Re: Color me skeptical

[Andrew S. Baker]

And I would agree with you, Ken. :)





*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *
**Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
the SMB market…***




On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

>  If you go back to the source, it’s supposed to be a phrase used entirely
> for changing scientific views of our universe, but since then has become a
> debased phrase that can mean whatever you want it to mean:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
>
> ** **
>
> Would letting blind people see be a scientific breakthrough? A medical
> miracle? Or a paradigm shift? I’d call the technology that enables this one
> of the former two. If society’s views subsequently change (e.g. on the
> capabilities or ability of blind people to engage with sighted society),
> that might be a paradigm shift.
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@live.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 April 2013 11:16 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Color me skeptical
>
>  ** **
>
> Personally I question what a "paradigm shift" would be considered to be.
> I would then look at that is being proposed as such a thing.  Most of
> the truly accurate "futurist" were not associated with a company selling
> hardware or software.  They were academics and entertainers.  Look at what
> Rodenberry saw when he invented Star Trek (Yeah I know maybe not a good
> choice but he did see things in his vision that we now have maybe due
> to that vision) He was looking not at what was or what was possible but
> what he saw as the future.  Like many others of his ink he was able to see
> true "paradigm shifts" even if he was not going to be a part of inventing
> them.  In my mind Jobs is and will forever be the king of salesmanship.  He
> convinced people that what he was selling was better, faster, more cool,
> than anything in the market, despite the fact that others had made it
> before him.  He was also not above allowing others to make claims that were
> patently false (Apple OS/iOS can't get bugs).  Later once he had his market
> up and running when he knew his time on that statement was running out made
> sure his marketing people did not make that claim but would quietly say it
> was possible for it to get bugs.  Google would not be in business except
> for companies like Microsoft and Yahoo.  Microsoft itself was only able to
> get going due to the inventor of an earlier OS not really being interested
> in business, well that and having family in the right place at the right
> time.
>
> A paradigm shift would be something everyone could benefit from or helps
> those in special niche markets get equal to those in the larger market.  If
> Google glass were to be able to allow the blind to see then that to me
> would be a paradigm shift.
>
> Jon 
>  --
>
> From: k...@adopenstatic.com
> To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> Subject: RE: Color me skeptical
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:03:33 +
>
> I’d argue that Google’s way of searching was/is sufficiently different to
> the competition (Alta Vista anyone) to be considered some kind of shift.**
> **
>
>  
>
> If you’re going to say that Google didn’t revolutionise search because
> they didn’t invent it, then arguably there’s been nothing revolutionised
> for hundreds of years (which I think we both agree is false). It may be
> just that we disagree on the degree of change required to call something a
> ‘paradigm shift’, but I’d argue that Google Search, and the concept of
> giving people “gigabytes” of “free” storage for Gmail were both game
> changers that propelled those two products from challengers to dominance.*
> ***
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>  
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 April 2013 3:17 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Color me skeptical
>
>  
>
> *>>**  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell
> user data/advertising to others, not services to users". *
>
>  
>
> But that wasn't a paradigm shift.  They didn't invent search, and they
> didn't invent selling advertising, and they didn't invent the freemium
> concept or the concept where the user is the product.
>
>  
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftw

RE: Color me skeptical

[Ken Schaefer]

If you go back to the source, it's supposed to be a phrase used entirely for 
changing scientific views of our universe, but since then has become a debased 
phrase that can mean whatever you want it to mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Would letting blind people see be a scientific breakthrough? A medical miracle? 
Or a paradigm shift? I'd call the technology that enables this one of the 
former two. If society's views subsequently change (e.g. on the capabilities or 
ability of blind people to engage with sighted society), that might be a 
paradigm shift.

