Recent Posts
Depends. Does unzipping always overwrite files? It actually shouldn't.For the intended use of this program (as I understand it: upgrading websites, especially pre-fab systems), it should.-Tuxman (January 07, 2010, 06:11 PM)
(So who cares about index.php?)Ask any website owner who has his site defaced-Tuxman (January 07, 2010, 06:11 PM)
The visitors need a link to the file anyway. Where should that be?*facepalm*-Tuxman (January 07, 2010, 03:40 PM)
But having dual monitors sure is great, so I suppose a big widescreen monitor with a large resolution and Windows 7's feature that makes apps fill half the screen (or jgpaiva's GridMove) would be essentially the same thing.Far from it! Win7 or GridMove/similarapps have some of the advantages, but doesn't go all the way... one pretty great thing about dual-monitor setups is being able to play a game on one monitor, and have other stuff (like instant messaging and mail) running on the other-Deozaan (January 07, 2010, 05:29 PM)
[I think this works fine for NTFS partitions only ?]Yep, it works by directly reading the MFT, which is why it is so fast - and requires admin privs. The app should really be rewritten to admin-priv service and LUA-priv GUI...-MerleOne (January 07, 2010, 10:02 AM)
I forgot where I moved the files.-superboyac (January 07, 2010, 08:29 AM)
Actually there's only one of those missing and that's "Hibernate" and I can certainly add that one (if I can find a suitable imageSleeping bear! Sleeping bear!-Markham (January 07, 2010, 12:09 AM)
On a slightly different note, an interesting idea:The device looks slightly clumsy, and I think I'd prefer a slightly bigger e-ink display... but (2:37 into the video) I'll have to say this sounds very++ promising! Keyphrase: "easy to bring your own content"!, PDF support, how it folds, available in february... AND he has some book open on chapter 42. Gotta love it
YouTube - CES 2010 video - enTourage eDGe beyond ebook readers
A TFT + ePaper dual screen combo, Android based, to be used for reading, annotating, surfing, etc.-Mark0 (January 06, 2010, 06:01 PM)
All I know is it works as well if not better than 3.6 beta 5. It's not the easiest thing in the world to even find FF betas on the Mozilla sites. The whole setup is totally disorganized. Not to mention having about 5 concurrent versions extant. The whole thing looks like a churning operation.Prolly because betas aren't meant for the general population? Sure, if you're a web developer you'll want to keep on top of things, but otherwise it's safer to stay with non-betas-MilesAhead (January 06, 2010, 05:38 PM)
).Ooooh, duh! - I thought self-extracting meant "generate .zip output". Facepalm, more coffee to me - this could be pretty darn useful when you don't have shell supportBut what's the point?
Are there hosts which allow you to run PHP scripts but don't give FTP access? And don't allow .zip files from web-based upload forms? O_o-f0dder (January 05, 2010, 09:15 AM)
The problem is not uploading the zips, but unzipping them server-side.
Uploading a crapload of small files takes ages over FTP.-scancode (January 05, 2010, 10:01 AM)
it's just a special Virtual Shell Folder... read up on the windows shell namespace. You could call it OMFGSENSATIONALISM!.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C} for all Windows cares
Look what happened when the industry tried to push DRM for portable audio players. Plain non-DRM mp3 players won.They did? I see most of the sheeple around here running iPods... while those fortunately do support plain old MP3s, where' the high-quality non-DRM support? Where's the online stores to get the music legally? Where's the support for transferring files back and forth freely, without relying on a DRM-heavy closed-source application? File format is only part of the problem-Nod5 (January 05, 2010, 05:57 AM)
Can anyone who is running Vista confirm that the directory I listed is correct? That's where the directory is created in Windows 7 but I'm not sure if Vista differs.<Win+R>, "%appdata%\Craven Entertainment", <Enter>-Deozaan (January 05, 2010, 01:14 AM)
That's the best you can do? Nice move ignoring the iptables link, which sounds like it could potentially be a lot worse than the cry-wolf XP bug. Yep, it was serious, if you had enabled ICS - not something most home users do... and the resources I've seen say that server editions weren't affected.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)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 09:53 PM)
Some are "better" however."Secure by Default" is a very nice goal, and MS has been sleeping in class. The XP-SP2 firewall and DEP were steps in the right direction, UAC was a major step (too bad default user wasn't made non-admin alread in Win2k). And then there's ASLR and a whole bunch of enhancements to the heap manager, not to mention various security enhancments in the Visual C++ compiler. None of this by itself is perfect, but 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.-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 09:53 PM)
Of course you can configure *ix to be insecure, of course you can even have a secure Windows XP server or something. The software running on the server is the bottleneck - and now we're on topic again. The one who installs and maintains the software is responsible for it to work properly. If he fails, not even a firewall of any kind can help him. If he succeeds, he doesn't need paranoia. There might be something in between. Does it really matter?Well, duh, isn't this what I've been saying all along? Except for the "doesn't need paranoia" part... a packet filter isn't paranoia, it's an additional level of security. Hopefully it'll never be needed on neither hosts nor servers, but if you have a breach it can save your ass - and I bet you aren't able to measure a performance difference whether it's enabled or disabled.-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 09:53 PM)
If you don't need something complex, why waste time developing it? *u*x and Windows are different philosophies. 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.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)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 09:53 PM)
