Nanites could learn to work together, eating our computer cores in order to reproduce while they evolve into an intelligent collective life form. Won't someone think of the cores?
Make sure your home/office/whatever is built like a Fermi chamber.
Even if somebody somehow makes wireless networking as secure as good ol' fashioned copper, it still can't be made perfectly secure! The ONLY way to ensure absolute security is to pull the power cord(s) out. Oh, and smash the hard disks with an ax.
That said, I wonder how long it'll be before construction companies start offering to make buildings RF-impervious? Y'know, I might actually pay to have something like that done; it would go a long way to enhancing wireless security at my house.
Just how popular do you suppose this device will be when a competing device (not encumbered by DRM) comes along.
Oh, gee . . . the DRM'ed version can handle WMV files, the non-DRM'ed version can only handle MP3's. Gee . . . I guess I'll get the DRM'ed version (even though virtually all of my music is in MP3's). Gotta be able to handle that Microsoft proprietary format!
Nope. Unless this device can also handle unencumbered media, I predict a short, painful death.
Microsoft is merely doing what is in their best collective interest - since they were unable to crush Open Source and eliminate competition, their best option is to ensure that their products interoperate with Open Source.
It's a hedge - rather than saying "Our product is inherently better and will prevail in the end", they're saying "Our product is established; rather than risk becoming irrelevant in shops where Open Source is used, we want to continue to operate and compete even in places where Open Source has proven to be the winner."
Y'know, Microsoft has maintained a set of interoperability tools for UNIX (I forget what it's called, it includes a POSIX environment, can handle NIS/DNS/NFS among others, works kinda crappy but it works) - this going back over five years. I don't care for Redmond's OS at all but let's face it, they've been driving a huge chunk of the IT sector for a long time now. Microsoft actually provides quite a lot of valid solutions to current IT-related problems, and they're demonstrating that they're ready to attempt to provide more solutions. For a price, of course, but even Open Source has a certain price-tag attached to it, eh?
Bottom line - we Linux fanbois (myself included) had best accustom ourselves to the presence of Microsoft Windows-based solutions in the workplace. If Microsoft can develop, price, deliver and support working solutions it's a fair bet that the PHB's of the world will notice and we'll end up working with some of those solutions. It would be best if we collectively were prepared for this, rather than screaming "Evil!" every time a certain Redmond Washington based firm does something.
MOST of those looked like spam to my eye (although I did get 100% on the test, having a fair idea what a spam filter looks for). The fact is, many of those e-mails are spam, they just happen to be "honest" spam (i.e., not phishing attempts).
Question - if you opt in, is it still spam? In my (snail-mail) case, I get a catalog monthly from a certain firm. It's third-class bulk mail; to anybody but me I'm quite sure it looks like junk mail (the snail-mail equivalent of spam).
So . . . if I've done business with MexiDrugsForLess.com and opted in for "notification" e-mails ('cuz I want the best price on Cialis, doesn't everyone?), their e-mails are not necessarily spam, even though almost any reasonable person would immediately conclude otherwise. Now PHISHING is a more black-and-white kind of decision; either the e-mail actually originated from the apparent point-of-origin, or it's a phishing attack. I can concieve of exceptions to this, but by and large that's true.
In the end, junk/spam is largely in the eye of the beholder. One man's spam is another man's pork shoulder, er, I mean "ham".
interface should interfere with the normal boot process, especially a boot to DOS.
The BIOS shouldn't even be aware of the network - it's just a bunch of random signals on a PCI bus at this point.
The bootloader shouldn't care about the network - unless you're doing a network boot, it probably doesn't even know about networks.
The OS could get confussed . . . attepmting to use ARP/RARP/BOOTP/DHCP (or perhaps any of a half-dozen other services which it might expect).
I don't suppose you captured any of the bogus traffic which caused this problem (using snoop/tcpdump/whatever)? I'm not sure I understand why a network card would create traffic on its own, let alone how that bogus traffic could prevent the routine booting of a separate system.
Let me repeat that: A D-Link card was sending out enough junk that it prevented a different computer from booting.
Hmmm . . . so that different computer had network connectivity before it was booted? Or were you attempting to boot across a network?
Was it a Windows-based computer you were attempting to boot? If so, the problem may well have been Windows, rather than the router. Upon startup, Windows sends a 1-byte ping to a server within the microsoft.com domain, ostensibly to confirm network connectivity (no comments on the deeper ramifications of the "phone home" activity here). Could be that Windows saw a network link but got upset when its ping neither returned nor got closed, but was rather dropped quietly on the floor (you did say you had a crossover cable connected, yes? What were you crossover'ed to, and why? That doesn't sound like a very standard configuration.)
by indiscriminately selling hardware devices which were preconfigured to use it inappropriately (at best, these guys should look to stratum-2 timeservers).
But if you have no problems with the DDOS aspect of this, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail attachment showing you how to be part of something bigger than your single server.;^D
Slashdot Mirror
You can have my networking tools when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the keyboard!
Nanites could learn to work together, eating our computer cores in order to reproduce while they evolve into an intelligent collective life form. Won't someone think of the cores?
