I am and IT director at an ISP and when we build new laptops or desktops we deploy FireFox with the Blue E icon instead of the Firefox Icon. We even go so far as to make to the default page msn.c0m. They usually never notice....:)
Why would an ISP be building laptops/desktops? Why would you discredit the Mozilla dev team by masking Firefox (which you apparently aren't able to capitalize correctly)? Why would you avoid using IE yet continue supporting MS (via ad-revenue) by using msn.com as a start page?
And how does someone with grammar as bad as yours become an IT Director?
First Kaspersky, now Sophos... I've lost all respect for AV vendors. Using scare tactics to sell software is just sad.
Here's all it takes to keep your Windows box safe: a router (or SP2) and Firefox. Oh, and enough common sense to not run any executable file sent to you by a stranger.
Joe Sixpack doesn't consider it "irresponsible" to connect his machine to the net without a firewall. Infact he probably doesn't even know what a firewall is.
If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Microsoft for having everyone run as admin and leaving several easily-exploitable ports open by default on every version of Windows up to XP SP2.
By the way just as a reminder - botnets originally entered the limelight after scriptkiddies on IRC networks started mass-scanning and exploiting remote-root vulns on LINUX machines (via exploits for commonly used & often default services such as wuftpd and bind) in order to accumulate more bandwidth to "takeover" IRC channels.
Linux was the primary OS exploited by botnet kiddies waay before Windows. According to you, the admins of those linux boxes should be held liable for getting rooted. While I agree they are at fault for not being more security-minded, I would never consider holding them criminally responsible for getting hacked.
Dude, are you serious? Botnet kids like to target known, larger networks and channels, so when they 'pwn' them they're recognized for it by a lot of people. Thats all its about, ego and recognition - these botnet kiddies are just a bunch of confused little morons looking to make a name for themselves.
The chances of them joining your piddly little nobody network to takeover some random channel are little to none. Join a real network, like Efnet, and you'll find 'evil botnets' aplenty.
this reminds me of those fire drill videos we had back in 4th grade... there was some announcer from the 50's who would say "Remember kids, in a fire, stop drop and roll!"
i laughed when i thought how funny it would be if someone actually started rolling on the ground when a fire broke out..
now i'm laughing again thinking about this simulation.. cia: please stop wasting taxpayer money. do some real work. thanks.
theres a slew of reasons this is a stupid idea that should be painfully obvious to most slashdot readers...
[1] whatever number of machines microsoft uses to "crawl" the "seedier side of the web" , they will NEVER be able to crawl all of it, all the time.
thus: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN SCANS FOR A NEW, PUBLIC EXPLOIT TO WREAK HAVOC - BEFORE MS EVEN SEES IT
[2] more often than not, the non-reported vulnerabilities ("0day") are NOT used to mass-attack random IP's. they are used in targeted attacks against specific machines.
thus: THIS WILL NOT HELP MS DETECT UNREPORTED VULNS
[3] running VM's does not emulate all hardware of a machine, and therefore cannot accurately represent an end-user's scenario.
thus: THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF HOW SECURE A WINDOWS BOX IS ON THE INTERNET
the very idea of microsoft going out looking to get hit, instead of just securing their fucking OS to begin with, is plain stupid. this is like leaving your car unlocked with the windows rolled down in the ghetto and then watching from your apartment to see who jacks it.
/. really needs to stop gobbling up lame MS PR. this is getting old.
I can't believe nobody's mentioned ACDSee yet.. we ARE comparing Windows image viewing/sharing/manipulation programs right??
I've tried Picasa 2 - it's slower than ACDSee 7 and seems to have a bug with its webpage export feature. I just tried creating a thumbnailed page from their existing templates four times... twice amongst two different folders (~20 jpgs ea) and it halted export about 85% thru with a dialog popping up saying "export cancelled." Dunno whats goin' on with that.. no crash/debug/error logs to help explain either..
If Google wants to step into this arena then we might as well size them up with the current king of the ring, so to speak - ACDSee has been my favourite image viewing app since v3 and it's gotten better with every new release. Yes, some might find it bloated, but that's all about setting it up to do what YOU need it to - since it can do everything from unzipping files to creating HTML pages.
