Hi Bill! Thanks for the tip on the DIR command, I did in fact notice that, however it doesn't give percentages (or total space), AFAIK, and my monitoring bot wants percentages. My df also reports the computer name (so I can make sense of the output when the space on multiple machines is listed one after the other in a report, and if an alert is generated by the monitoring bot).
The new version of my df uitil is 1951 bytes, the version on my site is old. I'm sorry I upset you because I mentioned .NET, is it because you make a living off it? Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. .NET is merely one case of many, I picked it as an example because I am currently supporting a customer with a £23,000 .NET application that has them utterly locked to Microsoft, and I have no hope at all of selling them unix anything. Which is a shame for them (I just made a packet cleaning a nasty virus infection from one of their XP PCs). As for the .NET connector for PHP, yes, I made that up, and the problem is where? You wanted a migration strategy, I gave you one! I did say off top of head. You want me to research it? That's £120/hr. I also don't see a problem posting my mail from a Windows PC. Why do I need to be running unix before I can report that malware is mutating at 243%? I don't, is the short answer. Why don't you criticise my arguments, instead of myself, or my job, or my computer, or my email program, or my personal migration strategy, or my software? Is it because you can't? I think so. Stu On 16 May 2010 at 3:06, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote: From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <t...@hammerofgod.com> To: "full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk" <full- disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk> Date sent: Sun, 16 May 2010 03:06:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > This just gets better all the time. I have to admit, it was fun at first, > but now's I grow weary, mostly because this is just sad. > > For you to actually think that one can't find out how much free drive space > in Windows would be funny it were not so ridiculous. And it's been built > into DIR forever. Oh, and your .bas file is 60,000 some odd bytes, not 1951. > I think you are confusing the size with the last time you actually did > research into what you are talking about. > > The main point here is for people to see how easy it is for someone who > admits that they know nothing about .NET, nor care to learn anything about > .NET, to honestly and publically say that people must uninstall it as if it > were the plague. You actually get paid to tell people to uninstall it and > use "a .NET connector to PHP" - whatever the hell that is. Simply amazing to > me. > > And yet, it's fine for YOU to continue to use a "closed source" operating > system to run your "dear Peg" closed source email program because you don't > feel like practicing what you preach. To think that you consider insight > into moving a couple of computers over to *nix as the basis to make sweeping > generalized statements of how migrating is a one-off cost staggers the > imagination. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so good luck with > yours dude. But what you are doing to the poor people who not only trust > you but also pay you seems to be quite a disservice indeed. But that's > between you and whatever your ethic is. > > So in a nutshell (and I'll drop off after this as I think this has played > itself out) you hate closed source and .NET and get paid to tell other people > to migrate to non-existent ".NET connector's to PHP" after switching from > Windows to BSD, but compose the very email that you so vehemently condemn > them on a closed source operating system with a closed source program because > you don't have "time to figure out how to use your computer at the same > time." (direct quote). I think I got it. Thanks for sharing. > > Oh, one last thing - your "dear Pegasus" 4.51 Windows-based program that you > hypocritically hold on to while demonizing Windows and .NET was... wait for > it.... wait for it.... written with Visual Studio 2008 C++ - a proud > Microsoft .NET Framework development platform! > > Ladies and Gentlemen, Goodnight! > > t > > -----Original Message----- > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of lsi > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:15 PM > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > On 16 May 2010 at 0:09, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote: > > > Just as I expected. A wishy washy response, nothing concrete or even > > vaguely resembling substantive material, backtracking on an exact > > quote, the obligatory reference to your formula ala Craig Wright, with > > the final "oh, I'm sure you would like to know, but I'll have to > > charge you in order to tell you." > > Well spotted, I am a consultant... I get paid to behave that way! > > It was your misquote I corrected, if you call that a backtrack, suit > yourself! I was giving you my working so you could reproduce my numbers... > never mind. > > > I was wrong to assume that you would try to educate yourself about > > .NET > > Other than how to uninstall it, I have no desire to know anything about it. > > > The "amount of free disk space on a drive" utility you wrote > > Yeah, how crap, it's called df in unix, everyone hates it enormously! > A truly useless tool. That must be why a df command appeared in Version 1 of > AT&T UNIX. Windows doesn't have something like that, so I made one myself. > You should see the new version, writes to STDOUT, supports multiple drives on > one commandline, 1951 bytes of source, 154k uncompressed EXE, beat it if you > can.... > > > P.S. The headers on your email show that you are using Pegasus Mail > > for Windows (4.51). I know a guy who can help you switch to Linux if > > you want. I think he charges about £120/hr. > > Amusing, however Pegasus is a perfect example of the difficulty users face > when migrating. As my dear Peg isn't open source, it's one of the reasons > this machine still runs Windows (along with Quake, and the