I absolutly agree with you about what is being called "real time" being too
late (unless it is done on the
network, where interruption for allow/deny choices becomes more difficult).
General purpose OS's are not built for RTC needs, so I simply don't think
that these computing defintions
apply to
Ben,
I agree with your points. This is my problem with the word real time
scanning. In computing real time operations are defined as this.
"In computer science, real-time computing (RTC) is the study of
hardware and software systems which are subject to a "real-time
constraint" —ie. operationa
Hmm, I have to say I'm not really much more scared about this than
as with any other web browsing. To the end-users I support, who are
just as likely to "accidentally" click on some bad email attachment or
"accidentally" surf into nether regions, there is little or no difference.
It *almost* appe
Ya your right Ben, I should have posted a example or two.
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/734
http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/google-search-api-worms
I know there is a lot of hype out there about this. Some of this is
just theory and some of it is or will be fact when some one re
Are you asking if we know that AJAX can do things that we should consider
scary?
(I think I agree... but...) How about giving a few examples of why we
should be
so scared? There are a LOT of folks who won't disable JS since it "breaks
the web"
almost as much (in their opinion) and unplugging net
Real time scanning is over rated in my book. The only time you need
to scan items real time is when your receiving e-mail. If you turn
off Active X and java script ( If you can. ) You should be fine. It's
really scary what we can do with AJAX and Java script in the web
browser. I'm sure most o
FYI,
clamav doesn't have a real-time scanner (that is, it only scans when you
schedule it to scan).
On 2/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just out of curiousity, how does AVG size up against Clam AV?
-E
___
EUGLUG mailing list
Ya FireFox and be a memory bloat depending on how many tabs you have open.
-Miller
On 2/15/07, Mr O <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Partial jest. Memory footprint is an issue with many new pieces
of software and it doesn't take much to bring Win98 to its
knees. So much of the "non-commercial" stuff
Partial jest. Memory footprint is an issue with many new pieces
of software and it doesn't take much to bring Win98 to its
knees. So much of the "non-commercial" stuff (AVG again!) runs
better with 98 than the commercial stuff (Symantec, et al) does.
So many new programs have so much bloat that eve
A lot of posts...had to see what all the traffic was about.
I fix I can tell you that no other "free for non-commercial use"
anti-virus software is less troublesome than AVG. Sorry but I've
played with NOD32, Kapersky, AntiVir, Panda, McCrappy, Norton,
ClamAV, and others.
I second Mr. O's obser
Mr O,
Ya I know you do that. My response was directed at this message.
You sent on the 12th, see below.
Just tell them not to buy a new printer, digital camera, DVD
burner, webcam, mp3 player, or flash drive. Also, don't upgrade
to any new Symantec, AOL, McAffee or any other software for that
m
I've never seen a message like that. Must be for people who
actually register the software.
--- Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That and the "You are probably a thief because you are using
> our free
> product in a business. How do we know you have a business?
> Because you are
> running a
> You mean "Hey everybody, 7.1 is outdated and we are
> discontinuing the version." You are "welcome to buy the next
> version so that we can continue to make a great product that
> isn't so damn bloated your system comes to a standstill while
> waiting for it to finish loading".
>
That and the "Y
You mean "Hey everybody, 7.1 is outdated and we are
discontinuing the version." You are "welcome to buy the next
version so that we can continue to make a great product that
isn't so damn bloated your system comes to a standstill while
waiting for it to finish loading".
If you prefer to continue l
> Just out of curiousity, how does AVG size up against Clam AV?
>
> -E
Ever since AVG started their obnoxious desktop pop-up campaign, I'll never
recommend them to anyone again.
-ajb
___
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/ma
lug.org
> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems.
>
> I don't get why that was addressed towards me!? I always
> tell
> people to update their AV and do security updates from MS but
> avoid IE7 for now. Also tell them to use Firefox and/or
&
Just out of curiousity, how does AVG size up against Clam AV?
-E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: euglug@euglug.org
Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems.
I don't get why that was addressed towards me!? I always tell
p
I don't get why that was addressed towards me!? I always tell
people to update their AV and do security updates from MS but
avoid IE7 for now. Also tell them to use Firefox and/or
Thunderbird depending upon their problems. I advocate safety and
security so I don't have to fix the same fsck'ing prob
I know most of you are sick of me ranting about this.
