"So once that function was ported over from the 95 family to the NT4 family, it probably remained untouched, with this vulnerability"
probably not, since the function *changed* for the worse when being moved over to NT. RTFA before you play ms-apologist.
i had a nice big entry explaining further on these points. then i noticed your constant use of the word "we" and checked your journal and other entries to see if you were also a developer and contributer to any OSS projects, linux or otherwise.
i found nothing to indicate that you were, and well...everything to indicate that you were more concerned with being part of the politics, snobbery and elitism that go with being little more than a loud voice when it comes to technology. your journal headlines:
Top Ten Ways to "Play Dirty" against Microsoft
(honestly, who cares about microsoft?)
To all the weekend-only-Slashdotters...
(uh oh...not loyal to the cause!)
Computers are too easy to use.
(now i see why your mindset would defend the antiquated linux directory structure.)
Why I Don't care If You Use Linux
(because if everyone else used it, where would your false feelings of elitism be?)
Time to play Slashdot Flamewar
(*rolling of eyes*)
There's no point in me even having a conversation with you. I actually work on these things, make positive contributions, and am in it for the neat technology, and want to see technology help people and make the world a better place for everyone. You want to use an operating system and a software license (that you have little do with) to make yourself feel better than everyone else. That is when you aren't fantasizing about keyboards biting people's heads off(???)
Keep "learning" all of those languages (try to a go a bit deeper than the surface perhaps) and maybe someday you'll be able to contribute something more than sociopathic venom.
yeah. well sorry if i came off a bit angry. not trying to be smart at you...just kind of sore because i'm working on a project for windows that makes use of the activescripting stuff in.NET and had to wrap things through several layers of cruft to get it working.
it's so true though. ms developemnt almost always involves a lot more than just an executable!
not that linux c/c++ dev. is pain-free either. you're still dealing with.so's and a much worse dependency nightmare than windows. thankfully you can compile most libraries statically. i only wish that people would start doing this. i would trade a bit of hard-drive space for some sanity.
it's on my complaint list right next to the linux directory deployment structure.
Since ActiveScripting is implemented as a COM DLL, has nothing to do with.NET, probably not.
You'd have to have full (Microsoft) COM support on linux, both the ActiveScripting DLL and the VBScript dll, all of their related dependencies (OLE32 etc.) and then you'd need the mono stack.
And then...even to get ActiveScripting working on.NET for windows, you can either use the rather limited "ScriptControl" object, or you need to write a wrapper to expose all of this as a standard ActiveX COM object and then write a marshaling layer in order to access it through.NET.
You'd have an easier time writing an application in C that used ActiveScripting (assuming of course that you had this imaginary win32 COM implementation for linux.)
That is a very interesting point. What a useful thing that would be. Especially if you could annotate *everything* on a system. Files, network shares, users, groups, applications, event log entries (windows.) And of course, as you stated the entire object hierchy of a database if you like.
Not that you should comment every instance of those things, but sometimes...
I could see this being extremely useful.
I always am interested in seeing different styles as far as commenting. I've read some interesting things here. I figured I'd share an example of my own style:
I think that most people will probably find this all way too verbose. It suits my needs well though. I've been using it for years. Once you get used to it, it isn't too bad to write, and it's very nice on the reading side.
I put comments at the top of the file explaining what is included and why you would include or run the file (depending on if it's an app or a library.) This is so that I know right when I open the file what I'm about to read. I include a list of authors here so that you know who to go to with questions. I do *not* include the date or any other information that is either useless or can be found by looking at the properties of the file itself.
I put comments at top of classes explaining what they are for in context of the entire application/library. This is so that when I locate the class I know exactly what it's for and how it fits into the grand scheme of things.
I put comments at the top of methods explaining what they are for in context of their class. This is so that I know exactly what a specific method is for.
Occasional decorated grouping comments to provide easy visual navigation of the file.
Most of these comments don't fall out of date too quickly by nature of *what* is commented (purpose)
Beyond that: A good editor will give you the navigational tools you need to find your way around a good bit of code and visualize the class structure a bit.
A good source control system will give you all you need in terms of modification notes, dates and authors. The only reason that I keep the author list in the source file is for convenience, and because it's one of those things that if it gets out of date it's not really a huge deal.
So just because one guy in the entire world of 7 Billion could crack it makes it insecure?
Yes. If it were secure, no one could crack it. Because it can be cracked it is not secure. This isn't a very difficult thing to understand.
There's no grey area in security.
In a legal sense no, but literally, yes. They are misrepresenting their product. You act as though in doubt that Microsoft would ever misrepresent their products as being more than they are...?
This isn't hard to figure out. Seriously. Go read what this is. It is an indexing/search system for your files and other information on the computer (contacts, etc.)
It is not a file system. It does not describe the allocation or low-level storage mechanisms for how the files are stored on the operating system.
For that matter, it *depends* on a file system (NTFS) to handle that level.