Cheers
Ken

From: Jon Harris [mailto:jk.har...@live.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 11:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Color me skeptical

Personally I question what a "paradigm shift" would be considered to be.  I 
would then look at that is being proposed as such a thing.  Most of the truly 
accurate "futurist" were not associated with a company selling hardware or 
software.  They were academics and entertainers.  Look at what Rodenberry saw 
when he invented Star Trek (Yeah I know maybe not a good choice but he did 
see things in his vision that we now have maybe due to that vision) He was 
looking not at what was or what was possible but what he saw as the future.  
Like many others of his ink he was able to see true "paradigm shifts" even if 
he was not going to be a part of inventing them.  In my mind Jobs is and will 
forever be the king of salesmanship.  He convinced people that what he was 
selling was better, faster, more cool, than anything in the market, despite the 
fact that others had made it before him.  He was also not above allowing others 
to make claims that were patently false (Apple OS/iOS can't get bugs).  Later 
once he had his market up and running when he knew his time on that statement 
was running out made sure his marketing people did not make that claim but 
would quietly say it was possible for it to get bugs.  Google would not be in 
business except for companies like Microsoft and Yahoo.  Microsoft itself was 
only able to get going due to the inventor of an earlier OS not really being 
interested in business, well that and having family in the right place at the 
right time.

A paradigm shift would be something everyone could benefit from or helps those 
in special niche markets get equal to those in the larger market.  If Google 
glass were to be able to allow the blind to see then that to me would be a 
paradigm shift.

Jon

From: k...@adopenstatic.com
To: 
ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Color me skeptical
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:03:33 +
I'd argue that Google's way of searching was/is sufficiently different to the 
competition (Alta Vista anyone) to be considered some kind of shift.

If you're going to say that Google didn't revolutionise search because they 
didn't invent it, then arguably there's been nothing revolutionised for 
hundreds of years (which I think we both agree is false). It may be just that 
we disagree on the degree of change required to call something a 'paradigm 
shift', but I'd argue that Google Search, and the concept of giving people 
"gigabytes" of "free" storage for Gmail were both game changers that propelled 
those two products from challengers to dominance.

Cheers
Ken

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 3:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Color me skeptical

>>  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user data/advertising 
>> to others, not services to users".

But that wasn't a paradigm shift.  They didn't invent search, and they didn't 
invent selling advertising, and they didn't invent the freemium concept or the 
concept where the user is the product.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Color me skeptical

[Jon Harris]

Personally I question what a "paradigm shift" would be considered to be.  I 
would then look at that is being proposed as such a thing.  Most of the truly 
accurate "futurist" were not associated with a company selling hardware or 
software.  They were academics and entertainers.  Look at what Rodenberry saw 
when he invented Star Trek (Yeah I know maybe not a good choice but he did 
see things in his vision that we now have maybe due to that vision) He was 
looking not at what was or what was possible but what he saw as the future.  
Like many others of his ink he was able to see true "paradigm shifts" even if 
he was not going to be a part of inventing them.  In my mind Jobs is and will 
forever be the king of salesmanship.  He convinced people that what he was 
selling was better, faster, more cool, than anything in the market, despite the 
fact that others had made it before him.  He was also not above allowing others 
to make claims that were patently false (Apple OS/iOS can't get bugs).  Later 
once he had his market up and running when he knew his time on that statement 
was running out made sure his marketing people did not make that claim but 
would quietly say it was possible for it to get bugs.  Google would not be in 
business except for companies like Microsoft and Yahoo.  Microsoft itself was 
only able to get going due to the inventor of an earlier OS not really being 
interested in business, well that and having family in the right place at the 
right time. A paradigm shift would be something everyone could benefit from or 
helps those in special niche markets get equal to those in the larger market.  
If Google glass were to be able to allow the blind to see then that to me would 
be a paradigm shift. Jon From: k...@adopenstatic.com
To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Color me skeptical
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:03:33 +









I’d argue that Google’s way of searching was/is sufficiently different to the 
competition (Alta Vista anyone) to be considered some
 kind of shift.
 
If you’re going to say that Google didn’t revolutionise search because they 
didn’t invent it, then arguably there’s been nothing
 revolutionised for hundreds of years (which I think we both agree is false). 
It may be just that we disagree on the degree of change required to call 
something a ‘paradigm shift’, but I’d argue that Google Search, and the concept 
of giving people “gigabytes”
 of “free” storage for Gmail were both game changers that propelled those two 
products from challengers to dominance.
 