tools I have > created over years to help me work, and their PowerBasic compiler). I don't > want to be on the phone to a customer and trying to figure out how to use my > computer at the same time, so I decided to go slow for now. I think this is > a fair decision. My servers run unix, it's just this desktop that is left. > I'm not in a big hurry, this machine is nicely optimised. I'm not looking > forward to the day that I have to rewrite all my tools. I know it will be a > total PITA, take ages, introduce bugs and generally cost me a packet. > Unfortunately, long-term, the alternative is even worse. I am very familiar > with the issues faced when migrating, as I have those issues. Does this > surprise you? > > Stu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of lsi > > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:15 PM > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > > > IOW, you took what Symantec's numbers were for one year, and guessed > > > they would be the same for this year, and then posted how you were > > > almost right. > > > > You definitely misunderstand. AFAIK, Symantec do not publish the number > > 243%. I calculated it myself, using this sum: > > > > (0.92 + 3.67 + 1.64 + 1.24 + 4.44 + 2.65) / 6 > > > > I also calculated those numbers, using the general formula y(n+1) / y(n). > > This is all explained on the link I gave in my original post: > > > > http://www.cyberdelix.net/files/malware_mutation_projection.pdf > > > > Even in the most recent report, Symantec only refer to the growth rate by > > saying it was "more than double" (eg, 200+%) - although I haven't read it > > closely, they may well elaborate on that at some point. > > > > > You people really need to get your stories straight. > > > > There is only one of me, I assure you. > > > > > Then you blithe on about how people should "avoid any software that > > > locks them into a Microsoft Platform like the plague" and > > > specifically note .NET for businesses but of course fail to provide > > > any examples of where they should go, or any real advice on your > > > "mitigation strategy." > > > > I agree Windows needs mitigation, that is why I am posting. I didn't > > mention alternatives as that's not my purpose, to promote a specific > > product, and I wouldn't want my observations to be tainted by it. > > However, now you've asked, I'd recommend FreeBSD, without even seeing your > > spec. Desktops? PC-BSD. As for .NET, off top of head I'd suggest a .NET > > connector for PHP, running on FreeBSD of course. > > > > > What it is about .NET that should be avoided like the plague? Wait, > > > > Sorry but I already answered that. It's because it locks the > > customer into a Microsoft platform. > > > > > One must assume that you are an expert .NET developer > > > > You'd assume wrong - it doesn't take an expert to recognise a dependency. > > > > > Additionally, you've clearly performed migration engagements for > > > these people you "advise." Please let us know what the actual > > > migration plan was, and how you have so brilliantly created a > > > one-off cost migration path. I'm really interested in the details about > > > that. > > > > I'm sure you are, and I'd be happy to oblige. My rates for that kind of > > work start at £120/hr. Please PM me for more info. > > > > > Details on your SDL process would be fantastic as well. > > > > Continuous incremental improvement (TQM). RERO. Prototyping. Agile is the > > word used nowadays I believe... revolution through evolution, as I said.... > > > > Stu > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of lsi > > > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 1:07 PM > > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > > > > Is that you, Bill? > > > > > > I think you misunderstand. 9 months ago, I measured the growth rate at > > > 243%, using Symantec's stats. 9 months ago I posted that number here, > > > together with a prediction of this year's stats. Recently, I got this > > > year's stats and compared them with that prediction. I found that this > > > prediction was 75.4% accurate. I am now reporting those results back to > > > the group. And this is trolling how? > > > > > > My point is that the prediction was not wildly wrong, and so that leads > > > me to wonder if anything else I said, 9 months ago, was also not wildly > > > wrong. > > > > > > My main reason for claiming that Windows is inherently insecure is > > > because it's closed source. However it's also because of the sloppy, > > > monolithic spaghetti code that Windows is made of. If you're claiming > > > Windows is in fact inherently secure, I assume this means you don't use > > > AV on any of your Windows machines, and advise everyone you know to > > > uninstall it? > > > > > > I never said migration would be free or easy. That is why I am posting > > > this data here, because I see it as a vulnerability, a very big > > > vulnerability that many companies have not woken up to. The very fact > > > that migration is hard, lengthy, and expensive, means that the > > > vulnerability is larger than ever. > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > On 15 May 2010 at 14:40, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote: > > > > > > From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <t...@hammerofgod.com> > > > To: "full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk" <full- > > > disclos...