Login with username and password (forgot your password?)

I've no clue how many of what type of software licenses you're working with. But it seems that the best thing would be to try to get them to someone that really needs (or deserves) them. Perhaps a variation on the commenter's lottery where the comments state in short the level of desire/need they have for program X. Stipulate from the get go that 25 words or less (keep it succinct) is required, and that one liner (Gimme free stuff) entries will be automatically disqualified.

According to Mercury News, about 70% of AOL users also use Facebook

That pretty much explains the stupidity phenomenon to me... (Because) ...Nothing screams retard louder than an @AOL.com address.

And what's also pretty nasty is that automated SSH probes have lowered their rate a lot - enough to not get caught by stuff like fail2ban. At least the sweeps hitting my server.

I'm not familiar enough with that combo to gauge how low that would be, can you put a number on it for me? I keep the account lockout threshold pretty tight because the company is small enough that I don't mind manually unlocking an account if need be. But if it's going slow enough to get under/past that ... I may consider worrying.

Seems like we got half a plant full of script kiddies running port scans for targets to run dictionary attacks against. Our FTP server here has been attacked as many as 10 times in one day...which is quite a bit considering they're sustained 2hr attacks. I just snicker as the logs scroll by and wait for some one to complain that their account is locked out.

Have you looked at the download-able templates and such on the MS Office site? Our receptionist goes there quite a bit for misc. whatnot.

This is actually getting quite interesting   Let's take it up a notch, shall we?

Sure, I haven't had this much fun on the Internet in a while

From The Patriot Post:

The Obama administration has argued that Americans don't enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their whereabouts as revealed by their cell phones, and therefore warrant-less tapping is allowed. Not only that, but lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" showing where calls were placed or received.

Now, you know that your cell phone has a GPS tracking device in it, and you make a call anyway.  If someone uses that information against you, your argument would be that the Obama Administration was correct in their argument?

Well... You're half right. The locality & time are standard items to track on any network, and if the phone carrier wishes to share their logs with the fuzz... Well... (sh)IT Happens.

Now on the second part, which is a rather mind blowing leap regarding warrant-less tapping. No, that ain't fair game for the phone carrier to just hand it over to the fuzz without warrant (pun intended). But that's the hiccup with any law enforcement agency - A never ending game of access - Which was created specifically to keep them honest. 10 years ago that would have been a simple question (answer: hell no), But with fear & the patriot act running rampant George Orwell's popularity is once again soaring.

I come from a time when there was us, and them - The A infamous Them, the fuzz, the man, big brother, etc. There was a core group of people you trusted and held dear, and the rest of the world sucked - Cops? ...Were just another street gang to be avoided.

[Side note] I've been sitting here rereading that last part for the past 20 minutes, and much as it sounds like the opening line of some lame-assed dime novel - I just can't fix it (I've been side tracked about 400 times - I'll try to do better on the next part). [/Side Note]


To take it further still, from the EFF:

Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.

However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.

So, in the case that I am outside of your home, in a public location, do you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy?  It seems to only cover the inside of your home.[/quote]

Slippery slope of intent vs. discretion there. The Castle Doctrine states that you can defend your property with deadly force if being threatened. There is no obligation to flee or prove that one was cornered before taking the offensive. This being countered by proximity and the neighbors having the same options rights.

I actually have a first hand perspective on this, being that the neighbors are rather close, and prone to throw somewhat wild (loud really) parties. Ebonics and lingo aside... my hearing is not what it used to be. So If I can make out the details of the crime you are boasting about committing to your buddies (which I then relay to a cop that happened to be in the neighborhood...because I called them), solely because you were shouting it out in the middle of the yard, loud enough for me to hear next door. ...Hay it's all you. ...But that's the price one pays for waking me up at 2:00am <- Now that's (a true story, and) the best example of lacking discretion I can think of.

Intent, on the other hand, would be using a parabolic microphone to hear a whispered conversation in a closed room (where privacy is to be expected).

But Google isn't aggregating the information.  Your ad analogy also leaves something out as you are intentionally submitting your information to an aggregator (the newspaper).

Right, Just like the folks on Social Networking sites intentionally submit their personal info to the Social Network - Which is a Public Forum no different then the Personals Column of the Local (equally public) News Paper.

I suppose something in the middle would be more to the point, i.e. I'm walking by and you're talking on your cell phone about leaving the country.  Then I tell someone who robs you.  Did you broadcast to me specifically?  No.  But it was public.  So did I do anything wrong?

Hm... (Muddy Waters...) I'll go both ways on this. If someone is having a private (phone) conversation in a public place, and they're keeping their voice low (as a best effort) to avoid broadcasting the information then that would be you. However this does require an overt breach of privacy and intent.

