That is, unless its a meteor of mass size that will impact: an Axis of Evil Country, Russia, Cuba or anything in Africa of strategic value.... We might omit that information.
no, no one needs either- well except for perhaps the government or the business sector who use specialized software designed specifically for the Windows OS's which would cost countless amounts of dollars to move to another OS, not to mention the man hours... and the huge discounts they get to use Microsoft products. And there is still free choice- at any given time I can put linux on my machine, or hell BeOS. No one has said I cannot. What has been said is that a company cannot afford to provide support for antiquated operating systems (windows 95, 98 2000 and now XP even though its one of their better distributions). The industry evolves.
To blame Microsoft and it's "monopoly" strikes me as a misdirection of frustration with their typically substandard product design. But is it so wrong that they strive to make as much as they can? if I were in the same position I would surely do all i could to make sure my product was in everyone's hands. That is business in a free market society. If it were a communist or socialist one this discussion would not happen- we would have Soviet OS or no OS. No one has a gun held to their head and is told to buy/sell/use Microsoft. In fact, as far as the OS industry goes, they only own one OS brand (as far as i know) and that is Windows. It just happens that they have outsmarted any other marketing department around.
You know, we give a lot of flack to Microsoft for their crap OS's and products. And yes, there are a lot of security holes and threats that crop up- but this is because it is the most popular OS on the market. Were any other OS to suddenly take that share I can assure you we would see an increase of viruses and exploits in those systems. Its not like Microsoft is creating these viruses, nor are they responsible for their replication (as much as I would like for them to be). This comes down to computer users with either malicious intent or ignorance to the dangers of computing.
After all the outsourcing we have done there, I'm fairly sure they have all the US citizens info in one database too. Now that they have perfected it, time to pull in their own citizens info.
So I just tried for the last 5 Minutes to make a joke out of this, as I do with every other post... but I failed. There is nothing funny here. *shakes fist*
Move along... this is not the comedy you are looking for.
Yeah, the moon is still REALLY pissed about us landing on it 40 years ago and not asking for its permission- that whole planting the flag in the surface... that hurt!
"The labeling of the fake ad sellers as hackers is pretty bogus; there's no hacking involved. Simply sign up for one of these networks, create your fake site, put up another company's creative, and you're good to go."
well yes and no. What we are dealing with here is a combination of both hacker (as i will describe shortly) and con artist (which i will also describe shortly). Its not quite as easy as you think...
This problem extends well beyond ad networks- but first lets take a look at the ad serving software. The primary databases used for serving ads are DART (now owned by google), Atlas (now owned by microsoft), Zedo and OAS. Ads are uploaded into these databases in a variety of formats. Typically limited to Jpegs, gifs,.swfs as well as what is refered to as "rich media" which is often a few lines of code pasted into a file (usualy the code sources to a javascript) that serves up a redirected ad from another location. When these files are uploaded the database scans for malware that could potentially harm a computer system. More often than not these files are automatically turned off when the ad server detects an issue and emails the network administrator of the issue (presuming that the database of malicious software has been updated by the service provider a la google, microsoft, etc). Yes, on occasion something sneaks through.
Now onto how media is bought and sold. Typically when a site is approached for a request for ads, the publisher will ask the "agency" or "network" for a credit check. This is wear the mechanics break down- more often than not. Salespeople, especially green ones who (like most sales people) are both anxious to close a deal on remnant space AND are not aware of the ad serving technology and the potential for malicious intent, will cut corners and get the ads up. When these ads come in, they are loaded into the server- 99% of the time as real properly functioning ads. They click to the right locations and pass through the ad serving security services. A couple of days later, as the ad has been serving fine, the redirected urls (typically something like ads.somewebsite.com/324234/adserver/creative.js) have their.js file swapped out with the malicious software. Since this file has already passed the initial security check- it is not always scanned again for any potential exploits etc.
So- the quick solution is having ad networks and publishers take accountability for their sales people. It does not take much effort to find out if a "agency" can be trusted. I had one company recently try to pass of malicious ads but we traced their address back to a pizza parlor in LA (obviously a fake) after realizing no credit check was run. Second, and most important will be the methods of security taking by the major ad publishing softwares. Unfortunately, if you know anything about working with ad servers- critical updates move about as fast as html5 development (sllloooowww).
I am one of those beleivers that the internet should have no laws. It should simply be a network of computers. Some companies may try to do business using it- but they do so at their own risk. There should be no governance of the transfer of information, harmful or good.
I can't speak about SAP and what they do or do not support. But here is my guess...
Open source has its place and time- not every project should be OS, however, for those of us who love programing on our free time, or have ideas about making sotware that would be far more enhanced by contributions by the public, it is great. That's not to say their isnt a money making business solution for OS products as well (various linux flavors for example). From a software corp. standpoint, just giving a 'well wish' might be the proper grounds to play. Sometimes being a little vague or contradictory on your standing is the best choice in the long term (politicians do great at this).
In short, I have no doubt these guys are looking at a lot of open source, and maybe waiting to watch the industry evolve and see what other software giants do (aside from trying to squeltch it) But mum is the word.
Really I could care less what kind of content was found on the drives of the server- On the fact that they were running Botnets alone, these guys should have their balls put on display at the local batting cage.
Slashdot Mirror
That is, unless its a meteor of mass size that will impact: an Axis of Evil Country, Russia, Cuba or anything in Africa of strategic value.... We might omit that information.
I'm making that a tee shirt.