It is called WinFS because the original plan was for it to be a true file system. I was looking forward to it some time ago. Now, they are at the end of all of this with basically a complete half-ass hack that sits on top of NTFS and still stuck with a name that they gave the press ~4 years ago (WinFS.)
It's a tacked on indexing/search system. IE enhances your file browsing experience. IE is part of the kernel. Is IE part of the file system? No.
Sorry, the word has a definite meaning, and it's important not to let that meaning get bastardized by a company trying to make their product sound more significant than it is.
WinFS is not a file system.
Yes the FS stands for "file system." It was originally intended to be. But it is not.
If you would like details on why it is not a file system, here are too choices to save me the chore of explaining the basic definition of a file system:
1) Look up the definition.
2) Look at the other 50 comments on this site explaining why WinFS is not a file system.
Here's a clue for you:
"File Systems" do not have another "File System" as one of their dependencies.
NTFS is a file system. WinFS is no more a file system than Google Desktop.
It's not a filesystem.
That's like saying "what does Photoshop offer that emacs doesn't"
(funnier if some ass probably didn't write an image editing mode for emacs..)
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
I did this same thing in python some time back...
Assuming that each machine has it's MSI files in a know place or that you keep a fileserver with your MSI files (which even w/ Monad this is necessary):
You can do this in *less* lines with python. And no, they aren't complicated lines. Here's a breakdown.
3 lines for importing win libraries 2 lines to get the local and remote service lists with names, versions, etc.(list comprehensions sure are great)
5 lines to loop through each remote service with a newer version in the local list (body lines) - 1 line: shut down remote service with wmi cmd. - 1 line: wait - 1 line: copy new MSI to remote machine - 1 line: remote execute MSI with silent switch
5 lines to loop through each local service with a newer version in the remote list (body lines) - 1 line: shut it down - 1 line: wait - 1 line: copy new MSI from remote machine - 1 line: remote execute MSI with silent switch
15 lines.
1/2 of your approximate 30.
At any rate, the problem with your argument is that you tried to win by arguing monad's superior (you though) libraries for accessing windows specific functions.
At the bottom, the functions needed are all available through the windows api and WMI through COM...and python provides a very simple layer to access both.
with that aside, it's just list processing. And python kicks the shit out of.NET in list processing pretty much any day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, what you said was:
"it probably remained untouched"
go read your post. kind of hard to backpedal when it's right there.
"So once that function was ported over from the 95 family to the NT4 family, it probably remained untouched, with this vulnerability" probably not, since the function *changed* for the worse when being moved over to NT. RTFA before you play ms-apologist.
just enough to use my mind on better things than joining the crusades as you have :)
i had a nice big entry explaining further on these points. then i noticed your constant use of the word "we" and checked your journal and other entries to see if you were also a developer and contributer to any OSS projects, linux or otherwise. i found nothing to indicate that you were, and well...everything to indicate that you were more concerned with being part of the politics, snobbery and elitism that go with being little more than a loud voice when it comes to technology. your journal headlines: Top Ten Ways to "Play Dirty" against Microsoft (honestly, who cares about microsoft?) To all the weekend-only-Slashdotters... (uh oh...not loyal to the cause!) Computers are too easy to use. (now i see why your mindset would defend the antiquated linux directory structure.) Why I Don't care If You Use Linux (because if everyone else used it, where would your false feelings of elitism be?) Time to play Slashdot Flamewar (*rolling of eyes*) There's no point in me even having a conversation with you. I actually work on these things, make positive contributions, and am in it for the neat technology, and want to see technology help people and make the world a better place for everyone. You want to use an operating system and a software license (that you have little do with) to make yourself feel better than everyone else. That is when you aren't fantasizing about keyboards biting people's heads off(???) Keep "learning" all of those languages (try to a go a bit deeper than the surface perhaps) and maybe someday you'll be able to contribute something more than sociopathic venom.
yeah. well sorry if i came off a bit angry. not trying to be smart at you...just kind of sore because i'm working on a project for windows that makes use of the activescripting stuff in .NET and had to wrap things through several layers of cruft to get it working.
it's so true though. ms developemnt almost always involves a lot more than just an executable!
not that linux c/c++ dev. is pain-free either. you're still dealing with .so's and a much worse dependency nightmare than windows. thankfully you can compile most libraries statically. i only wish that people would start doing this. i would trade a bit of hard-drive space for some sanity.
it's on my complaint list right next to the linux directory deployment structure.
Since ActiveScripting is implemented as a COM DLL, has nothing to do with .NET, probably not.
You'd have to have full (Microsoft) COM support on linux, both the ActiveScripting DLL and the VBScript dll, all of their related dependencies (OLE32 etc.) and then you'd need the mono stack.
And then...even to get ActiveScripting working on .NET for windows, you can either use the rather limited "ScriptControl" object, or you need to write a wrapper to expose all of this as a standard ActiveX COM object and then write a marshaling layer in order to access it through .NET.