Cheers
Ken
 
From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]


Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 3:17 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: Color me skeptical
 


>>  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user data/advertising 
>> to others, not services
 to users". 


 


But that wasn't a paradigm shift.  They didn't invent search, and they didn't 
invent selling advertising, and they didn't invent the freemium concept or the 
concept where the user is the
 product.


 




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~

~   ~



---

To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/

or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com

with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin   
  
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Color me skeptical

[Ken Schaefer]

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 10:13 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Color me skeptical

>>If you're going to say that Google didn't revolutionise search because they 
>>didn't invent it

But they did not create a paradigm shift.   Nothing shifted.  We still use web 
mail like we did before, and we still search (largely) like we did before.

I think this is where we might disagree. You see Gmail as "web based email" - 
maybe I can characterise this viewpoint as a looking at it as a technology 
stack.

But if we look at it from a service use-case PoV, i.e. "how do people use this 
service?" I think it definitely changed the way people (outside tech circles 
where people were used to almost unlimited amounts of email storage) treated 
email (whether web based or not)

All of a sudden you didn't need to worry about quotas. You needn't need to 
organise things into folders to manage large amounts of mail. Email became "set 
and forget" - just read and send email (and do the occasional search). All the 
other things we used to do with managing mail went out the window.

That's what differentiated Gmail from Outlook or Hotmail or Eudora or Pine or 
anything else at the time:

a)  No need to organise, because search is both effective and instantaneous

b)  No need to delete things, because storage is (effectively) limitless

So, "large quota web based email" isn't really a paradigm shift. But I think 
"email as a service" (and Google will take care of everything behind the 
scenes) is (for small values of "paradigm")

Search might be a harder question to tackle. Arguably from a technology PoV, we 
still type text into a HTML form and hit "submit", so we still search like we 
did before Google. But the way we search is different now. Alta Vista was 
arguably the "king of the hill" before Google, but to use that I had to think 
like Alta Vista, using "arcane" syntax and logical operators to get the results 
I was looking for. I'm not sure how to describe how I use Google, but what I 
need to think about before searching for something is completely different to 
how I had to think to use any of its predecessors. This way of interacting with 
a computer system to find things was completely different IMHO.

Cheers
Ken

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Color me skeptical

[Andrew S. Baker]

*>>If you’re going to say that Google didn’t revolutionise search because
they didn’t invent it*

No, that's not what I am saying at all.

They *did* revolutionize search.  They did lots of cool back-end
integration.  They built a very, very profitable ecosystem based upon
search.

But they did not create a paradigm shift.   Nothing shifted.  We still use
web mail like we did before, and we still search (largely) like we did
before.

GoogleWave had the potential to be a paradigm shift, and if it had worked,
we'd all be communicating very differently than we do today.  It could very
well have killed email (and Google wouldn't have cared because it was tied
into their search backend just as neatly).  IMO, Google+ only exists
because GoogleWave failed.  (Or, at the very least, it exists in its
current format because GoogleWave failed)

Every escalation of technology or innovative deployment is not a paradigm
shift.

Amazon cloud? Yeah, paradigm shift.  And they built an ecosystem around it
for good measure.

iPod? A much better MP3 player, but not a huge shift.
iPod+iTunes?  Even tighter integration and appeal, but it's not like
Blackberry didn't have a market long before Apple came out with theirs.


Both Apple and Microsoft have benefited from optimization and greatly
improving different mousetraps at different times, but IMO, a paradigm
shift needs to have the *shift*, otherwise its just optimization --
desireable, but something else entirely.

The original Palm Pilot introduced a *shift*.  For the first time, it was
now possible to manage your calendar *and* contacts while you were on the
road, and have them sync up when you got back to the office.  It moved the
personal assistant or digital rolodex to a whole new level and drastically
changed how people worked.

To me, that's what a paradigm shift is all about.   Desktop PC
decentralizing corporate computing is a shift.


