Nominet, the UK NIC, don't publish contact details in whois for domains registered by individuals unless you explicitly ask them to. If you are a business, however, you may not remove your details. This seems to be the best solution?
Jabber does not require you to be on the same server as the people you are communicating with. It works the same way as email. If your Jabber id is user@myserver.org, then anyone on any Jabber server can contact you; their server will simply contact myserver.org's Jabber server to send messages.
Use Alcohol 120% to make a cd-image copy of your legally purchased CD onto your hard drive. Alcohol will then mount that as a virtual CD drive, complete with emulated copy protection data. This should be your fair use right. This is how I run all my games; the CD goes into the PC exactly once, to be read by Alcohol. I install and play them from the virtual drives. Not one game has failed to work yet. =)
Uhm.. it's not running DOS. It's running Windows XP, just, coincidentally, without much of a GUI. It will run any Win32 app or service which doesn't require a window (or a library that I haven't included). Freedos can't run MSSQL (not that I want to, it's just an example). =)
The copy of XP I'm working with at work at the moment is 14MB. It boots to a command prompt and works. No hackery required; XP Embedded lets you do this. =)
Using CreateDesktop to manufacture new desktops won't allow more than one copy of the same program to run (for programs that only support running one copy), because there is only a single namespace across the desktops. FUS allows this.
What's dubious about that paragraph? Look in any Windows internals guide and it will explain the function of the session space at A0000000 in TS.
Actually, one complaint I have about X is that it does too LITTLE with the network =)
I would like to be able to leave X apps running after closing the server, and have them attach to a new server when one is opened. That way, I can move from machine to machine without exiting programs. VNC and co can do this, but they do it by running an X server on the machine running the app, which uses more resources and means I have to use crappy VNC clients instead of just X. Basically I want screen for X. I don't think the X protocol will allow for this, so it's just a wishful thought; I only mention it as a counter to the idea that X doesn't need network transparency =)
Nope, fast user switching is Terminal Services. Try disabling TS and see if your fast user switching works. Or, take the word of someone who has and hacks on the Windows XP source code at work. =)
It's a limited version of TS which only allows multiple logons at the console; if you connect remotely through Remote Desktop it will lock the console, and it only allows one remote connection. It's the same core code, though; just a different build.
One app crashing on one user session cannot affect the others; they have different session spaces allocated at A0000000 in the virtual address space, and share no data structures. Likewise, there is no way (outside of normal RPC-type calls) for these applications to share data as they are in seperate Object Manager namespaces. This is why it's implemented using TS; it's stable and moderately efficient, and Terminal Services is already included in XP to do Remote Desktop and Remote User Assistance. =)
Nope, all drivers in NT4/2K/XP run in kernel space. I have the source for Windows XP right here, and I can assure you that it uses ring 0 for everything except apps and services.
The Windows kernel is designed on principles much like a microkernel, but very few components are pushed across the kernel/user boundary, for performance and simplicity..
This is why secure operating systems use an SAK, system attention key. Windows NT and its brethren require you to press ctrl-alt-del to log in because that key sequence cannot be trapped by an application (though there are other problems with the NT logon process unrelated to the three-fingered salute). Linux has an SAK too; unfortunately, it's only available through the kernel magic debug keys by default (alt-sysrq-k if you have magic keys enabled) - the SAK under Linux will kill all programs on the current TTY, thus forcing init to spawn you a fresh login process which, assuming the system is otherwise secure, is not going to steal your password. Some *nix terminals actually have a key labelled 'SAK' on their keyboards.
Actually, I'm working on a software system which will provide good security even against an attacker with physical access; the classes of attack which are still feasible mostly involve tapping the motherboard while the machine is running, which I consider hard enough... email me if you're interested. =)
This crack breaks both LanMan and NTLM hashes. NTLMv2 is not affected.
NTLMv2 was introduced in Windows 2000 and is still not the default; Windows Server 2003 Enterprise defaults to 'Send NTLM only', which will stop LanMan attacks, but not prevent NTLM attacks. It will also not ALLOW NTLMv2 to be used, even if the client supports it. I.E. the only secure authentication system which is available is disabled by default.
Yes, all the MS security practise documents will tell you to set it to NTLMv2 only (which requires upgrading all clients to Windows 2000 or above).. but it's still not the *default*. Enabling NTLMv2 does not break backward compatibility (only disabling v1 does), so I'm not sure how they justify this decision =)
Bugger. I forgot to quote my greater and less than signs. Should've previewed.