This is another reason why I don't think Windows (X) should ever be
put into a consumer device. Also should not be used in a business
environment with out very close supervision.
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/434
12 patches 6 of which
That is one way to do it. The other is to detect ( If you can) the
mac address of the offending traffic and block that. You can do this
at the AP ( Access Point ) on the customers side. Or stick it in your
AUP that if customers have AP's in there houses and don't apply basic
security measures.
Alan,
This is true. I guess my point is times are changing. The DMCA was
introduced around 2000 or 2002? Anyway don't ISPS have to post in the
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) or in a DMCA statement / policy some legal
warning? Just like that upstream providers are going to start putting
the screw
DOH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:15:08AM -0800, LinuxRocks! wrote:
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:15:08 -0800
> From: LinuxRocks! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems
Here's a troubling scenario surrounding rate-limiting by ISP's, if they
were to find malware traffic on a customer's connection. If the customer
runs an open wifi hotspot, then introducing malware traffic (whether it is
really from an infected machine or just replayed) would DoS the owner
of the
> If you look at the PSTN network if your causing problems. You will be
> blocked. If you are causing signaling problems ( on the SS7 network
> links ) you will be dropped. Problems on the PST are very far and
> few.
That's because telcos have a legal obligation to make it that way.
ISPs have
Mike,
You bring up a good point. You can't always block the bad traffic. I
do think the software and logic is getting better than what we had 3
years ago to work with. That said we all so didn't have the problems
we have today. Yes blocking, inspecting and rate limiting all cause
network laten
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:15:35PM -0800, larry price wrote:
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:15:35 -0800
> From: "larry price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group"
> Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems.
>
> On 2/12/07,
Ben,
I agree with your point. That is why I don't stick extra stuff on my
car unless I really need it. I also use my keen since of observation
to look out for speed traps. ( Works 75% of the time)
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Michael -- we also have to p
The quick anser is to ask if you can get the laptop with no OS
installed on it. The only usefully thing Dell installs on there
laptops. Is the app that sits on the tool bar and lets you know when
new firmware and bios updates are ready for download.
The upside of installing what ever OS you wan
One of the many pit falls of using Gentoo. If you don't mind
compiling all your applications all the time. It's like waiting for
Windows updates.
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Mr O <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I went to emerge X the other night and saw all that it wanted
but I fixed that in make.conf. Th
Mr O,
Due to the many problems with Windows (X Product) and the fact that
Microsoft does not spend lots of time searching for defects. ( I do
have to say Microsoft has done a 180 on the security front.) You
can't tell people not up date there virus scanning software. If you
can't afford to upda
Ben Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group"
> Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems.
>
> With enough money, we can pimp your Ford Model T:
> 1) any color you like (not even just black!)
> 2) highway-safe by modern DOT s
FYI, One of the major reasons ISPS don't just do this is that
identifying things like botnet traffic isn't always easy to do without
spending a lot of computing cycles. Spending those cycles at the very
least results in increased latency. I know of several companies who are
building next gen rout
I intend to get ahold of Mike C tomorrow and deliver the ethernet to Travis
after work. Other than that in uncertain.
-E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: euglug@euglug.org
Sent: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems
Mr O wrote
e to put some distro of linux on it,
but then what would I do with all of my old mac games?lol
-E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: euglug@euglug.org
Sent: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Operating Systems.
I think the answer to that is time. If i
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Ben Barrett wrote:
>
> It might be known that I have become an OS X supporter... and I think
> that computing platform has done more to offer users a good starting
> place to switch, now with parallels, boot camp, etc... hopefully Xen or
> similar (vmware?) will allow those l
also in-line...
On 2/13/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Barrett wrote:
> But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
> instance, all the while
> doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
> sucked by botnets.
>
Most major ISPs pander
See in-line below...
On 2/13/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Barrett wrote:
> Dare I say, their "negligence" is a "passive evil"
...
> If I ran a major petroleum
> business, I
> know that various other organizations would be on my case about the
> infrastructure
> threats & liabili
Ben Barrett wrote:
But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
instance, all the while
doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
sucked by botnets.
Most major ISPs pander to the RIAA because the law says they must.
I'm sure they'd much rath
Ben Barrett wrote:
Dare I say, their "negligence" is a "passive evil"
...