Now (Much closer to the typical Social Networking Herd) If someone was yelling (as they often do) into one of those silly ear-bud widgets. ...Which leaves most of us wondering if they are actually talking to us, are completely insane, or are in the middle of a phone call ... Then it their own fault.

If you lose your wallet and somebody finds it, then strips out the cash and tosses the rest into a dumpster. Did they rob you? No. Were they nice to you & a kind person? (hell) no. Is it your fault for leaving your wallet on the roof of the car when you drove away giving them access to it in the first place? Damn Straight.

[being divulged in a public forum]

Sorry Joker, but your example would be more appropriate without the aggregation.  This site aggregating the information makes Wraith's example closer.

Not really, Wrath's example leaves out one critical point. That is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. The example openly admits the Wraith is casing my house where I'm to have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. My example allows for the fact that the critical personal information is already being divulged in a public forum by me. There is no expectation of privacy in a public forum (real/reasonable or imaginary).

Therein lying my point, sheeple babble their entire life story in a public forum without any regard for how that information may be used by other people who are also active in said public forum (that may have ill intent). That quit simply puts them at the center of the causality of their downfalls (because they didn't stop and think about the ramifications of their own actions).

If somebody googles a persons name, and google pulls up comments made by that person saying here's my house and I'm on vacation ... Is google guilty of anything? No.

True, but AV software can't "protect" you from a hacked legitimate site either. Drive-bys ... part of Common Sense (these days) involves reduced permissions & UAC which is a combo that even works on the 0 day stuff the AV types haven't had time to respond to yet.

UAC is nice, and I depend on a combo of UAC and FireFox with adblock+noscript - obviously noscript won't help me if a legitimate whitelisted site is hacked, though. And UAC wouldn't have protected me against the NTVDM local privilege escalation if I had been on a 32bit system.

Bad enough we're going off on a tanget, now I gota dice through which context we're in. Neither of us is a typical/average user and it's pointless to drag through the move countermove NTVDM exploit could be avoided by killing unused 16bit subsystem vs. Joe average has no Idea what/how/where that is/is done nonsense. ...As it's nowhere near the threads topic.

OTOH an antivirus product (or rather, HIPS) depending not just on stupid static analysis but some decent kernel-mode hooks wcould add an extra layer of protection.

Sure (layers are good), and it would even be an effective one if the AV sales drones would stop hyping it as a Magic Bullet.

[and]

And you can't really expect to blame it on the person when it happens, can you?

Honestly? ...Yes.

So, to carry it a bit further, if I case your house, then let someone know when you're gone, and they happen to rob you, it's your fault.  You let me know when you were leaving by driving out of your garage, so you can't blame me... right?

That's a bit to microcosmic for the sake of accuracy. A better analogy would be, if I were dumb enough to put an ad in the paper saying I was going on vacation, and that ad included sufficient personal information for my abode to be located. And you pointed out said ad to various people saying look at this idiot - He should get robbed for being that stupid.

Then, you would be 100% correct, and I would indeed be that stupid and (e.g. deserving of said blame).

But there are better ways to do it- the search based on username and location is the largest part of what I have a problem with. If they just posted and scrolled it off the page (which they do), I wouldn't have a problem with it as a social awareness project- but to actually allow searches?

But that's really the only easy way for (Sheeple) someone to look themselves up to see if their Digital Fly is Down.

And it's a lot different than a party- a party is only a few hundred people, and what are the chances that someone in your circle of friends or their circles being a crook.  Now expand that to the online community- what are the chances that someone there is?

(Ya know they say there is one in every crowd...) I'd say it's a 50/50 either way - But I do tend to be a bit cynical...

Then what is the chance that someone will use this in a negative way?

I'd say they are identical to the chance of anything on the internet being misused. Which is identical to the chances that imformation gleaned from a book in the public library will be misused.

And you can't really expect to blame it on the person when it happens, can you?

Honestly? ...Yes.

I've been harboring much the same ill feelings toward AV companies for years. I'm an advocate for common sense, it's twice as effective, uses (wastes) no system resources, and is free.

And unfortunately doesn't protect you against drive-by exploits on hacked legitimate sites :/ - the only thing I've been hit by the last 10+ years. (I still don't run any AV software, though ).

True, but AV software can't "protect" you from a hacked legitimate site either. Drive-bys ... part of Common Sense (these days) involves reduced permissions & UAC which is a combo that even works on the 0 day stuff the AV types haven't had time to respond to yet.

