2201
General Software Discussion / Re: Thunderbird 3 Extensions: Your favorite or most useful
« on: January 19, 2010, 09:55 AM »Where is my Contacts Sidebar?Not yet updated for Tb3 final, it seems.-Ehtyar (January 18, 2010, 11:40 PM)
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Where is my Contacts Sidebar?Not yet updated for Tb3 final, it seems.-Ehtyar (January 18, 2010, 11:40 PM)
... sounds fair then. Thank you. 
you're normally running with a user account that has write access to the files you're interested in overwriting - duh?Now that is the server administrator's fault, right? If root uploads something he doesn't actually know into a folder where he could, theoretically, destroy a lot of things and runs the file, he is, basically, a jerk. In this case it is not of any interest, if the file is a zipped PHP or has to be unpacked via shell or anything...-f0dder (January 07, 2010, 06:17 PM)
For the intended use of this program (as I understand it: upgrading websites, especially pre-fab systems), it should.Isn't that related to the files' CHMOD?-f0dder (January 07, 2010, 06:14 PM)
Did I say that?I thought your second sentence referred to your first one? (I quoted both.)-Josh (January 05, 2010, 11:18 AM)
Also, saying that running a software firewall is nowhere near as good as a hardware firewall is laughable due to the fact that hardware firewalls are SOFTWARE based running embedded on a set of dedicated hardware. In most cases, systems running personal firewalls are faster than the hardware included in the average home user firewall/router.So being fast is more important to you than being secure? You can't count that.-Josh (January 05, 2010, 01:05 AM)
Nice move ignoring the iptables link, which sounds like it could potentially be a lot worse than the cry-wolf XP bug.Not ignoring it, but keeping the discussion on-topic.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
too bad default user wasn't made non-admin alread in Win2kAFAIK he still is not?-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
it shows that MS certainly aren't ignoring the problem any longer - and you get a lot of stuff with NT now that you don't get with linux unless manually choosing a kernel with SELinux patches.Which is, at least, a giant step into the right direction after rolling backwards for years. Let's hope they'll stick with it.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
Well, duh, isn't this what I've been saying all along?Not quite, as we were still on "Personal Firewalls".-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
Except for the "doesn't need paranoia" part... a packet filter isn't paranoia, it's an additional level of security.... or maybe also insecurity. See, most people I know mix up "consider your system's security" with "install a security suite and everything is fine", and then they'll wonder why their system is fucked up.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
Hopefully it'll never be needed on neither hosts nor servers, but if you have a breach it can save your assSo far I (personally) never had a problem that could have easier been fixed by installing a packet filter. Lucky me.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
If you don't need something complex, why waste time developing it?cmd.exe is complex but not mighty. "Scriptable" but not "flexible". For my own workstation(s) it is more than enough, but fiddling with config files without grep or something sounds hard.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
Apparently enough users wanted a more powerful shell, and MS responded with PowerShell. Haven't used it myself so I can't comment on it's quality.To me, the PowerShell more looks like some .net command console, not a valid MinGW/Cygwin replacement. I really wish MS would consider making Windows POSIX-compatible by default for everyone, not only the high-class editions... would make life a lot easier.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
...see a slight difference between those two statements?Yep, I missed the "IMO" in my original posting. The statement is, basically, the same, but the second one seems to be more clearly or something. Sorry for fuzzy phrasing.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 10:23 PM)
You've come up with one thing so far, which is more than three years old, limited to XP, and requires the ICS service to be on (which it isn't by default, as far as a lazy google says).http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potential-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 09:32 PM)
And it's not like *u*x daemons haven't had their fair share of exploits during the years. Apache, BIND, wu-ftpd, whatnot. Also, both OS X and Linux kernels have had very interesting local privilege escalation during the recent months, some of which are present in several years worth of kernels... could that with a remote exploit in a single third-party service (or even something as a lowly PHP bug) and boom, you've got root. Non-Windows doesn't automagically equate secure - no matter what you run, you need competent server admins who keep their eyes open.Some are "better" however.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 09:32 PM)
So what, really? Windows isn't unix, things work differently.Now this is not a reason for having to use a rather mediocre shell, is it?-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 09:32 PM)
By this, you're saying that packet filters which require administrative privileges to configure are useless... to me. Maybe there are some rare circumstances that might be easier to handle with something like a "packet filter". Using such does not necessarily make your system more secure, though.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 09:32 PM)
