These attacks are exploiting a flaw in an ActiveX control for displaying Excel worksheets. Right now they are just multiplying. You just know that they will eventually start adding. What happens if they start subtracting? Let's not even mention dividing at this point. God help us all...
Indeed, as was done for pictures using the tag. HTML didn't specify a particular file format. You could use.bmp,.ico,.gif,.jpg, etc. Why on Earth would you WANT to standardize on a particular file format and lose that flexibility? Better file formats will show up over time and certainly you'd like to be able to use tem. The good formats will stick and become de facto standards. The not so good formats will fall by the wayside.
Sure, they've published the spec, but that doesn't make it non-proprietary. Is it controlled by Firefox or by a neutral standards body? There are lots of analogies to this. e.g. Microsoft has openly published the SMB spec, yet they control it; it is proprietary. Or maybe we have different interpretations of the word "proprietary"?
In any case, I did not mean to emphasize the word "proprietary" or any connotations that word may evoke. I used that word in my post but it wasn't the main point of my post. My main point is that this is a not a standard. Calling this new feature a standard actually dilutes the meaning of the word "standard". Can we just call almost any new feature a standard?
The summary is wrong, this is NOT a standard in any way, or even a proposed standard. This is a proprietary security feature being introduced by Firefox. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (it's not), or that this won't eventually become a de facto standard (it might). But it is not a standard.
It's simply what you would type at the windbg prompt to invoke the debugger extension. You'd type "!exploitable" to invoke the "exploitable" extension, or "!foo" to invoke the "foo" extension. Extensions are just DLLs that get loaded on the fly when you use the "!" syntax (and anybody can create one). By corollary, built-in debugger commands don't start with a "!"; they just start with a letter or sometimes the "." character.
I don't know if other debuggers use "!" for extensions or if they even support extensions in a similar way that windbg does. Incidentally when I say windbg, I mean the whole family of Windows debuggers -- windbg, cdb, ntsd, and kd. The same extensions work with all of them.
There's nothing mysterious about the "bang exploitable" nomenclature. That's how all the windbg extensions are commonly called verbally... bang analyze (!analyze), bang process (!process), and so on. It's been that way for as long as I can recall.
Yes that was funny. What ever happened to Gibson's original article? I looked around on grc.com but couldn't find it. It used to be at http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm.
Yeah I noticed that too. But is that IE8's fault or Slashdot's fault? i.e. Does Slashdot detect the browser type and emit IE6-specific output for any IE browser? I'm just curious to know the reason for IE8's oddness on Slashdot.
Uh, they already did that a few years ago, beginning with Vista. Windows Update is completely decoupled from the web browser. It runs as a standalone Control Panel applet.
Re:Zsh has had these features for years
on
BASH 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I hadn't heard about this bug before, but I just tested out the bug using your web page, and the bug must have been fixed. All three pages (17 DIV, 21 DIV, and 25 DIV) loaded instantaneously. I'm using an unreleased internal build of IE8. Thank you for submitting the bug report to the IE team!
NTFS has always supported transactions at the metadata level, aka journalling. With Vista and later it now supports transactions of arbitrary series of file activities, as defined by an application. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TxF. So you see, you can still incorporate some aspects and qualities of a database system into a file system, without actually becoming a database system.
Using a database to implement a file system is a fundamentally flawed idea, and here's why. A database system is designed to be very good at storing STRUCTURED information, including fast searching, updating, etc. A file system is designed to be good at storing arbitrary, unstructured information. Think about all the files on your hard drive. There is quite a variety there. Care to come up with schemas to describe them all? Care to update these schemas as they change? Add new schemas when you add new types of files to your hard drive? No, the file system should not need to know anything about the data in the files; they are arbitrary blobs. For fast searching of certain types of files, you can implement user-level indexers, which is exactly what happened with Windows Search, Google Desktop Search, etc. If you actually do have a ton of structured information that you need fast, concurrent, highly available, etc. access to, run a database! That's what they're for! Guess what, high-end databases can run either on top of an arbitrary file system, or they can just run directly on the "raw" volume -- this gives a few percentage points gain in performance usually.
We don't need a merger of file systems and database systems. The two serve different purposes, and each should continue to develop independently so as to optimize for their intended purposes. Of course some of their needs will overlap, and where it makes sense, technologies will be shared.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, you watch Ubuntu's Firefox!!!
That link you posted was a real eye-opener. I am truly shocked to learn that the Pope opposes atheism!
These attacks are exploiting a flaw in an ActiveX control for displaying Excel worksheets. Right now they are just multiplying. You just know that they will eventually start adding. What happens if they start subtracting? Let's not even mention dividing at this point. God help us all...
I literally read that as scoured porn...
