The Security Center checks for the presence of antivirus software using queries for specific WMI providers that are made available by participating vendors. If the information is available, the Security Center service also determines whether the software is up-to-date and whether real-time scanning is turned on."
Good! I personally love Microsoft Security Essentials. It does exactly what you want in a Virus Protection Program: 1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected" 2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources. In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there. Plus it's FREE. FREE!
Artificial? It's not an artificial market unless they're funding the people that write malware.
Well there is that whole issue of Kaspersky having ties to the Russian mob and him being an ex-KGB. It's also curious that their a/v signatures occasionally get updated for virus's that haven't hit the streets yet. Trust me, there is a reason that this particular software is specifically banned for use within the DOD.
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
Well part of the problem is users are stupid enough to download crap that has trojans in it. No amount of OS hardening can prevent a user from deliberately installing malware.
Since System Essentials isn't free for corporate use, I doubt you'll see it in WSUS. Microsoft would prefer to sell you the forefront client. Personally I like MSE as it has a rather small footprint, its unobtrusive, and works pretty well. I practice good hygiene and rarely if even get detections anyway (usually from the temp dir when hitting a website or in spam email).
These apps have the ability to remember the users credentials. The program can either store it in plain text or in a reversibly encrypted manner. There is only marginal benefit to encryption as someone can quickly figure out how to reverse it. The solution is to not store the username or password, but then people would simply ask for that feature. Any bet the apps transmit the username/password in cleartext as well?
There's a rather large exception to the 4th Amendment for searches at the border. (The limit at the border is essentially 'no cavity searches without probable cause') Thus, the argument you're making would not apply to international flights.
Unfortunately, the TSA is using the backscatter machines on domestic fliers, where the 4th amendment protections are naturally much stronger.
Do note that the term "Border" got redefined to be anywhere within 100-miles of the physical border inland entry points. International airports count as entry points. 2/3rds of the US population is technically within this area.
A political campaign is all about telling the voters what they want to hear, in the hopes enough people believe them and will vote for them. Google searches are a great way to do the market research to determine this.
The catch is that while a political candidate's running platform is based on what he thinks voters want, it is generally a poor indicator of what he'll actually do in office. Often the platform is centered around things the candidate won't even have control over once in office. For example, we have a state legislature candidate making a big deal about abortion. Too often, the issues are not even relevant.
A mechanism to shut down (ie. disconnect from the rest of the world) part of the (American portion of the) internet (since, for the most part at least, there are too many possible routes in and out of most countries for any one country to be able to totally disconnect a country other than itself) is a potential weak point and a target for an attack.
Such a system would increase any security risks defeating the whole purpose... no sane country would mandate such a thing.
I think some countries like China and Iran have the right idea. The free flow of internet in and out of the country is a risk. Consolidating and putting protections on those links addresses that risk. A good example is the Stuxnet virus, which was effectively stopped by filtering the command-control IP at the edge of the country.
What makes you think the govt doesn't already have the capability of shutting down major off-shore links already? Maybe not immediately, but they can certainly get it done within hours.
The US Govt wants the ability to filter (not just completely kill) communications in and out of the US. We know NSA already monitors a good portion of it. The vast majority of cyber intrusions into the DOD are originating the China. Usually there are intermediary hops within the US (which limits the effectiveness of iptable blocks against non-US IPs). The silent cyber is a game of intrusions and stealing technology. If it ever escalates from simple intrusions to active malicious attacks against the DOD or critical infrastructure like power plants, the ability to selectively filter external and internal links could mitigate these attacks with minimal collateral damage to the regular traffic flows.
I know about the new editions every year, with such minor changes that it's clearly a scam. One would think that with the internet you could arrange a direct sale of your textbook to a student on the same campus. Who needs bookstores?
The schools fixed that loophole by waiting until 1 week before the class started to announce what texts would be required.
I can't speak to the coverage in Sweden, but I can say my several US states (the ones where people complain about coverage) have lower population densities. These states don't have major metropolis cities, and don't have coverage issues.
I seem to remember several years back that engineers got on the marketers for selling DSL as "broadband" when truly cable is broadband and DSL is narrowband. This never stopped the marketers and now most people just assume broadband means anything faster than dial-up.
Because Broadband became synonymous with "better than dialup" speeds. Technically DSL is broadband as it uses a wide range of frequencies on the wire. So does a dialup modem. Ethernet and single-wavelength fiber transmission would be narrowband.
The US cellphone network sucks in case you did not notice. One reason is that they have historically preferred longer range over high peak bandwidth. The less communication towers you have the cheaper your network is. They also have rather weak coverage.
Exactly. The US is more spreadout and longer range is the only way to cheaply get good coverage. Other countries with higher average population densities don't have this issue.