Sure, it's not free and it doesn't have the GMail/Blog integration - but it's got more features than Irfan View and Picasa (maybe even combined). I'll spare you the gigantc features listing, but check out the link for more info.
Sorry if this seems like a rant, I have nothing against Google - just the hordes of Google fanboys on/. who believe anything Google touches is gold.
I didn't bother addressing your "reason" in my earlier post because I didn't give it any merit. However since you insist, let me point out that you have zero proof of IE disallowing any such app. If your excuse for such an app not currently existing is because of Microsoft, then either back up that claim (since you seem to rely so heavily upon it), or come up with a better excuse.
I would suggest pointing me to a URL with such an app already developed that I can access from a non-IE browser (which, must NOT work correctly under IE).
I do believe in the power of webapps. I don't believe a webapp-version of Office will ultimately hold the key to Microsofts demise.
If there was such a realistic threat to Microsoft's dominance, it would already be widely known (past development) and actively marketing itself at home users (since they would be the first to adopt it). The fact that there isn't such a thing already is proof that such a product simply will not work.
50% of internet users still use dialup, furthermore, ill go out on a limb and say people will still prefer local apps of Office instead of their webapp alternatives because of 1) usability 2) speed 3) accessibility 4) feature support.
Don't get me wrong, there are definitly powerful applications for webapps, however don't fool yourself into thinking this is Microsoft's Achilles Heel.
Yes, because if IE (being the standard) can run these cool web-apps, you'll soon have other browsers with the same capabilities. And then you'll have replacements for Office apps that runs on Linux, because all you need is a compatible browser. And THEN you can start switching to non-MS platforms without worrying.
Your logic is so flawed and based on such loose assumptions that I almost feel bad picking it apart... almost. Here's a list of your assumptions:
1) someone will create these webapps in the near future 2) they will do EVERYTHING Office apps do, and comply with all "Office standards" (so as to serve as a realistic alternative to MS Office) 3) they will be cross platform 4) they will be free 5) they will be 100% compatible with all browsers
And then, once those 5 assumptions become a reality, all of a sudden Microsoft will lose its monoply and Linux will takeover the world because people can now use Java-Pseudo-Office on Linux.
Windows is nothing without Office for the average user.
You're missing the word business after "average" in that sentance. Most home users don't use Windows for Office, they use it because thats what their computer came with.
If they made IE as good as it can be, they'll be opening the floodgates for web-apps that can replace Office.
Sorry, did I miss something? What the hell are you talking about? I consider myself an avid web surfer and app-junkie and I've yet to see any such web-apps that are free and open to the public. I am ofcourse assuming they would be free, since your statement inferred Microsoft feels threatened by these apps.
So that's why IE has changed almost nothing since the monopoly. MS realises that improving it is digging their own grave.
Yeah. Improving software within their OS [that would only make their OS more appealing to customers] is definitly digging their own grave.
So all we can hope for right now is for Firefox to improve their browser as much as possible to try to become the standard (60% of the market would do it I think) before Longhorn.
There is no doubt the Firefox dev team will improve their browser as much as they possibly can, however I would consider 60% a pipe dream. The sad truth about most people is that they're lazy. Not dumb, not ignorant, just lazy. To go thru the effort of downloading and setting up a new browser is asking too much. Not to mention the biggest challenge which is just letting them know there IS an alternative.
The reality of the matter is that as long as Microsoft is allowed to integrate IE into it's OS and not so much as provide a shortcut to the Firefox website, there is no hope of IE being replaced as the dominant browser.
Bit Torrent is a PROTOCOL, not a program or website. The RIAA/MPAA are NOT locking their crosshairs on Bit Torrent itself, but rather the sources that supply copyright infringing 'seeds' which work over the Bit Torrent protocol. This includes (but is not limited to) websites like SuprNova, IRC channels and newsgroups.
