Then configure exchange not to allow the guest account to send email. Yes, you can set exchange to disallow sending email on a user by user level.
Real exchange admins already know all this. The people being hit by this "vulnerability" are the same morons who got hit by Code Red. That should tell you something.
Because many of them are in datacenters on hosting accounts that were purchased from reputable companies who didn't know they were selling to spammers, and DDoS'ing these poor hosting companies will likely put them out of business for nothing more than a simple mistake.
Find out who owns the netblock before you go DDoS'ing everything you find objectionable. You're probably hurting someone who has nothing to do with it.
Congratulations on giving horrible advice and getting moderated up for it.
Look: if you clearly admit that it's a mistake to give them internet access in their rooms, then why do you do it???
Put the three computers side-by-site in the family room or den, and let each kid have access to the internet there.
With five sets of eyes on the screen, they won't be misbehaving, and they'll still have ample opportunity to do legitimate surfing.
Don't give up on your kids so easy. Yea, lots of teenagers like porn, that doesn't mean it's good for them. Keep pushing them in the right direction. It's so easy, these days, for kids to go down the wrong path that if you ignore them and hope for the best, you're going to be rudely awakened by a teenage pregnancy, a knife wound, or a horribly addicted (crack is fun, mkay) youth in the not-too-distant future.
Not only did they take them illegally, they were being sued for illegally distributing them to others.
That is, not only did they steal it, they gave them away to everyone who asked. THAT is the difference.
Shoplift a few CDs from HMV, then copy them freely onto 10000 CD-Rs, then stand outside of HMV and hand them to anyone who walks by, and see what you're charged with. It won't be a $250 fine.
Cars are transportation, not audio/visual entertainment. As if there arent enough distractions already.
There's no reason it can't be entertainment for the passengers. It just takes people being personally responsible for once in their lives.
Anyone with kids knows that travelling is much, much easier if you give them something to do on long trips. DVDs in the headrests so the kids can watch/play from the back seat are a GOOD THING.
Realistically, these shouldn't be much of a problem. The people who drive while watching will eventually hit something, and hopefully what they hit won't be a person. After that they'll either learn very quickly not to do it again, or go broke repairing everything they keep hitting. Eventually they will either learn not to do it, or they won't be able to afford a satellite dish.
Speaking of obvious, I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for people who are just now getting in trouble.
The RIAA, et. al, have been increasing their anti-privacy measures as time goes on, with broader and broader sweeps and harsher penalties every time they announce a new round. Why anyone, four years after everyone knew it was illegal, still trades music online and expects not to get in trouble is silly.
Why anyone feels sorry for someone who knowingly and willingly breaks the law so that they can save themselves from buying a $15 CD (face it, 95% of the people downloading are doing it for selfish reasons) is beyond me.
I give them a ton of respect. As a die-hard FreeBSD user, I appreciate the UI they've built on the BSD base, and I like seeing the source for things like Rendezvous coming out into the open.
The only problem with Apple is the cost. If only their G5s could beat the 8 Dell 400SCs I can buy for the same price, I'd have one right now.
Whereas a competent MCSE or IT director will have properly secured a corporation's machines against remote exploits (a properly designed network, even if none of the machines had been patched, should've been able to stay free of worms like Blaster and Welchia, for example), home users have been thrust into the unfortunate situation of running an enterprise OS (anything from the NT family), with no experience on securing it, and often, no knowledge that it needs to be secured at all.
See, it's funny because here in the real world, where you use the 10.x network because you really do need an internal class A network, your little firewall idea will work for about a day. The next day, when someone brings in an infected laptop, kiss your firewall goodbye: it's useless.
Competant admins (and I consider myself one) have firewalls up, and we have policies in place to prevent (more like punish) users who insist on bringing unsecured laptops onto the network, but inevitably, there will be someone who infects the rest of the internal because they're stupid. It happens.
Ideally, preventing the initial infected laptop, and disabling services by default are better methods. Disable the services, because firewalls aren't all they're cracked up to be...
I've been told via email by Theo something along the lines of:
"That suggestion just shows how little fucking clue you have as to how this all works".
In all fairness, he was right.
Does that make him an ass? Not really. If I were him, I'd have responded in a very similar manner. He's got a lot of shit going on at the same time, probably gets a ridicuslous amount of email, and to his credit, he seems to know exactly what he wants done, and is willing to do it himself if nobody else will.
Yes, he's an egotistical bastard. But he's a talented, hard working egotistical bastard.
BSD still hasn't lost. FreeBSD still beats linux performance wise, and OpenBSD beats everything security wise. There's no reason to use linux except for third party software support, and that's only there because of the buzzword factor of "linux".
When third parties start realizing that BSD has a more commercial friendly license, guess where all of the commercial apps are going to go?
When the maintainer of BSD's ipf pulled a 180 and changed the license to something more restrictive (I'm at a loss for details right now), the OpenBSD people told him to fuck off, and they wrote their own firewall, now known to everyone as pf. Pretty sad that it had to happen, since pf is now regarded as one of the best firewalls around...