There are in fact three: 'if', 'only if', and 'if and only if'. They correspond to the logical connectives of implication: 'is implied by' (<-), 'implies' (->), and double implication (both ways, <->).
Here's an example of their use: * "I'll go if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary doesn't; I might go, I might not. The general form, "A if B" or "A <- B", means nothing until either B has been proven true, at which point, A must also be true; or until A has been proven false, at which point, B must also be false. * "I'll go only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary does not go, I will not go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary does go. The general form, "A only if B" or "A -> B", means nothing until either A has been proven true, at which point, B must also be true; or until B has been proven false, at which point, A must also be false. This is the inverse of 'if'. * "I'll go if and only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will, and that if Mary doesn't, I won't. Also, if I go, Mary must have gone, and if I didn't go, Mary must not have gone. It means the same as stating both of the above - it implies equality. The general form, "A if and only if B" or "A <-> B", means nothing until either A or B are proven to be true or false, at which point, the other must be the same.
There are in fact three: 'if', 'only if', and 'if and only if'. They correspond to the logical connectives of implication: 'is implied by' (), and double implication (both ways, ).
Here's an example of their use: * "I'll go if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary doesn't; I might go, I might not. The general form, "A if B" or "A B", means nothing until either A has been proven true, at which point, B must also be true; or until B has been proven false, at which point, B must also be false. This is the inverse of 'if'. * "I'll go if and only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will, and that if Mary doesn't, I won't. Also, if I go, Mary must have gone, and if I didn't go, Mary must not have gone. It means the same as stating both of the above - it implies equality. The general form, "A if and only if B" or "A B", means nothing until either A or B are proven to be true or false, at which point, the other must be the same.
He's not referring to object files, he's referring to the compiler's intermediate code, which is only used by some compilers. GCC uses a language called RTL for its internal representation, which is akin to assembler but is still architecture-independent. Code is translated by a language-specific frontend into RTL, which then has generic optimisations performed upon it. It's then translated into arch code by an arch-specific backend, and optimised again using arch-specific optimisations.
Also, just as a minor point, the ELF format is arch and platform independant. The *contents* of ELF sections is not, since they contain architecture specific machine code; but ELF itself is so generic that it works across 32 or 64 bit machines, and across machines of differing endianness. =)
Then what are they? If there are absolute moral laws, what are they?
Your example is stupid. Just because he says that it is within his moral code doesn't mean you can't condemn him - your judgement is based on *your* moral code, not his. So even then, it's still relative. The jurors each make a personal judgement based on their own moral codes. Relative.
Society is already functioning without any absolutes. If 'don't kill people' was an absolute moral law in our society, then murder wouldn't happen. The closest thing we have to absolutes is criminal law, and even that doesn't qualify because it is possible (although often very hard) to escape it.
If our society can't deal with the entirely correct attitude of moral relativism, then it *needs* to disintegrate and be replaced by something which can deal with it.
In Odeon cinemas in the UK, there is a pre-film 'advert' which starts with just a black screen.. then mobile phones start going off all around (surround sound), all with different ring tones.. then the message 'Please switch off your mobile phone' appears on the screen. It seems to work pretty well - almost everyone in the cinema seems to immediately turn off their phone. Actually having the faux rings going off all around you really reminds you how annoying it is. =)
Look at Shorewall. It's not web based but it's a very good and easy to configure firewall script and you can get away with knowing nothing about iptables. (Seawall is the old version for ipchains).
I'm sure someone could make a nice and easy web based interface for the Shorewall config files (which are way simpler than iptables).
The most annoying thing about DJB is that although his software works in a somewhat odd way and he rants crazily about it, it WORKS and is universally better than its competitors, at least in my opinion. It's annoying as hell the way he works outside but I still use qmail regardless (after patching it a bit to change paths to something resembling the FSSTND)
Slashdot Mirror
Nominet, the UK NIC, don't publish contact details in whois for domains registered by individuals unless you explicitly ask them to. If you are a business, however, you may not remove your details. This seems to be the best solution?
What's the problem? Just ran that as root on my server, and nothing happens. Oh, there are some errors about being unable to fork.. *grin*
(Clue: All Linux servers worth their salt have ulimits)
Jabber does not require you to be on the same server as the people you are communicating with. It works the same way as email. If your Jabber id is user@myserver.org, then anyone on any Jabber server can contact you; their server will simply contact myserver.org's Jabber server to send messages.