Saying "Bit Torrent gives Hollywood a Headache" is like saying "FTP gives Hollywood a Headache."
i just read the article. i couldnt help but notice a striking resemblance with the agendas of Kaspersky and our very own Bush administration...
1) spread fear, its good for business.
2) create some fucked up 'axis of evil' shit to help further #1. ("Virus writers are combining their efforts with hackers and spammers to launch Swiss Army knife-like malware attacks on users")
3) throw in some fuzzy math for effect. ("The company said that it was seeing 200 new viruses a day.")
4) take a random stab at preventing free speech. ( "They work in groups that exchange information with other groups on forums and Web sites... We need to cooperate to prevent this.")
5) and finally, say something really stupid that goes against something tried and true thats trusted in the industry - in this case, the idea of Full Disclosure. ("We are against anyone who publishes vulnerabilities because it gives hackers a tool.")
and to think i actually used to respect their work. maybe they should just stick to coding and save the PSA's for when they have a smarter PR rep.
this might be a valid solution for those people who run their own POP servers, but for the majority of us its not an option...
since we're being creative here, let me share with you how i keep my inbox spam to a minimum..
i own a domain which i like to use for email. i have *@mydomain.com forward to my user@isp.com email address. so any combination of letters sent @mydomain.com is forwarded to my real address.
this allows me to create Pseudo-Identities (TM) for different sites - for instance, amazon@mydomain.com and slashdot@mydomain.com. if i find that ive started receiving spam destined to amazon@mydomain.com, i simply nullroute that email forward, and voila, no spam.
its also a good thing my isp has their own spamfilter, as does my domain service, as does my email client.
for the cynics: i receive less than 10 pieces of spam in a week.
Slashdot Mirror
I am and IT director at an ISP and when we build new laptops or desktops we deploy FireFox with the Blue E icon instead of the Firefox Icon. We even go so far as to make to the default page msn.c0m. They usually never notice.... :)
Why would an ISP be building laptops/desktops? Why would you discredit the Mozilla dev team by masking Firefox (which you apparently aren't able to capitalize correctly)? Why would you avoid using IE yet continue supporting MS (via ad-revenue) by using msn.com as a start page?
And how does someone with grammar as bad as yours become an IT Director?
Moron.
First Kaspersky, now Sophos... I've lost all respect for AV vendors. Using scare tactics to sell software is just sad.
Here's all it takes to keep your Windows box safe: a router (or SP2) and Firefox. Oh, and enough common sense to not run any executable file sent to you by a stranger.
There, I let the secret out.
No wonder you posted that as AC.
Joe Sixpack doesn't consider it "irresponsible" to connect his machine to the net without a firewall. Infact he probably doesn't even know what a firewall is.
If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Microsoft for having everyone run as admin and leaving several easily-exploitable ports open by default on every version of Windows up to XP SP2.
By the way just as a reminder - botnets originally entered the limelight after scriptkiddies on IRC networks started mass-scanning and exploiting remote-root vulns on LINUX machines (via exploits for commonly used & often default services such as wuftpd and bind) in order to accumulate more bandwidth to "takeover" IRC channels.
Linux was the primary OS exploited by botnet kiddies waay before Windows. According to you, the admins of those linux boxes should be held liable for getting rooted. While I agree they are at fault for not being more security-minded, I would never consider holding them criminally responsible for getting hacked.
That's just crazytalk.
Dude, are you serious? Botnet kids like to target known, larger networks and channels, so when they 'pwn' them they're recognized for it by a lot of people. Thats all its about, ego and recognition - these botnet kiddies are just a bunch of confused little morons looking to make a name for themselves.
The chances of them joining your piddly little nobody network to takeover some random channel are little to none. Join a real network, like Efnet, and you'll find 'evil botnets' aplenty.
this reminds me of those fire drill videos we had back in 4th grade... there was some announcer from the 50's who would say "Remember kids, in a fire, stop drop and roll!"
i laughed when i thought how funny it would be if someone actually started rolling on the ground when a fire broke out..
now i'm laughing again thinking about this simulation.. cia: please stop wasting taxpayer money. do some real work. thanks.