How is that sad?
Someone wrote software, and then wouldn't correct a poorly written license. OpenBSD decided that they liked the idea, but disliked the license, wrote it themselves, and published it with a truly free license.
Then how, exactly, do you "respect" any opinion on Slashdot, where the "Editors" (and I use that term very loosely) have more than once equated Gates with Hitler?
At least this author claims that there is a large, reasonable group, and beyond them, a group of zealots that does more damage to Linux than good. I've yet to see Slashdot admit there's ANY good in Microsoft.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm simply saying that the license itself is portrayed as "free", when it's definition of free is somewhat skewed. Clearly, the BSD license is much more free.
The issue isn't the linksys hardware, it's the drivers for the broadcom chips that aren't public, but are embedded in the Linksys router. Releasing the source likely violates whatever NDA they had to sign with Broadcom to get the specs for those chips.
Like I said above, there's two issues here. One, they release the source, and violate an NDA with broadcom. Two, they keep their NDA valid, and violate the GPL. Either way, someone is going to complain. It just so happens that the threat of legal action means more coming from broadcom than from the FSF.
The issue is that they've got custom kernel drivers for the broadcom chips.
Since broadcom hasn't released the documentation yet (which is why most of the FSF community WANTS to see the source), if Cisco releases the drivers, they're likely violating NDAs they hold with Broadcom.
On one hand, they violate the GPL by not releasing.
On the other hand, they violate their NDA by releasing proprietary information.
Say it with me: screwed.
Now that we agree that they're screwed either way they turn, which group would you like to piss off? The FSF, with their one lawyer and very little financial backing, or Broadcom?
The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.
Slashdot Mirror
Then configure exchange not to allow the guest account to send email. Yes, you can set exchange to disallow sending email on a user by user level.
Real exchange admins already know all this. The people being hit by this "vulnerability" are the same morons who got hit by Code Red. That should tell you something.
Because many of them are in datacenters on hosting accounts that were purchased from reputable companies who didn't know they were selling to spammers, and DDoS'ing these poor hosting companies will likely put them out of business for nothing more than a simple mistake.
Find out who owns the netblock before you go DDoS'ing everything you find objectionable. You're probably hurting someone who has nothing to do with it.
Until you upgrade to the new version of PHP and your code breaks.
Oh, you don't want to upgrade? Sorry, security hole, you have to.
At least ASP doesn't change the syntax, parsing, and configuration files every time it patches a security hole.
(Disclaimer: I also use PHP as my primary development language)
Congratulations on giving horrible advice and getting moderated up for it.
Look: if you clearly admit that it's a mistake to give them internet access in their rooms, then why do you do it???
Put the three computers side-by-site in the family room or den, and let each kid have access to the internet there.
With five sets of eyes on the screen, they won't be misbehaving, and they'll still have ample opportunity to do legitimate surfing.
Don't give up on your kids so easy. Yea, lots of teenagers like porn, that doesn't mean it's good for them. Keep pushing them in the right direction. It's so easy, these days, for kids to go down the wrong path that if you ignore them and hope for the best, you're going to be rudely awakened by a teenage pregnancy, a knife wound, or a horribly addicted (crack is fun, mkay) youth in the not-too-distant future.
Look how selfish you are...
They're disrupting neighboring channels but you don't care, because you have your open drivers. Bravo.
What's next, defending Stallman when he starts butchering kittens on the sidewalk? At least we have an open C compiler, right?
Not only did they take them illegally, they were being sued for illegally distributing them to others.
That is, not only did they steal it, they gave them away to everyone who asked. THAT is the difference.
Shoplift a few CDs from HMV, then copy them freely onto 10000 CD-Rs, then stand outside of HMV and hand them to anyone who walks by, and see what you're charged with. It won't be a $250 fine.
Wouldn't it also be nice for google to have an IRC interface to their search engine?
Google bots in popular channels. It could work.
Accidental.
Cars are transportation, not audio/visual entertainment. As if there arent enough distractions already.
There's no reason it can't be entertainment for the passengers. It just takes people being personally responsible for once in their lives.
Anyone with kids knows that travelling is much, much easier if you give them something to do on long trips. DVDs in the headrests so the kids can watch/play from the back seat are a GOOD THING.
Realistically, these shouldn't be much of a problem. The people who drive while watching will eventually hit something, and hopefully what they hit won't be a person. After that they'll either learn very quickly not to do it again, or go broke repairing everything they keep hitting. Eventually they will either learn not to do it, or they won't be able to afford a satellite dish.
Speaking of obvious, I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for people who are just now getting in trouble.
The RIAA, et. al, have been increasing their anti-privacy measures as time goes on, with broader and broader sweeps and harsher penalties every time they announce a new round. Why anyone, four years after everyone knew it was illegal, still trades music online and expects not to get in trouble is silly.
