Well, yeah, that's what I thought at first also, but then how am I able to browse the internet and send and receive mail without sudoing? Because you arent using port 25 or port 80 to connect from, your using an arbitrary port > 1024 to connect to a remote computer that is listening on port 80/25.
for eg
cjmt@bsd$ netstat -an Active Internet connections (including servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address (state) tcp4 0 0 192.168.10.75.60763 66.249.93.99.80 ESTABLISHED
Exercise has no discernible effect on weight loss. This is a myth perpetuated by the idle.
Your body burns anywhere from 1500 - 2500 (depending on size, metabolism, etc.) doing nothing all day. Every pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories.
Running for an hour is worth something like 800 calories.
So to lose one pound, you would have to run just under 4 1/2 hours.
So, 1 hours running etc per day = 800 calories * 5 days a week (say) = 4000 calories/week = 208,000 calories/year = 59.42lb/year. Negligible? Not to mention the weight loss due to elevated metabolic rate caused by higher levels of fitness and activity, the increased energy levels etc, etc..
The big winners (to me) are those projects who provide a viable or better alternative to available closed source software and those that you'd put into a business and trust to "just work". To find them you need to test, test and test some more.
My winners, those that spring to mind immediately as being trusted not to embarrass me, are
The other winners are those that are used everyday as part of the tools to do the job and never really thought about. Nmap, vim, perl, portupgrade, cvsup and many more.
Whilst Pegasus might be the better known product Mercury, to my mind, was better. I ran our 50 odd seat business with Mercury as the primary POP3/SMTP/IMAP server for years. Whilst we are spoilt for choince with great free mailservers in the *NIX world, they are few and far between for Windows. I moved on to Communigate for the main domain, but still use Mercury internally and its so relaible its easy to forget its there.
I hope David reconsiders, theres surely a place for a small, battleproven mailserver in the Windows world. I'll miss Mercury if I finaly have to move on entirely.
A comparison of the Secumia advisories for IIS6 and Apache 2.2 is somthing I havent looked at before, and is interesting. Given that they have both had three vulnerabilties it's perhaps going a bit far to say that IIS has the better security, particularily given that the Apache vulnaribilities are arguably less critical in nature over all
I suggest looking at the "all" graphs going back to ~2003, for iis5 & 6 and Apache 1.3.x, 2.0.x and 2.2.x.
Actually, I did but didnt comment as you had specifcally cited the last couple of years. There have been significantly more bugs in the assorted Apaches over that period than IIS, and some remain unpatched, as do some of IIS's. However, is it worse to have more bugs or worse bugs? I would certainly argue that application with the worse bugs loses. 30% (4) of IIS5 bugs are rated as Highly or Extremely Critical between 2003 - 6, as apposed to 6% (2) and 3% (1) for Apache 1.3 and 2.0 respecivley. Apache is only a bit better, but on that basis it *was* better. One could (but I'm not) also argue that, based on these figures, future IIS bugs are statistically more likely to be critical than future Apache bugs.
Really? I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you cite some *independent* sources that back this up?
Without knowing what you consider "independent", maybe not. However, Secunia should get you started, as will Google.
A comparison of the Secumia advisories for IIS6 and Apache 2.2 is somthing I havent looked at before, and is interesting. Given that they have both had three vulnerabilties it's perhaps going a bit far to say that IIS has the better security, particularily given that the Apache vulnaribilities are arguably less critical in nature over all. However props to MS for having 0 unpatched vulnaribilities in IIS compared to 1 for Apache.
Arguably given the number of insecure applications running on top of either Apache or IIS these days application vulnerabilities are much more relevant than web server vulnerabilities anyway. I certainly see many more attempts to compramise vulnerable instances of applications such as AWStats, phpMyAdmin and phpBB than attacks against the underlying web server these days.
Additionally, before stating Apache is more prolific, you may wish to consider that Netcraft's methodology is a flawed way for determining this, and hence their data does not support the assertion.
You want the drugs made in your body instead. Running or any other proper endurance sport and the fitness imparted can make a huge difference (I find) to your ability to focus and deal with heavy workloads. Apparently cocaine and other similar drugs mimic the effect of endorphines, the drugs produced by the body under heavy excercise load. Why not cut out the expensive middle man and manufacturer your own?
YMMV of course!