There is no government mandate for carriers to provide decent coverage. They usually are the first to hop on a new standard, which may get quickly obsoleted, become a niche which only exists in the US (Hello CDMA!). But hey, they have "4G".
You're correct the US govt doesn't mandate wireless connectivity like they do analog phone service. The broadband initiative may provide some driving force for wireless internet access though.
And? I don't see why so many people complain about that. DSL/Cable users pay higher fees for faster data than dialup. Fiber users pay higher fees for faster data than DSL/Cable. Why shouldn't 4G users pay higher fees for faster data than 3G?
Because the 4G service they provide isn't actually any faster?
Clearwire's WiMax and Verizon's LTE networks operate between 3-12Mbps.
Boys better stop advertising 4G...
4G 100 Mbps.
Read the standard, or even read the article which mentions this. 100 Mbps is a target speed. That's like claiming its not ADSL because your wiring distance holds you to 1meg negotiated rates.
Except the 4G standard doesn't necessarily define what speed you'll get. It defines a latency and target speeds. Even worse, there is absolutely no guarantee of interoperability between 4G products. The reality is that the consumers probably won't a difference between 3G and 4G. At least not in the current implementations of WiMax or LTE. What they will notice is better bandwidth, which being 4G compliant doesn't guarantee anymore than using Ca6 cable guarantees better bandwidth over a Cat5 cable*.
*An interesting reference, btw. Cable manufacturers were selling Cat6 cable before the standard was ratified,
Actually it was the other way around. MS stupidly named their implementation of Netbios over NBF NetBeui, which at the time meant something else. The confusion has stuck even though the MS NetBeui was replaced by their implementation of NetBios over tcpip (NBT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS
Yes, their ipv4 and ipv6 dual stack does cause some issues. I believe they did this under the notion that IPv4 would be phased out quicker than it has been. Rather than overhaul and potentially break the existing IPv4 structure, they felt it was better to start clean on IPv6 and implement short term work arounds for the expected short transition.
Oddly enough the stacks are not entirely seperate in Windows 7. For example, I've noted that disabling the IPv6 stack in Windows 7 via GPO can break some IPv4 functionality.
Underneath the hood, MS has done some interesting things with the DNS and DHCP. Some of which are to get around limitations of the protocols (ie where its the dhcp server that can register the dns name).
Nope, not on the IPv6 board just a Enterprise Admin for several large network. I do have MCTIP-EA and CISSP certs but that's only because my job title requires it. To me the MS certs are a marketing scheme and they're worthless without the experience to back it up.
Which powers would that be? The various registries can appeal to the community, but when it comes down to it, every ISP picks which routes they accept.
If you want to force the hands of the ISPs, you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.
Why it'll be the US govt! Once they complete their takeover of the Internet. They invented it so they feel they already own it. Attempting to exert this high level of control would be justified as the only way to avert a national security crisis, and my-deity won't someone think of the children! I'm sure they might even find some hidden clause in the Patriot act.
Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.
My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.
Speaking of stupid fuckers. Microsoft DDNS works just fine with IPv6 assuming you're using dhcpv6. Netbeui is defunct and has nothing to do with a GC server.
It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".
At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"
Potentially a lot more than some professors grading data where he stupidly tracks students by their full soc number.
How would a professor get the students' SSNs in the first place? The university should have no need for SSNs assigned to anyone except employees.
Obviously you are younger. It was very common practice for schools, universities, public libraries, health professionals, and even some small businesses to request and use your soc number as your ID. A good deal of this cleanup is to find that old data that probably isn't even being actively used anymore.
Also keep in mind that in some cases the University does need your soc number for doing tax forms and dealing with some govt grants. Obviously the profs don't need it and it shouldn't be your uni library account number, but the bean counters would need it.
Slashdot Mirror
And just how does it decide what a valid AV package is?
The software company just needs to register their product with Microsoft. From http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457154.aspx.
"Virus protection
The Security Center checks for the presence of antivirus software using queries for specific WMI providers that are made available by participating vendors. If the information is available, the Security Center service also determines whether the software is up-to-date and whether real-time scanning is turned on."
Good! I personally love Microsoft Security Essentials. It does exactly what you want in a Virus Protection Program: 1) Keep an icon in the system tray indicating that "You Are Protected" 2) Stay out of your way and use very few system resources.
In all seriousness, I am a corporate IT technician and I prefer MSE over any other memory-hogging, system-crippling, scaring-you-with-false-warnings virus program out there.
Plus it's FREE. FREE!
It's only totally free for home users and very small businesses. Check the EULA http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/eula.aspx.
Artificial? It's not an artificial market unless they're funding the people that write malware.
