for remotely managing them. I've never heard of a machine being exploited due to a vulnerability in the telnet server implementation.
Now that's not to say I don't believe in SSH. I haven't installed a production machine aside from these routers with telnet server on it in years. I wouldn't concieve of using it on anything else. But when you've got tons of embedded-like systems in a 500 mile radius of you with intermittant and/or slow internet connections and no other way of reaching them, it is realy crucial that they not get exploited. The best way to do that is to run as few services as possible, and make sure those services are as simple as possible to reduce the possibility of bugs being found. Telnet is pretty damn simple...
I really wish Mozilla would implement a javascript model that was compatible with MSIE.
I really wish MSIE would implement a javascript model that was standard and thus compatible with everything else.
FreeBSD jails have existed longer than UML.
There are mechanisms built into jail such that each mail in the system can have its own kernel running (on top of its own userland tools, which is the general use for the jail)
I use FreeBSD jails more than I use UML. They are not even remotely the same. UML is a kernel image running as a user space process. Jails are chroot on stereroids. Root's power in a jail with respect to the kernel is severely reduced. A process running in a jail (even as root) cannot change network interface settings, change sysctl variables, mount filesystems, open raw sockets, escape from the chroot and it can only send IP packets from a certain IP address specified at the time the jail is created and many other things.
And a jail does not have its own kernel running. It shares that of the host system with the above mentioned restrictions. A jailed process is just like any other on the host system, it just has extra restrictions applied to it that not even root can break.
I personally prefer jail for running services and keeping them isolated for security reasons. It has a lot less overhead than doing the same with UML. They can both be used for this purpose, but no, they are not the same at all implementation wise. I have never seen anything like UML before, it is definitely totally different than jail.
Name an application, or a feature of the operating system, that is truly innovative?
User Mode Linux. A port of the linux kernel to its own system call API. Run a linux kernel and an entire linux OS as an ordinary user-space process. I think this one is defeintely a linux first.
Now, as far as these discs go: Without a separate license agreement, they are not legal to use.
Says who? Microsoft? Are they congress now? Was bill Gates elected a judge? Whoever got a copy of the programs legally obtained a copy of a copyrighted work, period. No additional agreements required.
The fact that Microsoft's own people have this problem is certainly ironic, and highlights just how crazy the world of software licensing is.
Zealots, please note: Free/Open Source Software is still licensed. You need to very carefully understand your rights and obligations under a software license, be it a Microsoft EULA, the BSD license, or the GPL. Failure to do so may open you up to legal problems, regardless. (Go ahead and incorporate some GPL code into a closed product, and see how the FSF reacts.)
The license you're talking about that comes with open source software isn't even remotely the same thing as the license that comes with commercial software (EULAs). The former assumes you have legally obtained a copy of the copyrighted work. As such, you are perfectly free to do with as you wish to the extent of copyright law. But the open source license, if you choose to accept it (and you are not required to do so to use the software) grants you additonal rights beyond those granted to you by copyright law (right to modify & redistribute usually).
Now commercial software EULAs start from the assumption that you have not legally obtained a copy of the softare. Even if you go out to a store and pay cash for a boxed copy of the software, the EULA baffilingly claims you do not legally own that copy (hence the "warning: unlicensed software. requires separate license" plastered all over MS cd cases). If you would however like to legally use that copy you just bought, the software company is willing to grant you that right - if you agree to a bunch of restrictive terms.
Five (5) years later, some yahoo contacts me with a threat! Yes, a customer of his had aquired a NEW computer, and this software would no longer work! If I didn't IMMEDIATELY fix the problem (not mentioned was what the problem actually was), I would be sued! Or worse...
Hey, if he had sent me a "thank you" note in the first place, I might have responded positively. As it was, I told him to take a flying f*ck at a rolling dougnut. Remember, the ONLY thing I could EVER get out of the release of this utility was ego.
LOL... Did you ever hear back from that guy after you told him to fuck off?
I wonder if you could return software after opening it because you didnt agree to the EULA? For a full refund.
Most EULAs have something in there that say if you don't agree you can get a refund if you want. But most retail stores won't refund opened software. You'd have to work it out directly with the publisher.
It's more like if you go to a Ford dealership to buy an F-150, but in order to buy the F-150, the dealer makes you sign a purchase agreement that says that you will agree not to resell it or publish negative reviews about it. If you refuse to sign the purchase agreement, the dealer refuses to sell you the truck.