Wouldn't you rather come back in 30 days to collect another $250.00?
Indeed, as was done for pictures using the tag. HTML didn't specify a particular file format. You could use .bmp, .ico, .gif, .jpg, etc. Why on Earth would you WANT to standardize on a particular file format and lose that flexibility? Better file formats will show up over time and certainly you'd like to be able to use tem. The good formats will stick and become de facto standards. The not so good formats will fall by the wayside.
Really? First I've heard of this. What are these ways? Can you provide some links? I'm genuinely very interested in this...
Sure, they've published the spec, but that doesn't make it non-proprietary. Is it controlled by Firefox or by a neutral standards body? There are lots of analogies to this. e.g. Microsoft has openly published the SMB spec, yet they control it; it is proprietary. Or maybe we have different interpretations of the word "proprietary"? In any case, I did not mean to emphasize the word "proprietary" or any connotations that word may evoke. I used that word in my post but it wasn't the main point of my post. My main point is that this is a not a standard. Calling this new feature a standard actually dilutes the meaning of the word "standard". Can we just call almost any new feature a standard?
The summary is wrong, this is NOT a standard in any way, or even a proposed standard. This is a proprietary security feature being introduced by Firefox. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (it's not), or that this won't eventually become a de facto standard (it might). But it is not a standard.
Yes, please go on.
Actually, 127.0.0.2 is remarkably similar. You should visit it sometime. And 127.0.0.3 ...
x |= y |= x |= y
You might want to compile again, just to be sure.
It's simply what you would type at the windbg prompt to invoke the debugger extension. You'd type "!exploitable" to invoke the "exploitable" extension, or "!foo" to invoke the "foo" extension. Extensions are just DLLs that get loaded on the fly when you use the "!" syntax (and anybody can create one). By corollary, built-in debugger commands don't start with a "!"; they just start with a letter or sometimes the "." character. I don't know if other debuggers use "!" for extensions or if they even support extensions in a similar way that windbg does. Incidentally when I say windbg, I mean the whole family of Windows debuggers -- windbg, cdb, ntsd, and kd. The same extensions work with all of them.
There's nothing mysterious about the "bang exploitable" nomenclature. That's how all the windbg extensions are commonly called verbally... bang analyze (!analyze), bang process (!process), and so on. It's been that way for as long as I can recall.
Yes that was funny. What ever happened to Gibson's original article? I looked around on grc.com but couldn't find it. It used to be at http://grc.com/dos/winxp.htm.
Yeah I noticed that too. But is that IE8's fault or Slashdot's fault? i.e. Does Slashdot detect the browser type and emit IE6-specific output for any IE browser? I'm just curious to know the reason for IE8's oddness on Slashdot.
Uh, they already did that a few years ago, beginning with Vista. Windows Update is completely decoupled from the web browser. It runs as a standalone Control Panel applet.
Please, no more GNU bashing.
I hadn't heard about this bug before, but I just tested out the bug using your web page, and the bug must have been fixed. All three pages (17 DIV, 21 DIV, and 25 DIV) loaded instantaneously. I'm using an unreleased internal build of IE8. Thank you for submitting the bug report to the IE team!
Actually, under d20 rules, three doublings equals a quadrupling.
AMD64 and EM64T are the same platform. The AMD64 binaries run on both AMD-made processors and Intel-made processors.
NTFS has always supported transactions at the metadata level, aka journalling. With Vista and later it now supports transactions of arbitrary series of file activities, as defined by an application. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TxF. So you see, you can still incorporate some aspects and qualities of a database system into a file system, without actually becoming a database system.
Using a database to implement a file system is a fundamentally flawed idea, and here's why. A database system is designed to be very good at storing STRUCTURED information, including fast searching, updating, etc. A file system is designed to be good at storing arbitrary, unstructured information. Think about all the files on your hard drive. There is quite a variety there. Care to come up with schemas to describe them all? Care to update these schemas as they change? Add new schemas when you add new types of files to your hard drive? No, the file system should not need to know anything about the data in the files; they are arbitrary blobs. For fast searching of certain types of files, you can implement user-level indexers, which is exactly what happened with Windows Search, Google Desktop Search, etc. If you actually do have a ton of structured information that you need fast, concurrent, highly available, etc. access to, run a database! That's what they're for! Guess what, high-end databases can run either on top of an arbitrary file system, or they can just run directly on the "raw" volume -- this gives a few percentage points gain in performance usually.
We don't need a merger of file systems and database systems. The two serve different purposes, and each should continue to develop independently so as to optimize for their intended purposes. Of course some of their needs will overlap, and where it makes sense, technologies will be shared.
What's IE 6.5?
Actually TFA is incorrect. Vista SP2 does NOT add exFAT, as exFAT was already added in Vista SP1.