Use Alcohol 120% to make a cd-image copy of your legally purchased CD onto your hard drive. Alcohol will then mount that as a virtual CD drive, complete with emulated copy protection data. This should be your fair use right. This is how I run all my games; the CD goes into the PC exactly once, to be read by Alcohol. I install and play them from the virtual drives. Not one game has failed to work yet. =)
This is the funniest thing I've read on /. for at least a few weeks. =)
Uhm.. it's a *game*. You buy and sell virtual drugs to make a virtual profit. Try checking the link before you rant. =)
Don't write it down, just remember it. That way your pen will last longer.
Uhm.. it's not running DOS. It's running Windows XP, just, coincidentally, without much of a GUI. It will run any Win32 app or service which doesn't require a window (or a library that I haven't included). Freedos can't run MSSQL (not that I want to, it's just an example). =)
Torne
The copy of XP I'm working with at work at the moment is 14MB. It boots to a command prompt and works. No hackery required; XP Embedded lets you do this. =)
Torne
Using CreateDesktop to manufacture new desktops won't allow more than one copy of the same program to run (for programs that only support running one copy), because there is only a single namespace across the desktops. FUS allows this.
What's dubious about that paragraph? Look in any Windows internals guide and it will explain the function of the session space at A0000000 in TS.
Torne
Actually, one complaint I have about X is that it does too LITTLE with the network =)
I would like to be able to leave X apps running after closing the server, and have them attach to a new server when one is opened. That way, I can move from machine to machine without exiting programs. VNC and co can do this, but they do it by running an X server on the machine running the app, which uses more resources and means I have to use crappy VNC clients instead of just X. Basically I want screen for X. I don't think the X protocol will allow for this, so it's just a wishful thought; I only mention it as a counter to the idea that X doesn't need network transparency =)
Torne
Nope, fast user switching is Terminal Services. Try disabling TS and see if your fast user switching works. Or, take the word of someone who has and hacks on the Windows XP source code at work. =)
It's a limited version of TS which only allows multiple logons at the console; if you connect remotely through Remote Desktop it will lock the console, and it only allows one remote connection. It's the same core code, though; just a different build.
One app crashing on one user session cannot affect the others; they have different session spaces allocated at A0000000 in the virtual address space, and share no data structures. Likewise, there is no way (outside of normal RPC-type calls) for these applications to share data as they are in seperate Object Manager namespaces. This is why it's implemented using TS; it's stable and moderately efficient, and Terminal Services is already included in XP to do Remote Desktop and Remote User Assistance. =)
Torne
Nope, all drivers in NT4/2K/XP run in kernel space. I have the source for Windows XP right here, and I can assure you that it uses ring 0 for everything except apps and services.
The Windows kernel is designed on principles much like a microkernel, but very few components are pushed across the kernel/user boundary, for performance and simplicity..
Torne
Killing winlogon should bugcheck the machine, but bad things happen sometimes. =)
Right now I have far more amusing things bugchecking Windows. All the bugcheck calls I put in, for a start. *grin*
Torne
This is why secure operating systems use an SAK, system attention key. Windows NT and its brethren require you to press ctrl-alt-del to log in because that key sequence cannot be trapped by an application (though there are other problems with the NT logon process unrelated to the three-fingered salute). Linux has an SAK too; unfortunately, it's only available through the kernel magic debug keys by default (alt-sysrq-k if you have magic keys enabled) - the SAK under Linux will kill all programs on the current TTY, thus forcing init to spawn you a fresh login process which, assuming the system is otherwise secure, is not going to steal your password. Some *nix terminals actually have a key labelled 'SAK' on their keyboards.
Torne
Actually, I'm working on a software system which will provide good security even against an attacker with physical access; the classes of attack which are still feasible mostly involve tapping the motherboard while the machine is running, which I consider hard enough... email me if you're interested. =)
Torne
This crack breaks both LanMan and NTLM hashes. NTLMv2 is not affected.
NTLMv2 was introduced in Windows 2000 and is still not the default; Windows Server 2003 Enterprise defaults to 'Send NTLM only', which will stop LanMan attacks, but not prevent NTLM attacks. It will also not ALLOW NTLMv2 to be used, even if the client supports it. I.E. the only secure authentication system which is available is disabled by default.