Slashdot Mirror
for eg
cjmt@bsd$ netstat -an
Active Internet connections (including servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address (state)
tcp4 0 0 192.168.10.75.60763 66.249.93.99.80 ESTABLISHED
Running for an hour is worth something like 800 calories.
So to lose one pound, you would have to run just under 4 1/2 hours.
So, 1 hours running etc per day = 800 calories * 5 days a week (say) = 4000 calories/week = 208,000 calories/year = 59.42lb/year. Negligible? Not to mention the weight loss due to elevated metabolic rate caused by higher levels of fitness and activity, the increased energy levels etc, etc..
So stupid.
Actually I think its "telnet -l -froot randomsolarishost" if you want root access
- mOnOwall - firewalling
- IPCop - firewalling
- Metadot - CMS
- Apache - web server
- Bind - Name Server
- asterisk - telephony/voip
- Sendmail - cussed but stable MTA
- SpamAssassin - spam filtering
- MIME-Defang - email content filtering/manipulation
- ClamAV - Virus filtering
- Freebsd - the best OS since sliced bread (IMHO)
- Centos - Not to shabby an OS either
- ...
The other winners are those that are used everyday as part of the tools to do the job and never really thought about. Nmap, vim, perl, portupgrade, cvsup and many more.Whilst Pegasus might be the better known product Mercury, to my mind, was better. I ran our 50 odd seat business with Mercury as the primary POP3/SMTP/IMAP server for years. Whilst we are spoilt for choince with great free mailservers in the *NIX world, they are few and far between for Windows. I moved on to Communigate for the main domain, but still use Mercury internally and its so relaible its easy to forget its there.
I hope David reconsiders, theres surely a place for a small, battleproven mailserver in the Windows world. I'll miss Mercury if I finaly have to move on entirely.
A comparison of the Secumia advisories for IIS6 and Apache 2.2 is somthing I havent looked at before, and is interesting. Given that they have both had three vulnerabilties it's perhaps going a bit far to say that IIS has the better security, particularily given that the Apache vulnaribilities are arguably less critical in nature over all
I suggest looking at the "all" graphs going back to ~2003, for iis5 & 6 and Apache 1.3.x, 2.0.x and 2.2.x.
Actually, I did but didnt comment as you had specifcally cited the last couple of years. There have been significantly more bugs in the assorted Apaches over that period than IIS, and some remain unpatched, as do some of IIS's. However, is it worse to have more bugs or worse bugs? I would certainly argue that application with the worse bugs loses. 30% (4) of IIS5 bugs are rated as Highly or Extremely Critical between 2003 - 6, as apposed to 6% (2) and 3% (1) for Apache 1.3 and 2.0 respecivley. Apache is only a bit better, but on that basis it *was* better. One could (but I'm not) also argue that, based on these figures, future IIS bugs are statistically more likely to be critical than future Apache bugs.
As ever with these things, pick your poison...
Really? I'm intrigued by this comment. Could you cite some *independent* sources that back this up?
Without knowing what you consider "independent", maybe not. However, Secunia should get you started, as will Google.
A comparison of the Secumia advisories for IIS6 and Apache 2.2 is somthing I havent looked at before, and is interesting. Given that they have both had three vulnerabilties it's perhaps going a bit far to say that IIS has the better security, particularily given that the Apache vulnaribilities are arguably less critical in nature over all. However props to MS for having 0 unpatched vulnaribilities in IIS compared to 1 for Apache.
Arguably given the number of insecure applications running on top of either Apache or IIS these days application vulnerabilities are much more relevant than web server vulnerabilities anyway. I certainly see many more attempts to compramise vulnerable instances of applications such as AWStats, phpMyAdmin and phpBB than attacks against the underlying web server these days.
Additionally, before stating Apache is more prolific, you may wish to consider that Netcraft's methodology is a flawed way for determining this, and hence their data does not support the assertion.
Not guilty of this one, you want grahammm...You want the drugs made in your body instead. Running or any other proper endurance sport and the fitness imparted can make a huge difference (I find) to your ability to focus and deal with heavy workloads. Apparently cocaine and other similar drugs mimic the effect of endorphines, the drugs produced by the body under heavy excercise load. Why not cut out the expensive middle man and manufacturer your own?
YMMV of course!
Charlie