[1] whatever number of machines microsoft uses to "crawl" the "seedier side of the web" , they will NEVER be able to crawl all of it, all the time.
thus: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN SCANS FOR A NEW, PUBLIC EXPLOIT TO WREAK HAVOC - BEFORE MS EVEN SEES IT
[2] more often than not, the non-reported vulnerabilities ("0day") are NOT used to mass-attack random IP's. they are used in targeted attacks against specific machines.
thus: THIS WILL NOT HELP MS DETECT UNREPORTED VULNS
[3] running VM's does not emulate all hardware of a machine, and therefore cannot accurately represent an end-user's scenario.
thus: THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF HOW SECURE A WINDOWS BOX IS ON THE INTERNET
the very idea of microsoft going out looking to get hit, instead of just securing their fucking OS to begin with, is plain stupid. this is like leaving your car unlocked with the windows rolled down in the ghetto and then watching from your apartment to see who jacks it.
Be sure to run a few safe-mode virus scans as well with NAV/KAV/AVG/whatever you use :)
happy huntin'
...and his advancement of network security.
This will probably get modded flamebait, but I'd like to point out Theo doesn't exactly have an outstanding reputation in the security community.
"OpenBSD kernel: the first remotely exploitable kernel in history." -GOBBLES Security (defcon 2002)
I can't believe nobody's mentioned ACDSee yet.. we ARE comparing Windows image viewing/sharing/manipulation programs right??
/. who believe anything Google touches is gold.
I've tried Picasa 2 - it's slower than ACDSee 7 and seems to have a bug with its webpage export feature. I just tried creating a thumbnailed page from their existing templates four times... twice amongst two different folders (~20 jpgs ea) and it halted export about 85% thru with a dialog popping up saying "export cancelled." Dunno whats goin' on with that.. no crash/debug/error logs to help explain either..
If Google wants to step into this arena then we might as well size them up with the current king of the ring, so to speak - ACDSee has been my favourite image viewing app since v3 and it's gotten better with every new release. Yes, some might find it bloated, but that's all about setting it up to do what YOU need it to - since it can do everything from unzipping files to creating HTML pages.
Sure, it's not free and it doesn't have the GMail/Blog integration - but it's got more features than Irfan View and Picasa (maybe even combined). I'll spare you the gigantc features listing, but check out the link for more info.
Sorry if this seems like a rant, I have nothing against Google - just the hordes of Google fanboys on
Cheers.
[I'm in no way affiliated with ACD Systems]
Okay, so your unfounded theory is based on loose assumptions and flawed logic regarding an app that doesn't even exist.
Like I said, stay off the drugs.
Again, more assumptions...
I didn't bother addressing your "reason" in my earlier post because I didn't give it any merit. However since you insist, let me point out that you have zero proof of IE disallowing any such app. If your excuse for such an app not currently existing is because of Microsoft, then either back up that claim (since you seem to rely so heavily upon it), or come up with a better excuse.
I would suggest pointing me to a URL with such an app already developed that I can access from a non-IE browser (which, must NOT work correctly under IE).
Have a good one.
I do believe in the power of webapps. I don't believe a webapp-version of Office will ultimately hold the key to Microsofts demise.
If there was such a realistic threat to Microsoft's dominance, it would already be widely known (past development) and actively marketing itself at home users (since they would be the first to adopt it). The fact that there isn't such a thing already is proof that such a product simply will not work.
50% of internet users still use dialup, furthermore, ill go out on a limb and say people will still prefer local apps of Office instead of their webapp alternatives because of 1) usability 2) speed 3) accessibility 4) feature support.
Don't get me wrong, there are definitly powerful applications for webapps, however don't fool yourself into thinking this is Microsoft's Achilles Heel.
Yes, you missed the point.
Please clarify.
Yes, because if IE (being the standard) can run these cool web-apps, you'll soon have other browsers with the same capabilities. And then you'll have replacements for Office apps that runs on Linux, because all you need is a compatible browser. And THEN you can start switching to non-MS platforms without worrying.