Yes, all the MS security practise documents will tell you to set it to NTLMv2 only (which requires upgrading all clients to Windows 2000 or above).. but it's still not the *default*. Enabling NTLMv2 does not break backward compatibility (only disabling v1 does), so I'm not sure how they justify this decision =)
Torne
Bugger. I forgot to quote my greater and less than signs. Should've previewed.
There are in fact three: 'if', 'only if', and 'if and only if'. They correspond to the logical connectives of implication: 'is implied by' (<-), 'implies' (->), and double implication (both ways, <->).
Here's an example of their use:
* "I'll go if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary doesn't; I might go, I might not. The general form, "A if B" or "A <- B", means nothing until either B has been proven true, at which point, A must also be true; or until A has been proven false, at which point, B must also be false.
* "I'll go only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary does not go, I will not go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary does go. The general form, "A only if B" or "A -> B", means nothing until either A has been proven true, at which point, B must also be true; or until B has been proven false, at which point, A must also be false. This is the inverse of 'if'.
* "I'll go if and only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will, and that if Mary doesn't, I won't. Also, if I go, Mary must have gone, and if I didn't go, Mary must not have gone. It means the same as stating both of the above - it implies equality. The general form, "A if and only if B" or "A <-> B", means nothing until either A or B are proven to be true or false, at which point, the other must be the same.
Hope that wasn't too torturous.
There are in fact three: 'if', 'only if', and 'if and only if'. They correspond to the logical connectives of implication: 'is implied by' (), and double implication (both ways, ).
Here's an example of their use:
* "I'll go if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will go. This says nothing about what will happen if Mary doesn't; I might go, I might not. The general form, "A if B" or "A B", means nothing until either A has been proven true, at which point, B must also be true; or until B has been proven false, at which point, B must also be false. This is the inverse of 'if'.
* "I'll go if and only if Mary does" - this means that if Mary goes, I will, and that if Mary doesn't, I won't. Also, if I go, Mary must have gone, and if I didn't go, Mary must not have gone. It means the same as stating both of the above - it implies equality. The general form, "A if and only if B" or "A B", means nothing until either A or B are proven to be true or false, at which point, the other must be the same.
Hope that wasn't too torturous.
He's not referring to object files, he's referring to the compiler's intermediate code, which is only used by some compilers. GCC uses a language called RTL for its internal representation, which is akin to assembler but is still architecture-independent. Code is translated by a language-specific frontend into RTL, which then has generic optimisations performed upon it. It's then translated into arch code by an arch-specific backend, and optimised again using arch-specific optimisations.
Also, just as a minor point, the ELF format is arch and platform independant. The *contents* of ELF sections is not, since they contain architecture specific machine code; but ELF itself is so generic that it works across 32 or 64 bit machines, and across machines of differing endianness. =)
Torne
Then what are they? If there are absolute moral laws, what are they?
Your example is stupid. Just because he says that it is within his moral code doesn't mean you can't condemn him - your judgement is based on *your* moral code, not his. So even then, it's still relative. The jurors each make a personal judgement based on their own moral codes. Relative.
Society is already functioning without any absolutes. If 'don't kill people' was an absolute moral law in our society, then murder wouldn't happen. The closest thing we have to absolutes is criminal law, and even that doesn't qualify because it is possible (although often very hard) to escape it.
If our society can't deal with the entirely correct attitude of moral relativism, then it *needs* to disintegrate and be replaced by something which can deal with it.
In Odeon cinemas in the UK, there is a pre-film 'advert' which starts with just a black screen.. then mobile phones start going off all around (surround sound), all with different ring tones.. then the message 'Please switch off your mobile phone' appears on the screen. It seems to work pretty well - almost everyone in the cinema seems to immediately turn off their phone. Actually having the faux rings going off all around you really reminds you how annoying it is. =)
Look at Shorewall. It's not web based but it's a very good and easy to configure firewall script and you can get away with knowing nothing about iptables. (Seawall is the old version for ipchains).
I'm sure someone could make a nice and easy web based interface for the Shorewall config files (which are way simpler than iptables).
It seems to support just about everything, including various kinds of tunnels. http://shorewall.sourceforge.net/
Torne
The most annoying thing about DJB is that although his software works in a somewhat odd way and he rants crazily about it, it WORKS and is universally better than its competitors, at least in my opinion. It's annoying as hell the way he works outside but I still use qmail regardless (after patching it a bit to change paths to something resembling the FSSTND)
Torne