*>>
 I’d argue that Google Search, and the concept of giving people “gigabytes”
of “free” storage for Gmail were both game changers that propelled those
two products from challengers to dominance.*

Sure, the free storage -- greatly increased over competitors at the time --
was a competitive advantage, but gmail was/is web based mail.

No shift.


I am not suggesting that improvements are useless unless they cause a
shift, either.  The fact is, we only see those kinds of major changes a few
times every decade at most.  I'm just suggesting that we over hype
improvements to the extent that everything is seen as a home run (or
needing to be a home run), when a steady progression of singles and doubles
will just as happily win the game, while being more likely to obtain.




*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *
**Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
the SMB market…***




On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Ken Schaefer  wrote:

>  I’d argue that Google’s way of searching was/is sufficiently different
> to the competition (Alta Vista anyone) to be considered some kind of shift.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> If you’re going to say that Google didn’t revolutionise search because
> they didn’t invent it, then arguably there’s been nothing revolutionised
> for hundreds of years (which I think we both agree is false). It may be
> just that we disagree on the degree of change required to call something a
> ‘paradigm shift’, but
>  I’d argue that Google Search, and the concept of giving people
> “gigabytes” of “free” storage for Gmail were both game changers that
> propelled those two products from challengers to dominance.
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 April 2013 3:17 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Color me skeptical
>
> ** **
>
> *>>**  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell
> user data/advertising to others, not services to users". *
>
> ** **
>
> But that wasn't a paradigm shift.  They didn't invent search, and they
> didn't invent selling advertising, and they didn't invent the freemium
> concept or the concept where the user is the product.
>
> ** **
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: LoJack

[Jon Harris]

You might want to take a look at the Dell web site.  I believe they sell it as 
an option with their business line of laptops.  I think the BIOS part does all 
the work but I also think that the software does some configuration changes. Jon
 > Subject: LoJack
> To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> From: kz2...@googlemail.com
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:01:33 +
> 
> Does anyone know if LoJack CompuTrace can be activated without the software 
> installed? I am looking into this sort of software for a client but am not 
> sure whether it needs to actually have the software installed or if the 
> embedded BIOS feature does everything required? Their website isn't 
> particularly clear about it and most Googling just turns up people 
> complaining about civil liberties.
> 
> TIA,
> 
> 
> JR
> 
> 
> Sent from my Blackberry, which may be an antique but delivers email RELIABLY
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here: 
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
  
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Testing

[Damien Solodow]

Been quite quiet for a few days. Maybe everyone said frak it and went home...

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Color me skeptical

[Ken Schaefer]

I'd argue that Google's way of searching was/is sufficiently different to the 
competition (Alta Vista anyone) to be considered some kind of shift.

If you're going to say that Google didn't revolutionise search because they 
didn't invent it, then arguably there's been nothing revolutionised for 
hundreds of years (which I think we both agree is false). It may be just that 
we disagree on the degree of change required to call something a 'paradigm 
shift', but I'd argue that Google Search, and the concept of giving people 
"gigabytes" of "free" storage for Gmail were both game changers that propelled 
those two products from challengers to dominance.

Cheers
Ken

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 3:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Color me skeptical

>>  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user data/advertising 
>> to others, not services to users".

But that wasn't a paradigm shift.  They didn't invent search, and they didn't 
invent selling advertising, and they didn't invent the freemium concept or the 
concept where the user is the product.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Color me skeptical

[Matthew W. Ross]

I'm what you would call a "Google convert". I use google products, and tend to 
prefer them over others.

Gmail, Android, Chrome, Google D[ocs|rive] Google Voice, G+, all have been 
successes for me. I get where they are going: They cannot win the desktop wars, 
so they are gunning to win the web.

Some (or maybe most) people don't like the idea that Google can look at my 
docs, images, email, search history, etc. I understand this fear, but I am 
unsure how valid it is. I tend to believe that if somebody wanted to find 
something out about me, they probably could, even though I keep a relatively 
low profile on the internet. 