Thanks for stopping in, Dmytry

I've been harboring much the same ill feelings toward AV companies for years. I'm an advocate for common sense, it's twice as effective, uses (wastes) no system resources, and is free.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! BINGO ...Give That Man A Prize!!!

 

Perhaps, but I look at the "Social Networks" as being no different than being at a party IRL. Say the wrong thing to the right person and it can end badly on several levels. People seem to thing they have an automatic "Safety Sticker" on the interweb because they're (safely...) in their homes. An they're not... Much like any interaction between parties since the beginning of time; one needs to be discreet about how much information they give out and to whom (when & where should be considered also).

The people listed on the site have already announced their whereabouts in a public forum - The site is simply trying to dramatize why that is bad (by putting them all in a group next to a Notice the Fool sign). Now, the fact that this is going on has certainly grabbed our attention and (that was the point) hopefully it should get more then a few people to stop and think about how much is too much information to be broadcasting to the world.

Theory vs. practice ... despite what is supposed to happen, I've seen this rather unique conflict game play out in the (real world) field many times.

(If somebody fails to temporarily cancel delivery) Is the news paper boy culpable for delivering your paper every day you're on vacation? A stack of papers in the driveway is a big red flag.

A flag is a flag, and people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions instead of constantly whining all the time and expecting to be protected from themselves. It's either Common Sense -or- Natural Selection (it's a law) needs to be allowed to run its course.

No, they can't ... because people really are that thick. Just look at the texting while driving stats)

VB runtimes gave the whole framework thing a bad taste, MFC didn't really help either (and .NET ... still fits the same bill).

Here's the thing, One .NET app is not a big deal, and two usually isn't either. But... When you start getting 4, 5, 6+ especially when different service pack levels are required ... Things tend to mire quickly.

easily 90% of .NET app come with some type of installer. (and...) Not all installers are intelligent enough to stop and make sure the runtime package they're holding is necessary. So you install app A and app B explodes (I see this a lot). ...Becaused something got moved/changed/updated/tinkered with (what shouldn't). Now if app A just so happens to be a mission critical vertical market management application (and it usually is...) You-Are-Screwed.

I'm usually looking for apps that are small, portable, and have as close to a zero presence foot print as possible. If I have to install framework anything to run an app, then I'm no longer troubleshooting (Just) the problems that existed before I got there - As I now have to deal with the very real possibility that there is now a new problem that I just created by installing X which is (conflicting with Y) now compounding the issue that got me called to the site in the first place.

do ping

I can ping with mine. I rest my middle finger on my thumb, then flick it out sharply onto the screen -- pings like anything!
And they say I'm not technically inclined!

Cripes, I haven't tried doing a word search in years.

Completed in: 11min 18sec

That reminds me of this Phishing Test I took a while back.  I got a 10/10 on it, but from a quick search through my inbox, phishing emails can look more legitimate than the real thing.

Love the test - I'm going to have the entire office take it tomorrow -LOL- this outa be fun...

Seriously, the verification methods that most financial institutions use are so flimsy is no wonder the entire planet hasn't be stolen 10 times over. Here's an example: My mortgage company will not let my wife make changes to the account, because she is not on the mortgage. However... They'll happily sit there and talk to her about it all day long. If she wants to make a change, she has to get me to verify that it's ok for her to make said change. ...Almost sounds perfectly secure there doesn't it... The "verification" consists of her handing me the phone, the agent asks me my name, last 4 digits of SSN, and birth date.

Now what has actually been verified in that scenario? Only that some guy (or person with a deep voice), has my wallet, and wants to screw with my finances.

Oh yeah, here's my all time favorite ... Shell Oil decided to enforce a protection scheme on their gas cards. It consists of requiring one to enter their zip code when using the card. Apparently nobody at Shell knew that Address & Zip Code are a standard part of the information contained on every driver's license ever made. (Add what two cards are guaranteed to be in anybodies wallet) ... Doh!!

I'm with ya ... I just haven't managed to reach a tipping point yet. Now if one of these devices had a CLI that allowed me to (grab someones WiFi and) do ping, whois, nslookup, etc. I'd go for that.

Add me to the list of folks requesting a portable version. I've been using Xteq's Xfind for doing basic string searches in server log files (4+ Gig of plain text) etc. ...But this looks way cooler.

I can sort of confirm the nothing happens (I'm on Win7 x64 pro). I didn't have any pics with the same resolution as the desktop, but I gave it a shot with a different size and it tiled the existing wallpaper into blocks the size of the image I'd selected.

(Correction/clarification-> It didn't change the size of the currently displayed wallpaper, it only tiled it at its native size (it had been stretched to fit).