But that's not really an EULA then, it is basically a standard contract. 'EULA' usually refers to the meaningless legalese (commonly bundled with software) that tries to dictate a bunch of conditions to something you bought *after* you bought it. Now on the otherhand, if it is presented beforehand, and agreement is a condition of purchase, then I agree, totally legitimate.
Aye, but, IIRC, EULAs can't be applied to physical property. If you want to buy a Ford F150 and chop it down into the shape of a giant shoe, it's yours to do with as you please.
Technically EULAs can't be applied to intellectual property either. The same argument you mention about the F150 being yours to do with as you please applies to intellectual property as well.
If I go out and buy software or music or something, it is mine to do with as I please to the extent of copyright law. I did not agree to give up any additional rights at the time I purchased the copy. Why on earth would I have to give up addional rights to something after I already own it.
Imagine if you went out and bought that F150 and afterwards found a piece of paper sitting in the back seat saying that by driving the truck you thereby agree not to resell it to anyone else or publish negative reviews about it. You'd think that was the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It sounds equally stupid when you find such papers in boxes of software you already own.
A cable modem capable of communicating at 20+mbps goes for about $80. 100 of them can coexist politely on the same broadcast domain.
I think you meant to say collision domain above rather than broadcast domain. Cable modems on the same cable "segment" (if that's the cable word for it) do share bandwidth. In fact, it is possible to hack some cable modems to sniff the traffic it sees. Cable modems usually just filter out everyone else's traffic like an ethernet card when not in promiscous mode.
What firewall admin in their right mind would allow users to do end-to-end encryption through a firewall without being able to control the traffic??
Have you ever heard of SSH or SSL?
When was the last time you ran 2, 3, 5, or 100 separate O/Ss on your intel box, sectioned each of them a chunk of memory, etc?
Last week.
I don't understand... what's your beef with mason specifically? I used it on several sites and I like it a lot.
thats 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 distinct ips
Great. Every goddamn atom in your computer has its own bloody IP address. Tell me again why this is important?
It means that every subnetwork in your site can have the same size network. By convention, end customers ("subscribers" is the ipv6 term) are assigned a
To put it in more familiar IPv4 terms, imagine if there were so many IP addresses available that even the smallest sites could be given a class B. Now instead of having to subnet your network into efficiently sized CIDR blocks (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.224/28, the billing dept gets 10.123.5.128/27, tech supports dept gets 10.123.5.32/29), you can just say everyone gets a class C (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.x, the billing dept gets 10.123.6.x, tech supports dept gets 10.123.7.x). Much easier for humans to work with that way.
To put in in IPv6 terms again, every site gets assigned a
There's also the autoconfiguration thing (host addresses can be assigned based on their NIC hardware addresses, since the IPv6 subnet space is bigger than ethernet address space)...
You love sucking dick, don't you? You love the feel of a big black cock deep inside you, right? You love to have grown men defecate on your face. You love to smear it in after they've done this. And by the way, amazing intellect such as mine does not only exist in the American mind, as you were obviously concluding. No, there are some other white people who are not U.S. citizens who have intellects such as mine. Of course, you aren't one of them since you're a fucking idiot and obviously a spic.
Stop masturbating to gay porn you fucking loser.
Uh, ok...
Your rebuttal is to call me a hispanic gay...
My point in my original post is prooven.
Your powers of generalizations and bad reasoning are inspiring. BTW, I'm an 'American' as well.
I'm speaking from experience here. I grew up in the midwest, where you're gay or a "faggot" for having anything but a right-wing pro-christian mindset. Or being any number of other things that someone may not like.
Most americans hate and fear people that aren't just like they are, and use of the term 'faggot' is usualy evidence of that mindset. I guess it stems from their fear and hatered of gay people...
fucking shit-faggot
He thinks it ok that children be exposed to nudity, so you call him a "fucking shit-faggot"? You're, what, an american?
Actually, the license can limit you to what you can do with the DVD, CD, or piece of software. Its like a contract and if you agree to the contract, you're stuck.
Yes, if I agree to it. Most software, however, can be purchased without agreeing to any contract. It is still a copyrighted work and those rules apply, but I now legally own a copy of it, and I did not agree to any license or contract that further limits my ability to do what I like with my newly acquired property.
For example, its illegal to watch your DVD under Linux with DeCSS based players.
Well that doesn't have anything to do with software licenses, that's the DMCA...
Under the latest Microsoft OS'es, you can't use VNC to remotely access them, etc.
Assuming you agreed to the terms of the license agreement.
So yes, even for personal use, licenses can limit you to what you can do legally.
Only if you contractually agreed to limit yourself to their terms.