Why anyone feels sorry for someone who knowingly and willingly breaks the law so that they can save themselves from buying a $15 CD (face it, 95% of the people downloading are doing it for selfish reasons) is beyond me.
I give them a ton of respect. As a die-hard FreeBSD user, I appreciate the UI they've built on the BSD base, and I like seeing the source for things like Rendezvous coming out into the open.
The only problem with Apple is the cost. If only their G5s could beat the 8 Dell 400SCs I can buy for the same price, I'd have one right now.
Google's toolbar is better.
Blocks popups, fills in forms when requested without sending the information back to the vendor, and the search box and news buttons are always nice.
Up 36% ... to a whopping 136 total. Whoopdie-do.
I worded that poorly. What I meant to say is that even the worst traffic offenses are only misdemeanors.
In this class are 'exhibition of speed' (street racing), wreckless driving (20+ over) and DUI, all potentially misdemeanors.
Yes, I'm quite aware that speeding is not a misdemeanor.
Absolutely positive.
Three strikes only applies to felonies.
Traffic offenses, even DUI, are misdemeanors.
Think about that...
If you're dumb enough to do it not once, but three separate times, you're a moron.
If you've got two strikes and you still go around smoking pot, stealing candy, or doing anything else illegal, you're a moron.
Whereas a competent MCSE or IT director will have properly secured a corporation's machines against remote exploits (a properly designed network, even if none of the machines had been patched, should've been able to stay free of worms like Blaster and Welchia, for example), home users have been thrust into the unfortunate situation of running an enterprise OS (anything from the NT family), with no experience on securing it, and often, no knowledge that it needs to be secured at all.
See, it's funny because here in the real world, where you use the 10.x network because you really do need an internal class A network, your little firewall idea will work for about a day. The next day, when someone brings in an infected laptop, kiss your firewall goodbye: it's useless.
Competant admins (and I consider myself one) have firewalls up, and we have policies in place to prevent (more like punish) users who insist on bringing unsecured laptops onto the network, but inevitably, there will be someone who infects the rest of the internal because they're stupid. It happens.
Ideally, preventing the initial infected laptop, and disabling services by default are better methods. Disable the services, because firewalls aren't all they're cracked up to be...
I've been told via email by Theo something along the lines of:
"That suggestion just shows how little fucking clue you have as to how this all works".
In all fairness, he was right.
Does that make him an ass? Not really. If I were him, I'd have responded in a very similar manner. He's got a lot of shit going on at the same time, probably gets a ridicuslous amount of email, and to his credit, he seems to know exactly what he wants done, and is willing to do it himself if nobody else will.
Yes, he's an egotistical bastard. But he's a talented, hard working egotistical bastard.
BSD still hasn't lost. FreeBSD still beats linux performance wise, and OpenBSD beats everything security wise. There's no reason to use linux except for third party software support, and that's only there because of the buzzword factor of "linux".
When third parties start realizing that BSD has a more commercial friendly license, guess where all of the commercial apps are going to go?
What?
When the maintainer of BSD's ipf pulled a 180 and changed the license to something more restrictive (I'm at a loss for details right now), the OpenBSD people told him to fuck off, and they wrote their own firewall, now known to everyone as pf. Pretty sad that it had to happen, since pf is now regarded as one of the best firewalls around...
How is that sad?
Someone wrote software, and then wouldn't correct a poorly written license. OpenBSD decided that they liked the idea, but disliked the license, wrote it themselves, and published it with a truly free license.
That's a good thing.
Then how, exactly, do you "respect" any opinion on Slashdot, where the "Editors" (and I use that term very loosely) have more than once equated Gates with Hitler?
At least this author claims that there is a large, reasonable group, and beyond them, a group of zealots that does more damage to Linux than good. I've yet to see Slashdot admit there's ANY good in Microsoft.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm simply saying that the license itself is portrayed as "free", when it's definition of free is somewhat skewed. Clearly, the BSD license is much more free.
The issue isn't the linksys hardware, it's the drivers for the broadcom chips that aren't public, but are embedded in the Linksys router. Releasing the source likely violates whatever NDA they had to sign with Broadcom to get the specs for those chips.
Like I said above, there's two issues here. One, they release the source, and violate an NDA with broadcom. Two, they keep their NDA valid, and violate the GPL. Either way, someone is going to complain. It just so happens that the threat of legal action means more coming from broadcom than from the FSF.
The issue is that they've got custom kernel drivers for the broadcom chips.
Since broadcom hasn't released the documentation yet (which is why most of the FSF community WANTS to see the source), if Cisco releases the drivers, they're likely violating NDAs they hold with Broadcom.
On one hand, they violate the GPL by not releasing.
On the other hand, they violate their NDA by releasing proprietary information.
Say it with me: screwed.
Now that we agree that they're screwed either way they turn, which group would you like to piss off? The FSF, with their one lawyer and very little financial backing, or Broadcom?
The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.