If I ran a major petroleum
business, I
know that various other organizations would be on my case about the
infrastructure
threats & liabilities involved... shipping security, site safety,
etc. IT
is simply not
mat
Ben Barrett wrote:
And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
Because there is no money in it.
Or more precisely, the expense and risks to undertake such a task
outweigh any altruistic motives.
Michael Miller wrote:
I think the ISP providers don't do enough to stop there users from
becoming problems.
ISP's should be firewalling there users off from the rest of the
world. If you need to ssh to telnet or what ever X service you should
pay extra. Basic Internet service should be low co
Ben Barrett wrote:
Aquarium screensavers are
a great example. Instead of having living pets to interact with
and experience life lessons about partnership and care with,
we "need" to burn extra watts to entertain those archaic fancies.
My office has a strict "no pets" policy. I need to live vi
Well stated situation, Bob. However, I was trying to propose something
more akin to a backbone policing endeavor, which would ideally keep any
major botnet infections from taking hold -- there will always be zero-day
issues, of course, but by the time 10K machines are infected, it should
be easy
Ben Barrett wrote:
> And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
> on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
Let's see what happens. $ISP puts in place a system to identify
pwnzored boxes. The first day, they identify 250,000 of them.
Man, you guys can rant with the best of em. ;) I'm out of town so I had
to skim through most of this, but thought I would throw my small amount
of own fuel on the fire:
(a) Out of curiousity, I looked up Vista on Amazon: Microsoft Windows
Vista Ultimate FULL VERSION [DVD] , $379.99
http://www.amazo
WELL SAID, Larry :)
I was feeling a bit to the right there for a while, re-reading what I wrote
;)
in regards to net neutrality, that is... and kind of wanting a solution on
the backbone. Net chiropractor, anyone?
Does this compare well to the postal service (or ups/dhl/etc.)?
My package conten
- Original Message -
"Russ Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they crack down on the botnets, what's to stop them from deciding
> (arbitrarily) that some other tcp/ip traffic is "bad"? I like the fact
that
> most ISPs have taken the attitude that they are just a piece of wire
>in t
On 2/12/07, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the fact that most ISPs have taken the attitude that they are
just a piece of wire in the circuit.
That is the essence of net neutrality. On a practical level though
most ISPs do engage in some filtering/packet shaping/rate limits and
Mr O wrote,
>P.S. Downtown or my place? I'm running low on drinks but as I
>have stated y'all are welcome to bring any sort of food and
>drink.
Facts to consider when making this decision:
* There's a women's basketball game at Mac Court on Thursday.
* As of last Thursday, apparently the Etherne
But they are [coordinating with "big brother"], pandering to RIAA for
instance, all the while
doing nothing to support the "little guy"... whose resources are being
sucked by botnets.
Consider this analogy: I'd liike local police to crack down on property
theft, say, even ones
under $700 in valu
Ben Barrett wrote:
And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
Personal opinion...
If they crack down on the botnets, what's to stop them from deciding
(arbitrarily) that some other tcp/ip traf
Michael Miller wrote:
NT 4.0? Why would your company support a OS that is no longer
supported? That is just asking for trouble.
When you have multiple customers that make several large purchases per
year that still use it, and tell you they don't plan on upgrading
anytime soon, then you will
Not so much a disagreeal but somewhat of an addendum. People
want printers, webcams, digital printers, and to do their taxes.
Google could offer an upload service through Picasa for photo
storage and send you a CD or DVD on request for a small fee.
Docs would be free to store. QNX or Amiga would be
I went to emerge X the other night and saw all that it wanted
but I fixed that in make.conf. Then I had X in 30 minutes.
Oh, wrong X.
Mr O.
--- Michael Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben,
>
> You have some really good points. I think the biggest problem
> are the
> individuals who say I
Just tell them not to buy a new printer, digital camera, DVD
burner, webcam, mp3 player, or flash drive. Also, don't upgrade
to any new Symantec, AOL, McAffee or any other software for that
matter. Just keep playing Solitaire and checking email on your
low cost DUN connection. They'll be fine that
FWIW, my aquarium got a "virus" and I finally got my
"anti-virus" installed this weekend. Hopefully the next time any
of you see my tank it'll be closer to clear again.
Besides, [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes a better Windows screensaver. At least it
keeps the CPU at 100% load to suck down those watts.