Ah, now you're talking a lot more sense. But let us revisit your original statement, which is what got this started: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)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 09:53 PM)
...see a slight difference between those two statements?Disable Windows Firewall - And there it is!How many reasons why the Windows "Firewall" is neither a firewall nor of any use would be enough to convince you that disabling it is a good idea? I think I could find dozens of them.-Innuendo (January 04, 2010, 04:18 PM)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 04:23 PM)
ICS is disabled by default, and the only unscheduled reboots in the last 10 years on the (approx 20) Windows servers I manage were due to either hardware failures or power outages that outlasted the UPS.Do you have a clean & untweaked XP-SP2 you can confirm this on, or official docs?-Stoic Joker (January 04, 2010, 10:06 PM)
- I'm almost tempted to do a test install in vmware (damn insomnia!), but it'd make a helluva lot sense not to have it enabled by default.Packet filters and "real" (hardware) firewalls work on the network layer, "software firewalls" mainly on the application layer. (With a driver-thingy on another layer, probably, but then we'll have a packet filter again.)The personal firewalls I've seen - included Windows' own - have been packet filters, your link talks about a completely different thing. Some of the personal firewalls additionally knows about socket<>app relationship and can do application integrity checking... and then there's the next class that adds packet/protocol inspection. But let's stick with packet filters since that's what Windows' firewall does.-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 08:55 PM)
Proof? 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). Using linux iptables can be potentially dangerous; ironically, a lot of "hardware firewalls" run linux kernels.[you claim that] Windows' built-in firewall is useless... and potentially dangerous.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 08:02 PM)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 08:55 PM)
Because Windows is not known for stability and security, both of them are the most important attributes of servers IMO.That's a claim I've heard before... of course we have no way of knowing if any of the servers on the uptime lists have been exploited (my guess is not), but you wouldn't really have multi-year uptime if the system wasn't stable. As for security goes, any internet-facing server set up by a competent sysadmin will only have necessary services exposed, and will have those services running in reasonable security contexts. NT has a lot more flexible security model than your standard run of the mill linux, by the way - adopted from VMS.-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 08:55 PM)
(Oh, and Windows' cmd.exe without [at least] some *ix tools is, at best, a sick joke when it is about configuration and server maintenance.So what, really? Windows isn't unix, things work differently. You can automate settings with policies... sure thing, I use tools like grep on my windows box pretty often. But for the tasks I do here, I don't need a more powerful shell. The few times when a simple batch file won't suffice I'd much rather be whipping up a Python script... if you don't feel that way, go PowerShell or Bash. But yes, we're drifting. My point is that, well, you use different systems differently. Being able to handle configuration via SSH is nice though, especially over slow links (but thanks doyc that the RDP protocol isn't as retarded as VNC).-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 08:55 PM)
I don't think anybody claimed you could have a secure environment if you let uneducated users run amok with admin accounts. You're the one who flat-out claimed that packet filters aren't firewalls and that Windows' built-in firewall is useless - which is ludicruous, for reasons mentioned in this thread as well as the previous one.Fortunately, I'm not a stupid user that clicks yes to everything, and locations that are sensibly set up will have non-trusted users run as exactly that: non-trusted users without admin privs.So, at least, we're talking on a similar level. Quite a progress yet.-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 07:32 PM)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 07:46 PM)
1) I already said this didn't apply to regular users (but I find it worth mentioning nonetheless).Btw, as for automatic updates: standard users should keep that on. But, while it hasn't happened very often, once in a blue moon and on a subset of configurations, updates have caused trouble.I know about that, but I wouldn't count this as a reason to disable AU for standard users. We're not talking about important servers right now (which should never run Windows anyway), right?-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 07:32 PM)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 07:46 PM)
Requires ICS to be enabled - dunno if it is by default, but if you're not using ICS I'd say you might as well turn it off. Also, while still serious, at least it does require the attacker to be on the LAN. And I'm not saying there's none for more recent versions, haven't googled and haven't heard any black-hat whispers about it, so *shrug*. Haven't seen one in the headlines yet, though.Show me an exploit for the built-in Windows PF? Not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it.There is one for the XP firewall, and I doubt there are none for newer versions ...-f0dder (January 04, 2010, 06:49 PM)-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 06:56 PM)
If we assumed proper software design, there were no holes in Windows at all, right?Oh, sure thing, the world is filled with lots of not-so-very-well-written software. Windows, Linux and OS X have all had some very very embarassing security holes - both local-only and remotely exploitable. It's possible to write decent software, though, and one should think that a software firewall (if primarily focusing on packet filtering) isn't that hard a job to get right.-Tuxman (January 04, 2010, 06:56 PM)