That's why Al G. Bell invented the landline. He foresaw that cellular would suffer limitations which only landline could prevent.
We all know tornados make a bee-line for trailers.
What? Tuesday? $#*SF)S....
Even if somebody somehow makes wireless networking as secure as good ol' fashioned copper, it still can't be made perfectly secure! The ONLY way to ensure absolute security is to pull the power cord(s) out. Oh, and smash the hard disks with an ax.
That said, I wonder how long it'll be before construction companies start offering to make buildings RF-impervious? Y'know, I might actually pay to have something like that done; it would go a long way to enhancing wireless security at my house.
Oh, gee . . . the DRM'ed version can handle WMV files, the non-DRM'ed version can only handle MP3's. Gee . . . I guess I'll get the DRM'ed version (even though virtually all of my music is in MP3's). Gotta be able to handle that Microsoft proprietary format!
Nope. Unless this device can also handle unencumbered media, I predict a short, painful death.
DRM is dead. Unfettered formats exist and are in widespread use. Try as they might, they can't unring the bell.
It's a hedge - rather than saying "Our product is inherently better and will prevail in the end", they're saying "Our product is established; rather than risk becoming irrelevant in shops where Open Source is used, we want to continue to operate and compete even in places where Open Source has proven to be the winner."
Y'know, Microsoft has maintained a set of interoperability tools for UNIX (I forget what it's called, it includes a POSIX environment, can handle NIS/DNS/NFS among others, works kinda crappy but it works) - this going back over five years. I don't care for Redmond's OS at all but let's face it, they've been driving a huge chunk of the IT sector for a long time now. Microsoft actually provides quite a lot of valid solutions to current IT-related problems, and they're demonstrating that they're ready to attempt to provide more solutions. For a price, of course, but even Open Source has a certain price-tag attached to it, eh?
Bottom line - we Linux fanbois (myself included) had best accustom ourselves to the presence of Microsoft Windows-based solutions in the workplace. If Microsoft can develop, price, deliver and support working solutions it's a fair bet that the PHB's of the world will notice and we'll end up working with some of those solutions. It would be best if we collectively were prepared for this, rather than screaming "Evil!" every time a certain Redmond Washington based firm does something.
Knucklehead.
Whaddya mean the Dubya never said that?
You do 100+ if you see fit - I'll consider 10/10 enough, myself.
After all - this isn't a rigorously-applied, double-blind t-tailed test.
You do 100+ if you see fit - I'll consider 10/10 enough, myself.
Question - if you opt in, is it still spam? In my (snail-mail) case, I get a catalog monthly from a certain firm. It's third-class bulk mail; to anybody but me I'm quite sure it looks like junk mail (the snail-mail equivalent of spam).
So . . . if I've done business with MexiDrugsForLess.com and opted in for "notification" e-mails ('cuz I want the best price on Cialis, doesn't everyone?), their e-mails are not necessarily spam, even though almost any reasonable person would immediately conclude otherwise. Now PHISHING is a more black-and-white kind of decision; either the e-mail actually originated from the apparent point-of-origin, or it's a phishing attack. I can concieve of exceptions to this, but by and large that's true.
In the end, junk/spam is largely in the eye of the beholder. One man's spam is another man's pork shoulder, er, I mean "ham".
It was Win98 (see above in thread).
Who travelled much faster than light
She left home one day
In an Einstienian way
And returned on the previous night!
The BIOS shouldn't even be aware of the network - it's just a bunch of random signals on a PCI bus at this point.
The bootloader shouldn't care about the network - unless you're doing a network boot, it probably doesn't even know about networks.
The OS could get confussed . . . attepmting to use ARP/RARP/BOOTP/DHCP (or perhaps any of a half-dozen other services which it might expect).
I don't suppose you captured any of the bogus traffic which caused this problem (using snoop/tcpdump/whatever)? I'm not sure I understand why a network card would create traffic on its own, let alone how that bogus traffic could prevent the routine booting of a separate system.
I first saw it under Win98 back in 2000; no reason to believe anything's changed.
Hmmm . . . so that different computer had network connectivity before it was booted? Or were you attempting to boot across a network?
Was it a Windows-based computer you were attempting to boot? If so, the problem may well have been Windows, rather than the router. Upon startup, Windows sends a 1-byte ping to a server within the microsoft.com domain, ostensibly to confirm network connectivity (no comments on the deeper ramifications of the "phone home" activity here). Could be that Windows saw a network link but got upset when its ping neither returned nor got closed, but was rather dropped quietly on the floor (you did say you had a crossover cable connected, yes? What were you crossover'ed to, and why? That doesn't sound like a very standard configuration.)
But if you have no problems with the DDOS aspect of this, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail attachment showing you how to be part of something bigger than your single server. ;^D
Or is /. letting M$ fanbois moderate?
Although given the M$ icon here at /., perhaps:
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
is more in order.
The marvellous blend of "Funny" and "Insightful" is only made even more wonderful by its brevity.
'Nuff said?
When did I become my in-laws?