Re: Firewall Software Recommendations?

[Gerald Vogt]

On Feb 16, 9:53 pm, rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 16 feb, 13:06, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > > > shatter attacks
>
> > > It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> > > programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> > > systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> > > in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> > > Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> > > into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> > > makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> > > exploit.
>
> > If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> > not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> > Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> > up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> > wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> > that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> > would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> > Astonishing... ;-)
>
> This is not a library, this is usenet.

Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.

> FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.

I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
use Google. The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...

Gerald

[Bear Bottoms]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:00:58 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:


>> This is not a library, this is usenet.
>
> Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.
>
>> FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.
>
> I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
> use Google. The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
> like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...
>
> Gerald

LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a group
even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
it...astonishing.


--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

[Gerald Vogt]

On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a group
> even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
> up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
> it...astonishing.

??? I never said that everyone nor anyone in the group should go and
look something up which is easily available. What you want is: If
someone asked a question in a library to a group you would expect
everyone in the group to go look it up for themselves rather than have
the person who asked easily look it up...

It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".

Gerald

[Bear Bottoms]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:40:09 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> LOL...we are not in a Library, and if someone asked a question to a
>> group
>> even in a Library...you would expect everyone in the group to go look it
>> up for themselves, rather than have one person easily present
>> it...astonishing.
>
> ??? I never said that everyone nor anyone in the group should go and
> look something up which is easily available. What you want is: If
> someone asked a question in a library to a group you would expect
> everyone in the group to go look it up for themselves rather than have
> the person who asked easily look it up...
>
> It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
> they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
> the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
> group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
> Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>
> Gerald

While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if someone
does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
good thing. To just ***** at the op who should have provided it, still
leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a *****.

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

[Gerald Vogt]

On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
> > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
> > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
> > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
> > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>
> While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
> Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if someone
> does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
> good thing. To just ***** at the op who should have provided it, still
> leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a *****.

Where exactly is the *****ing if you tell someone that he can find the
information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with *****ing if
it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
*****ing. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
you directly there.

So I agree with you it would be some *****ing if it would take
multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
case like in many similar cases I don't see the *****ing if the
information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.

Gerald

[Bear Bottoms]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:55:24 -0600, Gerald Vogt <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 9:46 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>> > It is the expectation of many people in forums and the usenet that if
>> > they have a question which could be easily answered by looking up in
>> > the manual, google, wikipedia or similar they expect all people in the
>> > group to look it up and at least a few of them present the answer.
>> > Some even complain if you write them "see page 10 of the manual".
>>
>> While that is a good point...it is not just about the person who asked.
>> Once the question is asked, a lot of people want to know...and if
>> someone
>> does what (I'll grant you that) the op should have provided, IMO...is a
>> good thing. To just ***** at the op who should have provided it, still
>> leaves a gap and accomplishes very little beyond a *****.
>
> Where exactly is the *****ing if you tell someone that he can find the
> information easily with google or wikipedia? I agree with *****ing if
> it was not easy to find with google. But if you find several extensive
> explanations of something using the verbatim topic in question
> ("shatter attack") within the first 10 hits of google and if the first
> hit is an extensive wikipedia article on the topic I don't see the
> *****ing. You just enter the "shatter attack" and it is right there.
> You can even press the "I feel lucky" button of google and it takes
> you directly there.
>
> So I agree with you it would be some *****ing if it would take
> multiple attempts to find the best search words and then some
> extensive reading because some of the hits are misleading. But in this
> case like in many similar cases I don't see the *****ing if the
> information really pops up just by entering what you are looking for.
> Enter it in google and you'll find it immediately. Enter it in
> wikipedia and you'll find it immediately. That is too easy and I don't
> see the problem pointing someone into the same direction.
>
> Gerald

OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you ***** at him and also provide the
info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.

It took me just seconds, granted, but I'll just bet some were glad I
posted it.

Now don't yell at me....I'll cry!