Well there is that whole issue of Kaspersky having ties to the Russian mob and him being an ex-KGB. It's also curious that their a/v signatures occasionally get updated for virus's that haven't hit the streets yet. Trust me, there is a reason that this particular software is specifically banned for use within the DOD.
While I agree that MSE is better than nothing (and possibly better than competing anti-virus software), I would much rather MS fix the problems that necessitate anti-virus in the first place. It's like having a screen door for a submarine, then offering optional window panes.
Well part of the problem is users are stupid enough to download crap that has trojans in it. No amount of OS hardening can prevent a user from deliberately installing malware.
Since System Essentials isn't free for corporate use, I doubt you'll see it in WSUS. Microsoft would prefer to sell you the forefront client. Personally I like MSE as it has a rather small footprint, its unobtrusive, and works pretty well. I practice good hygiene and rarely if even get detections anyway (usually from the temp dir when hitting a website or in spam email).
These apps have the ability to remember the users credentials. The program can either store it in plain text or in a reversibly encrypted manner. There is only marginal benefit to encryption as someone can quickly figure out how to reverse it. The solution is to not store the username or password, but then people would simply ask for that feature. Any bet the apps transmit the username/password in cleartext as well?
There's a rather large exception to the 4th Amendment for searches at the border.
(The limit at the border is essentially 'no cavity searches without probable cause')
Thus, the argument you're making would not apply to international flights.
Unfortunately, the TSA is using the backscatter machines on domestic fliers,
where the 4th amendment protections are naturally much stronger.
Do note that the term "Border" got redefined to be anywhere within 100-miles of the physical border inland entry points. International airports count as entry points. 2/3rds of the US population is technically within this area.
A political campaign is all about telling the voters what they want to hear, in the hopes enough people believe them and will vote for them. Google searches are a great way to do the market research to determine this.
The catch is that while a political candidate's running platform is based on what he thinks voters want, it is generally a poor indicator of what he'll actually do in office. Often the platform is centered around things the candidate won't even have control over once in office. For example, we have a state legislature candidate making a big deal about abortion. Too often, the issues are not even relevant.
But does it run (Red Flag) Linux?
Taking it one step further...
A mechanism to shut down (ie. disconnect from the rest of the world) part of the (American portion of the) internet (since, for the most part at least, there are too many possible routes in and out of most countries for any one country to be able to totally disconnect a country other than itself) is a potential weak point and a target for an attack.
Such a system would increase any security risks defeating the whole purpose... no sane country would mandate such a thing.
I think some countries like China and Iran have the right idea. The free flow of internet in and out of the country is a risk. Consolidating and putting protections on those links addresses that risk. A good example is the Stuxnet virus, which was effectively stopped by filtering the command-control IP at the edge of the country.
What makes you think the govt doesn't already have the capability of shutting down major off-shore links already? Maybe not immediately, but they can certainly get it done within hours.
The US Govt wants the ability to filter (not just completely kill) communications in and out of the US. We know NSA already monitors a good portion of it. The vast majority of cyber intrusions into the DOD are originating the China. Usually there are intermediary hops within the US (which limits the effectiveness of iptable blocks against non-US IPs). The silent cyber is a game of intrusions and stealing technology. If it ever escalates from simple intrusions to active malicious attacks against the DOD or critical infrastructure like power plants, the ability to selectively filter external and internal links could mitigate these attacks with minimal collateral damage to the regular traffic flows.
I know about the new editions every year, with such minor changes that it's clearly a scam. One would think that with the internet you could arrange a direct sale of your textbook to a student on the same campus. Who needs bookstores?
The schools fixed that loophole by waiting until 1 week before the class started to announce what texts would be required.
Apple did. I wonder how many macs the iPod sold?
Or how many Windows users bought an iPod, hated that piece of crap called iTunes, and swore off buying a Mac?
I can't speak to the coverage in Sweden, but I can say my several US states (the ones where people complain about coverage) have lower population densities. These states don't have major metropolis cities, and don't have coverage issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
I seem to remember several years back that engineers got on the marketers for selling DSL as "broadband" when truly cable is broadband and DSL is narrowband. This never stopped the marketers and now most people just assume broadband means anything faster than dial-up.
Because Broadband became synonymous with "better than dialup" speeds. Technically DSL is broadband as it uses a wide range of frequencies on the wire. So does a dialup modem. Ethernet and single-wavelength fiber transmission would be narrowband.
The US cellphone network sucks in case you did not notice. One reason is that they have historically preferred longer range over high peak bandwidth. The less communication towers you have the cheaper your network is. They also have rather weak coverage.
Exactly. The US is more spreadout and longer range is the only way to cheaply get good coverage. Other countries with higher average population densities don't have this issue.