Without this information that they gather, they cannot offer the excellent 
products they provide for free, or with limited advertisements. I'm okay with 
that, because I (oddly) expect that all of the big tech companies do this. Even 
Microsoft, with their "Scroogled" campaign, likely uses data from Outlook.com 
or Bing to their advantage. Also, they are beginning to harness this 
information in useful ways, such as what they are doing with Google Now.

The "paradigm shift" is the move to the web, where your browser is your 
operating system, and the cloud is your datastore. It's not for those with 
secrets, but I don't have any so it works for me.

It's not like everything Google touches is golden. The Google Pixel is a 
high-end laptop for a low-end OS. And the Glass is defiantly what I would call 
"beta" hardware. Of course, you have all of the other Google flops as well.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: Ben Scott
[mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2013
11:26:52 -0800
Subject: Re: Color me skeptical


> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
> > >>  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user
> > >> data/advertising to others, not services to users".
> >
> > But that wasn't a paradigm shift
> 
>   Seems like it is mostly a discussion about what constitutes a
> "paradigm shift", then, because I generally agree with the rest of
> your analysis.  :-)  Some of it's quite apt -- especially the bit
> about big companies floundering once their core competency market is
> saturated and they're forced to branch out.
> 
>   A couple small additions:
> 
> > Microsoft's advantage was actually APIs upon which rich ecosystems could
> > be built by 3rd parties and enterprises.  ... they lost their dominance in
> > mobile by not understanding what their strengths really were
> 
>   Microsoft's big mistake in the mobile market was making something
> that wasn't compatible with their existing stuff.  So when Apple came
> along with a more compelling product, there was no reason not to jump
> ship.  It wasn't so much that the API wasn't good enough (although
> maybe that was a problem, too) but that it was *different*.
> 
>   The same will happen with Win 8, I suspect.  They think that putting
> Windows Apps on desktop and mobile will mean tons of adoption of the
> new Windows Apps platform.  I suspect it will actually mean a white
> elephant on the desktop.  I don't think they have any other choice,
> though.
> 
> > Google is a search company that sells data derived, in part, from search.
> > All these other forays into different technologies are just distracting
> > them.
> 
>   Largely agree, but they've had some success with GMail and GApps.
> Of course, even there, a big part of GMail's success was the search
> function.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
> 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq

[Ziots, Edward]

Good one.. so true
Z

Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-444-9081


This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If you are reading this message, but are not the 
intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are 
strictly prohibited from copying, printing, forwarding or otherwise 
disseminating this communication. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to the message. Then, 
delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
[Description: Description: Lifespan]


From: Richard McClary [mailto:richard.mccl...@aspca.org]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:20 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq

One more time:

Just
Another
Vulnerability
Announcement

Thanks...
--
richard

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq


Hello All,

Today, a vulnerability report with an accompanying Proof of Concept code was 
sent to Oracle notifying the company of a new security weakness affecting Java 
SE 7 software.

The new flaw was verified to affect all versions of Java SE
7 (including the recently released 1.7.0_21-b11). It can be used to achieve a 
complete Java security sandbox bypass on a target system. Successful 
exploitation in a web browser scenario requires proper user interaction (a user 
needs to accept the risk of executing a potentially malicious Java application 
when a security warning window is displayed).

What's interesting is that the new issue is present not only in JRE Plugin / 
JDK software, but also the recently announced Server JRE as well [1]. Those 
concerned about a feasibility of exploitation of Java flaws in a server 
environment should consult Guideline 3-8 of "Secure Coding Guidelines for a 
Java Programming Language" [2]. It lists the following software components and 
APIs as potentially prone to the execution of untrusted Java code:
- Sun implementation of the XSLT interpreter,
- Long Term Persistence of JavaBeans Components,
- RMI and LDAP (RFC 2713),
- Many SQL implementations.