Thanks Michael -- we also have to patiently remember that we're hell-bent
on some ideals, as experts (or specialists, or avid hobbyists, whatever) in
this field. For instance, consider auto's; I have friends who suggest I
should bore out such-
and-such in my engine, put on Mag wheels, change out
Dare I say, their "negligence" is a "passive evil"
How long (yes, time!) until our society further grasps this Information Age
thing?
I think it will be obvious, in the future, that today's major stakeholders
did not do
their fair part to protect the infrastructure. If I ran a major petroleum
I think the answer to that is time. If it's not taking there slice of
the network to it's knees or costing them money they don't care.
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
on the botnet infrastructure?
Ben,
You have some really good points. I think the biggest problem are the
individuals who say I want X and get it. When they get X they use 1/2
of the features not knowing they leave there X to exploitation.
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed, more or less. A
And why aren't google, microsoft, and major ISP's really cracking down
on the botnet infrastructure?? They have all the tools and the power
To me, this says something about organized crime... sorta like getting
a traffic ticket ona bike while you notice drug deals and auto thefts
going on ac
Agreed, more or less. A major point, I think, is this:
Now that the industry has more or less collectively
decided that the network is now good enough to provide
WAN-delivered applications, and web tech such as AJAX
is helping deliver them smoothly, using existing architecture
such as standards-c
Bob,
Who knows. I don't think your doing any web surfing on it. Not only
that I don't think you can run a Java stack on there. I also don't
know what malware is out there for said OS. I think the largest
problem with sell low cost computers is this.
Normal end users don't update there softwa
No, I like that. I'd say it was bad if it was part of a botnet,
which I had no idea about, but I'm guessing it is not likely,
or at least not nearly as likely as if it was running win98 :)
...although you should be able to run those cheesy 90's games
in an emulator now, as you well know ;)
ben
I know some one is going to disagree with me on this one.
I think the now defunct company Network / Net Appliance not to be
confused with the Company NetApp. Network Appliance created a nice
little computer called a I-Opener with QNX and there Nano window
environment. No fancy graphics and anim
Ben Barrett wrote:
> I keep hearing from family and acquaintances about how happy they still are
> with their
> win98 boxen... ug, how do I explain the badness there, since it "works" for
> them??
One of the four boxes on my desk runs MacOS 8.5. It works for me (for
cheesy early '90s games). Is
If there were some way that Microsoft could release win98 to the FOSS
world, without providing undue competition with their own marketing,
that'd be a major help for the millions of "normal" users, who just need
to get online for common web/email uses where the upgrade costs
surrounding Vista
Agreed. At least they tend not to be on all the time sigh.
Chalk 1 up for organized crime, I suppose. It is fairly expensive,
in both money and time, for the average citizen user to avoid.
ben
On 2/12/07, Michael Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be interested to see what type o
I would be interested to see what type of network traffic over there
Ethernet / cable modem / DSL line. Can we say BOTNET participants.
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With enough money, we can pimp your Ford Model T:
1) any color you like (not even just black!)
2) highway-sa
With enough money, we can pimp your Ford Model T:
1) any color you like (not even just black!)
2) highway-safe by modern DOT standards
3) run on corn/rice/electricity/squeeze-cheese/etc
4) with dual DVD, PS3/Xbox360, GPS, etc
5) remote crank-start, either by embedding a monkey or via fancy electro
That would be my guess as well. There is just a point where you tell
client [with money] NT 4.0 needs to be replaced by Win3k Server. Or
what ever is running on NT 4.0 should be run on a Linux machine
running wine.
Just my $0.02.
-Miller
On 2/12/07, Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My
My guess: the clients [with money] will tell you what "good business" is.
ben
On 2/12/07, Michael Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NT 4.0? Why would your company support a OS that is no longer
supported? That is just asking for trouble.
On 2/11/07, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NT 4.0? Why would your company support a OS that is no longer
supported? That is just asking for trouble.
On 2/11/07, Russ Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mr O wrote:
> the major operating systems (linux, OS X.3,4,5, M$ 2000, XP, Vista).
Don't count just those.
The software company I work
Mr O wrote:
the major operating systems (linux, OS X.3,4,5, M$ 2000, XP, Vista).
Don't count just those.
The software company I work for supports the following:
Windows NT 4.0 and up
Linux, Redhat and SuSE officially, but it runs on just about any
distribution we've tried.
Solaris 7.0 and up
74 matches
Mail list logo