@lists.grok.org.uk> > > > Date sent: Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:29 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > > > > > I am constantly amazed at posts like this where you make yourself sound > > > > like some sort of statistical genius because you were "able to predict" > > > > that since last year was %243, that this year would be %243. Wow. > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > And for the record, these claims of 'inherent insecurity' in Windows > > > > are simply ignorant. If you are still running Windows 95 that's your > > > > problem. Do a little research before post assertions based on 10 or 20 > > > > year old issues. > > > > > > > > This smacks of the classic troll, where you say things like "nothing > > > > that Microsoft makes is secure and it never will be" and then go on to > > > > say how easy it is to migrate, and how it's free, with only a one off > > > > cost, and how to move off of .NET. > > > > > > > > Obvious "predictions," ignorant assumptions, and a total lack of any > > > > true understanding of business computing. Yep, "troll." > > > > > > > > t > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of > > > > lsi > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 6:12 AM > > > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > > > Subject: [Full-disclosure] Windows' future (reprise) > > > > > > > > Hi All! > > > > > > > > Just a followup from my posting of 9 months ago (which can be > > > > found > > > > here): > > > > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk/msg3 > > > > 71 > > > > 73.html > > > > > > > > Symantec have released "Internet Security Threat Report: Volume XV: > > > > April 2010". My posting from last year was based on the previous > > > > "Internet Security Threat Report: Volume XIV: April 2009". So I > > > > thought it would be interesting to check my numbers. The new edition > > > > of the Threat Report is here: > > > > > > > > http://www4.symantec.com/Vrt/wl?tu_id=SUKX1271711282503126202 > > > > > > > > You may recall that last year, the average annual growth rate of new > > > > threats (as defined by Symantec) was 243%. This enabled me to predict > > > > that the number of new threats in this year's Symantec Threat Report > > > > would be 243% of last years; eg. I predicted 9 months ago the number of > > > > new threats in this year's Symantec Threat Report would be 243% * > > > > 1656227, or 3840485.87. > > > > > > > > The actual number of new threats in this year's Symantec Threat Report > > > > is 2895802, an error on my part of 24.6%. > > > > > > > > This is quite a chunk, however it is not that far off. My excuses: > > > > > > > > - my number was based on averages, so it will never be exact. There > > > > will be a natural variance in the growth rate, caused by many factors. > > > > > > > > - in the new edition, Symantec have altered the raw data a little - the > > > > number of new threats for 2009, 2008, 2007 etc is slightly different to > > > > those same years, as listed in the previous version of the report. I > > > > have not updated my projection to allow for this. > > > > > > > > - Symantec note that "The slight decline in the rate of growth should > > > > not discount the significant number of new signatures created in 2009. > > > > Signature-based detection is lagging behind the creation of malicious > > > > threats..." (page 48). > > > > > > > > Am I retreating from my position? Absolutely not. I am now expecting > > > > the number of new threats in next years' report to be 7036798.86. This > > > > is 2895802 * 243%. This includes the error introduced by Symantec's > > > > changes to the raw data. I don't think it matters much. > > > > > > > > As this flood of new threats will soon overpower AV companies' > > > > ability to catalogue them (by 2015, at 243% growth, there will be > > > > 2.739 MILLION new threats PER DAY (over 1900 new threats per minute)), > > > > and as Symantec admits above that "signature-based detection is > > > > lagging", and as Microsoft are not likely to produce a secure version > > > > of anything anytime soon, I am not at all hopeful of a clean resolution > > > > to this problem. > > > > > > > > I continue to advise that users should, where possible, deploy > > > > alternatives; that they should, if they have not already, create and > > > > action a migration strategy; and that they should avoid like the > > > > plague, any software which locks them into a Microsoft platform. > > > > Business .NET applications, I'm lookin' at you. > > > > > > > > Those failing to migrate will discover their hardware runs slower and > > > > slower, while doing the same job as it did previously. They will need > > > > to take this productivity hit, OR buy a new computer, which will also > > > > eventually surcumb to the same increasing slowness. They will need to > > > > buy new machines more and more frequently. Eventually, they will run > > > > out of money - or, for the especially deep-pocketed, they will find > > > > they cannot deploy the new machines fast enough, before they are > > > > already too slow to use. The only alternative to this treadmill is to > > > > dump Windows. The sooner it is dumped, the less money is wasted buying > > > > new hardware, simply to keep up with security- induced slowness. > > > > > > > > Why spend all that time and money on a series of new Windows machines, > > > > without fixing the actual problem, which is the inherent insecurity of > > > > Windows? People can spend the same time and money replacing Windows, > > > > and then they won't need to worry about the problem any more. The > > > > difference is that sticking with Windows incurs ongoing and increasing > > > > costs, while a migration incurs a one- off cost. > > > > > > > > I don't think it takes a genius to see which approach will cost less. > > > > > > > > Notes: > > > > - see page 10 of the Volume XIV (2009) edition, and page 48 of > > > > Volume XV (2010) edition, for the relevant stats > > > > > > > > - since my post of last year, I have also noticed a similar > > > > exponential curve in the number of threats detected by Spybot > > > > Search and Destroy (a popular anti-spyware tool). This curve can > > > > be seen > > > > here: > > > > > > > > http://www.safer-networking.org/en/updatehistory/index.html > > > > > > > > - my projection of growth rates up to 2016 (written last year) is > > > > here: > > > > > > > > http://www.cyberdelix.net/files/malware_mutation_projection.pdf > > > > > > > > Comments welcome.. > > > > > > > > Stu > > > > > > --- > Stuart Udall > stuart a...@cyberdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ > > --- > * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > --- Stuart Udall stuart a...@cyberdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ --- * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