There is no government mandate for carriers to provide decent coverage. They usually are the first to hop on a new standard, which may get quickly obsoleted, become a niche which only exists in the US (Hello CDMA!). But hey, they have "4G".
You're correct the US govt doesn't mandate wireless connectivity like they do analog phone service. The broadband initiative may provide some driving force for wireless internet access though.
And? I don't see why so many people complain about that. DSL/Cable users pay higher fees for faster data than dialup. Fiber users pay higher fees for faster data than DSL/Cable. Why shouldn't 4G users pay higher fees for faster data than 3G?
Because the 4G service they provide isn't actually any faster?
Clearwire's WiMax and Verizon's LTE networks operate between 3-12Mbps.
Boys better stop advertising 4G...
4G 100 Mbps.
Read the standard, or even read the article which mentions this. 100 Mbps is a target speed. That's like claiming its not ADSL because your wiring distance holds you to 1meg negotiated rates.
Except the 4G standard doesn't necessarily define what speed you'll get. It defines a latency and target speeds. Even worse, there is absolutely no guarantee of interoperability between 4G products. The reality is that the consumers probably won't a difference between 3G and 4G. At least not in the current implementations of WiMax or LTE. What they will notice is better bandwidth, which being 4G compliant doesn't guarantee anymore than using Ca6 cable guarantees better bandwidth over a Cat5 cable*.
*An interesting reference, btw. Cable manufacturers were selling Cat6 cable before the standard was ratified,
Netbui has been quietly labeled netbios over tcp.
Actually it was the other way around. MS stupidly named their implementation of Netbios over NBF NetBeui, which at the time meant something else. The confusion has stuck even though the MS NetBeui was replaced by their implementation of NetBios over tcpip (NBT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS
Yes, their ipv4 and ipv6 dual stack does cause some issues. I believe they did this under the notion that IPv4 would be phased out quicker than it has been. Rather than overhaul and potentially break the existing IPv4 structure, they felt it was better to start clean on IPv6 and implement short term work arounds for the expected short transition.
Oddly enough the stacks are not entirely seperate in Windows 7. For example, I've noted that disabling the IPv6 stack in Windows 7 via GPO can break some IPv4 functionality.
Underneath the hood, MS has done some interesting things with the DNS and DHCP. Some of which are to get around limitations of the protocols (ie where its the dhcp server that can register the dns name).
Nope, not on the IPv6 board just a Enterprise Admin for several large network. I do have MCTIP-EA and CISSP certs but that's only because my job title requires it. To me the MS certs are a marketing scheme and they're worthless without the experience to back it up.
Which powers would that be? The various registries can appeal to the community, but when it comes down to it, every ISP picks which routes they accept.
If you want to force the hands of the ISPs, you need legislation. World-wide, if you want it to be effective.
Why it'll be the US govt! Once they complete their takeover of the Internet. They invented it so they feel they already own it. Attempting to exert this high level of control would be justified as the only way to avert a national security crisis, and my-deity won't someone think of the children! I'm sure they might even find some hidden clause in the Patriot act.
Stupid fuckers could have made the protocols interactive, but no, they had to try to be clever and redesign the whole thing, so we will need to run dual stack for 5-10 years. No bugs gonna be there. They were just pissy because no one liked OSI CLNS . Which would be just as easy to switch over to, by the way. How many addressable addresses does IPX/SPX have? Lets Dual stack that instead, just to fuck them.
My only bitter pleasure will be watching microsoft networking melt down. Dynamic DNS? No way bitch, ip6 addresses handed out by the router. Of course they will just continue to cheat and use NetBui with a local global catolauge server, like they do now.
Speaking of stupid fuckers. Microsoft DDNS works just fine with IPv6 assuming you're using dhcpv6. Netbeui is defunct and has nothing to do with a GC server.
DSL bridging modem that supports IPv6
If you're just bridging, then it doesn't need to support IPV6.
It's actually refreshingly nice to see that for once, a company has turned around and said: "I know this is ours, but we aren't using it. Someone else might need it more. Here you go chaps!".
At some point the powers-that-be will simply say "you're not using it, give it back"
Potentially a lot more than some professors grading data where he stupidly tracks students by their full soc number.
How would a professor get the students' SSNs in the first place? The university should have no need for SSNs assigned to anyone except employees.
Obviously you are younger. It was very common practice for schools, universities, public libraries, health professionals, and even some small businesses to request and use your soc number as your ID. A good deal of this cleanup is to find that old data that probably isn't even being actively used anymore.
Also keep in mind that in some cases the University does need your soc number for doing tax forms and dealing with some govt grants. Obviously the profs don't need it and it shouldn't be your uni library account number, but the bean counters would need it.