In Apr 2012 [3], we reported our first vulnerability report to Oracle 
corporation signaling multiple security problems in Java SE 7 and the 
Reflection API in particular. It's been a year since then and to our true 
surprise, we were still able to discover one of the simplest and most powerful 
instances of Java Reflection API based vulnerabilities. It looks Oracle was 
primarily focused on hunting down potentially dangerous Reflection API calls in 
the "allowed" classes space. If so, no surprise that Issue 61 was overlooked.

Thank you.

Best Regards
Adam Gowdiak

Looks like more Java patching to come.. and the flaws continue...

Z

Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-444-9081


This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If you are reading this message, but are not the 
intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are 
strictly prohibited from copying, printing, forwarding or otherwise 
disseminating this communication. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to the message. Then, 
delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
[Description: Description: Lifespan]



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(r) (ASPCA(r)) and 
is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any 
attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the 
original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ 

Re: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Ziots, Edward  wrote:
> Today, a vulnerability report with an accompanying Proof of Concept code
> was sent to Oracle notifying the company of a new security weakness
> affecting Java SE 7 software.

  Can we just get an announcement when there *isn't* a Java hole?  I
think we'd cut down on mail...

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq

[Richard McClary]

One more time:

Just
Another
Vulnerability
Announcement

Thanks...
--
richard

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq


Hello All,

Today, a vulnerability report with an accompanying Proof of Concept code was 
sent to Oracle notifying the company of a new security weakness affecting Java 
SE 7 software.

The new flaw was verified to affect all versions of Java SE
7 (including the recently released 1.7.0_21-b11). It can be used to achieve a 
complete Java security sandbox bypass on a target system. Successful 
exploitation in a web browser scenario requires proper user interaction (a user 
needs to accept the risk of executing a potentially malicious Java application 
when a security warning window is displayed).

What's interesting is that the new issue is present not only in JRE Plugin / 
JDK software, but also the recently announced Server JRE as well [1]. Those 
concerned about a feasibility of exploitation of Java flaws in a server 
environment should consult Guideline 3-8 of "Secure Coding Guidelines for a 
Java Programming Language" [2]. It lists the following software components and 
APIs as potentially prone to the execution of untrusted Java code:
- Sun implementation of the XSLT interpreter,
- Long Term Persistence of JavaBeans Components,
- RMI and LDAP (RFC 2713),
- Many SQL implementations.

In Apr 2012 [3], we reported our first vulnerability report to Oracle 
corporation signaling multiple security problems in Java SE 7 and the 
Reflection API in particular. It's been a year since then and to our true 
surprise, we were still able to discover one of the simplest and most powerful 
instances of Java Reflection API based vulnerabilities. It looks Oracle was 
primarily focused on hunting down potentially dangerous Reflection API calls in 
the "allowed" classes space. If so, no surprise that Issue 61 was overlooked.

Thank you.

Best Regards
Adam Gowdiak

Looks like more Java patching to come.. and the flaws continue...

Z

Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-444-9081


This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If you are reading this message, but are not the 
intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are 
strictly prohibited from copying, printing, forwarding or otherwise 
disseminating this communication. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to the message. Then, 
delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CE3F64.8449ED80]



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to 
listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is from 
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®) and 
is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, and any 
attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify me by reply email and permanently delete the 
original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout thereof.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin<>

Cross post on latest round of Java Bugs from Bugtraq

[Ziots, Edward]

Hello All,

Today, a vulnerability report with an accompanying Proof of Concept code was 
sent to Oracle notifying the company of a new security weakness affecting Java 
SE 7 software.

The new flaw was verified to affect all versions of Java SE
7 (including the recently released 1.7.0_21-b11). It can be used to achieve a 
complete Java security sandbox bypass on a target system. Successful 
exploitation in a web browser scenario requires proper user interaction (a user 
needs to accept the risk of executing a potentially malicious Java application 
when a security warning window is displayed).

What's interesting is that the new issue is present not only in JRE Plugin / 
JDK software, but also the recently announced Server JRE as well [1]. Those 
concerned about a feasibility of exploitation of Java flaws in a server 
environment should consult Guideline 3-8 of "Secure Coding Guidelines for a 
Java Programming Language" [2]. It lists the following software components and 
APIs as potentially prone to the execution of untrusted Java code:
- Sun implementation of the XSLT interpreter,
- Long Term Persistence of JavaBeans Components,
- RMI and LDAP (RFC 2713),
- Many SQL implementations.