"memory of the independence day, uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu"
Oddly enough the CEO of Ford warned people against using free cars. Evidently they have something to sell.
no, no one needs either- well except for perhaps the government or the business sector who use specialized software designed specifically for the Windows OS's which would cost countless amounts of dollars to move to another OS, not to mention the man hours... and the huge discounts they get to use Microsoft products. And there is still free choice- at any given time I can put linux on my machine, or hell BeOS. No one has said I cannot. What has been said is that a company cannot afford to provide support for antiquated operating systems (windows 95, 98 2000 and now XP even though its one of their better distributions). The industry evolves. To blame Microsoft and it's "monopoly" strikes me as a misdirection of frustration with their typically substandard product design. But is it so wrong that they strive to make as much as they can? if I were in the same position I would surely do all i could to make sure my product was in everyone's hands. That is business in a free market society. If it were a communist or socialist one this discussion would not happen- we would have Soviet OS or no OS. No one has a gun held to their head and is told to buy/sell/use Microsoft. In fact, as far as the OS industry goes, they only own one OS brand (as far as i know) and that is Windows. It just happens that they have outsmarted any other marketing department around.
Ok thats enough devils advocate for me.
You know, we give a lot of flack to Microsoft for their crap OS's and products. And yes, there are a lot of security holes and threats that crop up- but this is because it is the most popular OS on the market. Were any other OS to suddenly take that share I can assure you we would see an increase of viruses and exploits in those systems. Its not like Microsoft is creating these viruses, nor are they responsible for their replication (as much as I would like for them to be). This comes down to computer users with either malicious intent or ignorance to the dangers of computing.
They really should call it the Van Dam filter. Because really, this is like the Dim Muk to computing.
Good thing they Just Beat It
After all the outsourcing we have done there, I'm fairly sure they have all the US citizens info in one database too. Now that they have perfected it, time to pull in their own citizens info.
"GIVE US OUR VOT- wait Frodo don't go in there! NOOOOOOOOOOO"
So I just tried for the last 5 Minutes to make a joke out of this, as I do with every other post... but I failed. There is nothing funny here. *shakes fist*
Move along... this is not the comedy you are looking for.
rinse and repeat.
Google should disable the internet in china.
fair enough.
edit----
Iran needs Ipods
Iran needs Iphones
"Look its a bird!"
"Its a plane!"
"Uh its my ISP bro..."
I'll hold off on the uranus joke I so desperately want to follow up with.
Yeah, the moon is still REALLY pissed about us landing on it 40 years ago and not asking for its permission- that whole planting the flag in the surface... that hurt!
"The labeling of the fake ad sellers as hackers is pretty bogus; there's no hacking involved. Simply sign up for one of these networks, create your fake site, put up another company's creative, and you're good to go."
.swfs as well as what is refered to as "rich media" which is often a few lines of code pasted into a file (usualy the code sources to a javascript) that serves up a redirected ad from another location. When these files are uploaded the database scans for malware that could potentially harm a computer system. More often than not these files are automatically turned off when the ad server detects an issue and emails the network administrator of the issue (presuming that the database of malicious software has been updated by the service provider a la google, microsoft, etc). Yes, on occasion something sneaks through.
.js file swapped out with the malicious software. Since this file has already passed the initial security check- it is not always scanned again for any potential exploits etc.
well yes and no. What we are dealing with here is a combination of both hacker (as i will describe shortly) and con artist (which i will also describe shortly). Its not quite as easy as you think...
This problem extends well beyond ad networks- but first lets take a look at the ad serving software. The primary databases used for serving ads are DART (now owned by google), Atlas (now owned by microsoft), Zedo and OAS. Ads are uploaded into these databases in a variety of formats. Typically limited to Jpegs, gifs,
Now onto how media is bought and sold. Typically when a site is approached for a request for ads, the publisher will ask the "agency" or "network" for a credit check. This is wear the mechanics break down- more often than not. Salespeople, especially green ones who (like most sales people) are both anxious to close a deal on remnant space AND are not aware of the ad serving technology and the potential for malicious intent, will cut corners and get the ads up. When these ads come in, they are loaded into the server- 99% of the time as real properly functioning ads. They click to the right locations and pass through the ad serving security services. A couple of days later, as the ad has been serving fine, the redirected urls (typically something like ads.somewebsite.com/324234/adserver/creative.js) have their
So- the quick solution is having ad networks and publishers take accountability for their sales people. It does not take much effort to find out if a "agency" can be trusted. I had one company recently try to pass of malicious ads but we traced their address back to a pizza parlor in LA (obviously a fake) after realizing no credit check was run. Second, and most important will be the methods of security taking by the major ad publishing softwares. Unfortunately, if you know anything about working with ad servers- critical updates move about as fast as html5 development (sllloooowww).
tin-foil hat should cover most of it.
so facebook = erasebook?
I am one of those beleivers that the internet should have no laws. It should simply be a network of computers. Some companies may try to do business using it- but they do so at their own risk. There should be no governance of the transfer of information, harmful or good.
;)
no, i'm not Idealistic- really
I can't speak about SAP and what they do or do not support. But here is my guess... Open source has its place and time- not every project should be OS, however, for those of us who love programing on our free time, or have ideas about making sotware that would be far more enhanced by contributions by the public, it is great. That's not to say their isnt a money making business solution for OS products as well (various linux flavors for example). From a software corp. standpoint, just giving a 'well wish' might be the proper grounds to play. Sometimes being a little vague or contradictory on your standing is the best choice in the long term (politicians do great at this). In short, I have no doubt these guys are looking at a lot of open source, and maybe waiting to watch the industry evolve and see what other software giants do (aside from trying to squeltch it) But mum is the word.
Nothing like taking pages from the porno industry M.O. Beautiful.
Well I dont know about you, but just about every liquor store I know sells milky ways... I just dont see what everyone is complaining about.
Really I could care less what kind of content was found on the drives of the server- On the fact that they were running Botnets alone, these guys should have their balls put on display at the local batting cage.