Your logic is so flawed and based on such loose assumptions that I almost feel bad picking it apart... almost. Here's a list of your assumptions:
1) someone will create these webapps in the near future
2) they will do EVERYTHING Office apps do, and comply with all "Office standards" (so as to serve as a realistic alternative to MS Office)
3) they will be cross platform
4) they will be free
5) they will be 100% compatible with all browsers
And then, once those 5 assumptions become a reality, all of a sudden Microsoft will lose its monoply and Linux will takeover the world because people can now use Java-Pseudo-Office on Linux.
Right? Ok. Stay off the drugs.
Thanks.
Windows is nothing without Office for the average user.
You're missing the word business after "average" in that sentance. Most home users don't use Windows for Office, they use it because thats what their computer came with.
If they made IE as good as it can be, they'll be opening the floodgates for web-apps that can replace Office.
Sorry, did I miss something? What the hell are you talking about? I consider myself an avid web surfer and app-junkie and I've yet to see any such web-apps that are free and open to the public. I am ofcourse assuming they would be free, since your statement inferred Microsoft feels threatened by these apps.
So that's why IE has changed almost nothing since the monopoly. MS realises that improving it is digging their own grave.
Yeah. Improving software within their OS [that would only make their OS more appealing to customers] is definitly digging their own grave.
So all we can hope for right now is for Firefox to improve their browser as much as possible to try to become the standard (60% of the market would do it I think) before Longhorn.
There is no doubt the Firefox dev team will improve their browser as much as they possibly can, however I would consider 60% a pipe dream. The sad truth about most people is that they're lazy. Not dumb, not ignorant, just lazy. To go thru the effort of downloading and setting up a new browser is asking too much. Not to mention the biggest challenge which is just letting them know there IS an alternative.
The reality of the matter is that as long as Microsoft is allowed to integrate IE into it's OS and not so much as provide a shortcut to the Firefox website, there is no hope of IE being replaced as the dominant browser.
Cheers.
Flash + LSD + "Welcome to the Machine" by Pink Floyd = EPIC
Allow me to clarify something:
:)
Bit Torrent is a PROTOCOL, not a program or website. The RIAA/MPAA are NOT locking their crosshairs on Bit Torrent itself, but rather the sources that supply copyright infringing 'seeds' which work over the Bit Torrent protocol. This includes (but is not limited to) websites like SuprNova, IRC channels and newsgroups.
Saying "Bit Torrent gives Hollywood a Headache" is like saying "FTP gives Hollywood a Headache."
Doesn't make much sense now does it?
1) spread fear, its good for business. ... We need to cooperate to prevent this.")
2) create some fucked up 'axis of evil' shit to help further #1. ("Virus writers are combining their efforts with hackers and spammers to launch Swiss Army knife-like malware attacks on users")
3) throw in some fuzzy math for effect. ("The company said that it was seeing 200 new viruses a day.")
4) take a random stab at preventing free speech. ( "They work in groups that exchange information with other groups on forums and Web sites
5) and finally, say something really stupid that goes against something tried and true thats trusted in the industry - in this case, the idea of Full Disclosure. ("We are against anyone who publishes vulnerabilities because it gives hackers a tool.")
and to think i actually used to respect their work. maybe they should just stick to coding and save the PSA's for when they have a smarter PR rep.
just my 2 cents.
this might be a valid solution for those people who run their own POP servers, but for the majority of us its not an option...
:)
since we're being creative here, let me share with you how i keep my inbox spam to a minimum..
i own a domain which i like to use for email. i have *@mydomain.com forward to my user@isp.com email address. so any combination of letters sent @mydomain.com is forwarded to my real address.
this allows me to create Pseudo-Identities (TM) for different sites - for instance, amazon@mydomain.com and slashdot@mydomain.com. if i find that ive started receiving spam destined to amazon@mydomain.com, i simply nullroute that email forward, and voila, no spam.
its also a good thing my isp has their own spamfilter, as does my domain service, as does my email client.
for the cynics: i receive less than 10 pieces of spam in a week.
easier done than said..
since the submitter didn't provide a link, here it is: http://www.dvdfile.com/software/eggs/trilogy.html