In Apr 2012 [3], we reported our first vulnerability report to Oracle 
corporation signaling multiple security problems in Java SE 7 and the 
Reflection API in particular. It's been a year since then and to our true 
surprise, we were still able to discover one of the simplest and most powerful 
instances of Java Reflection API based vulnerabilities. It looks Oracle was 
primarily focused on hunting down potentially dangerous Reflection API calls in 
the "allowed" classes space. If so, no surprise that Issue 61 was overlooked.

Thank you.

Best Regards
Adam Gowdiak

Looks like more Java patching to come.. and the flaws continue...

Z

Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-444-9081


This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If you are reading this message, but are not the 
intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are 
strictly prohibited from copying, printing, forwarding or otherwise 
disseminating this communication. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to the message. Then, 
delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
[Description: Description: Lifespan]



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin<>

Re: Color me skeptical

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
> >>  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user
> >> data/advertising to others, not services to users".
>
> But that wasn't a paradigm shift

  Seems like it is mostly a discussion about what constitutes a
"paradigm shift", then, because I generally agree with the rest of
your analysis.  :-)  Some of it's quite apt -- especially the bit
about big companies floundering once their core competency market is
saturated and they're forced to branch out.

  A couple small additions:

> Microsoft's advantage was actually APIs upon which rich ecosystems could
> be built by 3rd parties and enterprises.  ... they lost their dominance in
> mobile by not understanding what their strengths really were

  Microsoft's big mistake in the mobile market was making something
that wasn't compatible with their existing stuff.  So when Apple came
along with a more compelling product, there was no reason not to jump
ship.  It wasn't so much that the API wasn't good enough (although
maybe that was a problem, too) but that it was *different*.

  The same will happen with Win 8, I suspect.  They think that putting
Windows Apps on desktop and mobile will mean tons of adoption of the
new Windows Apps platform.  I suspect it will actually mean a white
elephant on the desktop.  I don't think they have any other choice,
though.

> Google is a search company that sells data derived, in part, from search.
> All these other forays into different technologies are just distracting
> them.

  Largely agree, but they've had some success with GMail and GApps.
Of course, even there, a big part of GMail's success was the search
function.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Color me skeptical

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>> I'm really interested to see if this is the paradigm shift that Google
>> thinks it's going to be.
>
> Has Google actually been right about *any* paradigm shifts?
> (Ponders Buzz and GoogleWave...)

  They hit paydirt with "search, don't sort" and "sell user
data/advertising to others, not services to users".  And they
definitely revolutionized web search -- before Google, it was all
about making the query as smart as possible.  Google made the index
smarter.

  But good point.  They've had some notable strike outs, too.  They
seem to do better with general strategies than specific products.  But
then, they missed the boat on social media, too.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Color me skeptical

[Andrew S. Baker]

*>>
I'm really interested to see if this is the paradigm shift that Google
thinks it's going to be.*


Has Google actually been right about *any* paradigm shifts?

(Ponders Buzz and GoogleWave...)

Yes, I know... Old thread.





*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *
**Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
the SMB market…***




On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Christopher Bodnar <
christopher_bod...@glic.com> wrote:

> I'm really interested to see if this is the paradigm shift that Google
> thinks it's going to be. I think if they can really work out the issues, it
> will be. But I'm not convinced they can at this point. Specifically voice
> recognition issues. With this device, the voice recognition has to be
> pretty close to 100% 24x7, or it won't catch on. They way I see this
> working in real life, is that it's going to be tethered do your phone all
> the time. Meaning  you will still have your phone with you, so it won't
> replace that device. I see it as more of an accessory to your phone. But if
> you are constantly shifting back and forth between the 2 then it's going to
> be a hard sell.
>
>
>  *Christopher Bodnar*
> Enterprise Architect I, Corporate Office of Technology:Enterprise
> Architecture and Engineering Services  Tel 610-807-6459
> 3900 Burgess Place, Bethlehem, PA 18017
> christopher_bod...@glic.com
>
>
> *
> The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America*
> *
> **www.guardianlife.com* 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Kurt Buff 
> To:"NT System Admin Issues"  >
> Date:02/26/2013 08:55 PM
> Subject:Color me skeptical
> --
>
>
>
>
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4013406/i-used-google-glass-its-the-future-with-monthly-updates
>
> On several levels, including:
>
> o- Too many areas without network capability - where I live, anyway.
>
> o- Voice interaction. Really? No thanks.
>
> o- Privacy. Do I really want Google to know that much about me? They
> already know too much.
>
> Don't get me wrong - this is amazing technology. But, I don't have to
> say yes to everything that comes along
>
>
> Kurt
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin<>

RE: Need to create a csv through Powershell/Exchange Shell

[Michael B. Smith]

All you need to do is update the LDAP query filter.

You can see what you need to do for that, here:

http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2012/01/17/sending-an-email-to-users-whose-password-is-about-to-expire-a-powershell-rewrite.aspx


From: Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife [mailto:joseph.hea...@wildlife.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 11:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need to create a csv through Powershell/Exchange Shell

Michael,

That worked magnificently.  Thank you.  I would prefer the "teach to fish" 
approach as well, but I really appreciate the help.  There's some tweaking that 
I'd like to do to it, to filter out disabled accounts, but I'll just play with 
it on my own.

Joe Heaton
Enterprise Server Support
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife
1807 13th Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA  95811
Desk:  (916) 323-1284

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:50 PM
To: Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife; NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need to create a csv through Powershell/Exchange Shell

I GREATLY prefer the "teach a man to fish" paradigm, but to do this one 
properly requires some fairly in-depth knowledge of the AD PowerShell module 
and how Exchange stores information in AD. To do it efficiently needs an LDAP 
search and using a filter in PowerShell.

So that it can be exported properly, the output needs to be simple objects (not 
complex), but not just strings.

Oh, and since it can't be guaranteed that FirstName, LastName are unique, it 
also includes the sAMAccountName (unique in any given domain).

So I wrote this one. And will blog it. :P I had the various pieces already 
(yay, for code re-use!).

Adjust $secondaryDomain as a parameter, or in the source; as meets your needs.

You can Export-Csv or Export-CliXML to your heart's content. :)

Param(
[string]$secondaryDomain = "@TheEssentialExchange.com",
[int]$secondaryDomainLen = $secondaryDomain.Length
)

filter strip-Addresses
{
$proxies = $_.proxyAddresses

$primary   = ""
$secondary = ""

$object = "" | Select GivenName, Surname, sAMAccountName, 
PrimarySmtp, SecondarySmtp

$object.GivenName  = $_.GivenName
$object.SurName= $_.SurName
$object.sAMAccountName = $_.sAMAccountName

foreach( $proxy in $proxies )
{
$len = $proxy.Length

## note: "SMTP:".Length == 5

## note: The primary SMTP address has a 
CAPITALIZED "SMTP:" prefix
## all secondary SMTP addresses have a 
lowercase "smtp:" prefix

## note: any interesting secondary proxy 
address will be longer than
## "SMTP:".Length + $secondaryDomainLen

if( $len -gt 5 )
{
$prefix = $proxy.SubString( 0, 
5 )
$temp   = $proxy.SubString( 5 ) 
 ##strip off "smtp:", if present

if( $prefix -ceq "SMTP:" )
{
$primary = $temp
if( 
$secondary.Length -gt 0 )
{

break   ## we have both primary and secondary,

## we don't need to look any more
}
}
elseif( $prefix -ceq "smtp:" 
-and $len -gt ( 5 + $secondaryDomainLen ) )
{
if( 
$temp.EndsWith( $secondaryDomain ) )
{

$secondary = $temp

if( $primary.Length -gt 0 )

{

break   ## we have both primary and secondary,

## we don't need to look any more

}