You'd have an easier time writing an application in C that used ActiveScripting (assuming of course that you had this imaginary win32 COM implementation for linux.)
how is these players getting these hands any more absurd than them getting any other specific hand?
for fucks sake man, stop using words that you don't understand. seriously. you're only digging yourself deeper.
That is a very interesting point. What a useful thing that would be. Especially if you could annotate *everything* on a system. Files, network shares, users, groups, applications, event log entries (windows.) And of course, as you stated the entire object hierchy of a database if you like. Not that you should comment every instance of those things, but sometimes... I could see this being extremely useful.
I always am interested in seeing different styles as far as commenting. I've read some interesting things here. I figured I'd share an example of my own style:
http://hobbit.ninebit.org/commentexample.html
I think that most people will probably find this all way too verbose. It suits my needs well though. I've been using it for years. Once you get used to it, it isn't too bad to write, and it's very nice on the reading side.
I put comments at the top of the file explaining what is included and why you would include or run the file (depending on if it's an app or a library.) This is so that I know right when I open the file what I'm about to read. I include a list of authors here so that you know who to go to with questions. I do *not* include the date or any other information that is either useless or can be found by looking at the properties of the file itself.
I put comments at top of classes explaining what they are for in context of the entire application/library. This is so that when I locate the class I know exactly what it's for and how it fits into the grand scheme of things.
I put comments at the top of methods explaining what they are for in context of their class. This is so that I know exactly what a specific method is for.
Occasional decorated grouping comments to provide easy visual navigation of the file.
Most of these comments don't fall out of date too quickly by nature of *what* is commented (purpose)
Beyond that:
A good editor will give you the navigational tools you need to find your way around a good bit of code and visualize the class structure a bit.
A good source control system will give you all you need in terms of modification notes, dates and authors. The only reason that I keep the author list in the source file is for convenience, and because it's one of those things that if it gets out of date it's not really a huge deal.
So just because one guy in the entire world of 7 Billion could crack it makes it insecure? Yes. If it were secure, no one could crack it. Because it can be cracked it is not secure. This isn't a very difficult thing to understand. There's no grey area in security.
In a legal sense no, but literally, yes. They are misrepresenting their product. You act as though in doubt that Microsoft would ever misrepresent their products as being more than they are...? This isn't hard to figure out. Seriously. Go read what this is. It is an indexing/search system for your files and other information on the computer (contacts, etc.) It is not a file system. It does not describe the allocation or low-level storage mechanisms for how the files are stored on the operating system. For that matter, it *depends* on a file system (NTFS) to handle that level. It is called WinFS because the original plan was for it to be a true file system. I was looking forward to it some time ago. Now, they are at the end of all of this with basically a complete half-ass hack that sits on top of NTFS and still stuck with a name that they gave the press ~4 years ago (WinFS.)
It's a tacked on indexing/search system. IE enhances your file browsing experience. IE is part of the kernel. Is IE part of the file system? No. Sorry, the word has a definite meaning, and it's important not to let that meaning get bastardized by a company trying to make their product sound more significant than it is.
WinFS is not a file system. Yes the FS stands for "file system." It was originally intended to be. But it is not. If you would like details on why it is not a file system, here are too choices to save me the chore of explaining the basic definition of a file system: 1) Look up the definition. 2) Look at the other 50 comments on this site explaining why WinFS is not a file system. Here's a clue for you: "File Systems" do not have another "File System" as one of their dependencies. NTFS is a file system. WinFS is no more a file system than Google Desktop.
It's not a filesystem. That's like saying "what does Photoshop offer that emacs doesn't" (funnier if some ass probably didn't write an image editing mode for emacs..)
it's not a filesystem. read before commenting.
I did this same thing in python some time back...
.NET in list processing pretty much any day of the week.
Assuming that each machine has it's MSI files in a know place or that you keep a fileserver with your MSI files (which even w/ Monad this is necessary):
You can do this in *less* lines with python. And no, they aren't complicated lines. Here's a breakdown.
3 lines for importing win libraries
2 lines to get the local and remote service lists with names, versions, etc.(list comprehensions sure are great)
5 lines to loop through each remote service with a newer version in the local list
(body lines)
- 1 line: shut down remote service with wmi cmd.
- 1 line: wait
- 1 line: copy new MSI to remote machine
- 1 line: remote execute MSI with silent switch
5 lines to loop through each local service with a newer version in the remote list
(body lines)
- 1 line: shut it down
- 1 line: wait
- 1 line: copy new MSI from remote machine
- 1 line: remote execute MSI with silent switch
15 lines.
1/2 of your approximate 30.
At any rate, the problem with your argument is that you tried to win by arguing monad's superior (you though) libraries for accessing windows specific functions.
At the bottom, the functions needed are all available through the windows api and WMI through COM...and python provides a very simple layer to access both.
with that aside, it's just list processing. And python kicks the shit out of