--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info

[Gerald Vogt]

On Feb 17, 10:13 am, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
> OK, but I wanted to know too. Can't you ***** at him and also provide the
> info since you are already posting. I had to look it up...so I posted what
> I found so others wouldn't have to look it up. I wonder how many others
> looked it up when it could have been simply read in the thread.

Exactly that is the problem. Why do you post something which others
could easily look up themselves. If you use the internet, it is
important to learn how to use search engines and how to find relevant
information. It saves all a lot of time and usenet bandwidth if
everybody would be willing to learn that. If you are unwilling to
spend the few seconds it takes to find the information you should not
be helped. Just like those people who are absolutely unwilling to
check something in the manual although their problem is easily found
in the index and/or table of contents.

And kind of just like the people who immediately complain if someone
tells them something about netiquette or rules of usenet posting,
quoting, etc. Being new to something does not exempt you to learn. You
don't have to know everything but it is expected that you are willing
to learn. But you won't know if noone tells you. But telling someone
only gets complains back that someone could not know because he's new.
For some people it is only a lame excuse not to play by any rules
expecting others to serve them... That is my opinion.

Just like your full quotes. You simply leave the full quoted text in
your post and write your answer at the bottom. I find that annoying.
It is not usenet etiquette. If you refer to something you write it to
the text lines to which you refer. Everything else, you delete. It is
useless. Now full quotes are pretty much fully useless. You don't
refer to anything in particular but to the whole article, even to my
signature.It is annoying because for instance I don't see what you
write in the preview view of the article. I have to scroll down only
to see if it is anything important to be answered or not. For longer
full quotes it gets harder as you have to scroll carefully through the
full quote to see whether there are some comments in between (like it
should be) or not. After you scroll through it only to find nothing,
you wonder what that should be for. All the time, the full original
text is just a simple click away in any threaded view of the
newsgroup. Thus, if I want to read the full text again, I can just
read the original.

It is a little tiny bit faster for you not to remove unnecessary lines
from the full quote. The effort for the reader is higher because he
does not know what you were thinking or reading or whether there are
some comments or not. Thus, you save yourself a few seconds at
somebody else's expense. And not everybody has broadband to download
all the superfluous full quotes. That's annoying. That's my opinion.
But it is not uncommon. But it is usenet etiquette not to full quote.

Now, how would I tell you that or some other newbie without getting
some complaints back?? ;-)))

Gerald

[rodney.usenet@gmail.com]

On 16 feb, 14:00, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:53 pm, rodney.use...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 16 feb, 13:06, Gerald Vogt <v...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 8:48 pm, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbotto...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:54:48 -0600, Sebastian G. <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> > > > > shatter attacks
>
> > > > It is as easy as: Wikipedia:In computing, a shatter attack is a
> > > > programming technique employed by hackers on Microsoft Windows operating
> > > > systems that can be used to bypass security restrictions between processes
> > > > in a session. A shatter attack takes advantage of a design flaw in
> > > > Windows's message-passing system whereby arbitrary code could be injected
> > > > into any other running application or service in the same session, that
> > > > makes use of a message loop. This could result in a privilege escalation
> > > > exploit.
>
> > > If you stood in a library and someone came to you (assuming you are
> > > not a librarian) and asked you for the name of the capital of
> > > Timbuktu, you would run and go and pick the next encyclopedia, look it
> > > up, copy it, and give it to the person in question? You would not just
> > > wonder whether that person was a little bit crazy or wonder whether
> > > that person thought you were a librarian and paid for that job? You
> > > would not tell that person that it should check a encyclopedia??
> > > Astonishing... ;-)
>
> > This is not a library, this is usenet.
>
> Correct. Google and Wikipedia are still just a click away.

I don't get the point. The wikipedia+google hint had been given before
in this thread by Sebastian G. What's wrong with another person giving
the answer ?

> > FYI: Timbuktu is the captial of the region Timbuktu in Mali.
>
> I know. It is not extremely difficult to find out if you know how to
> use Google.

Actually the info was still stored in my brain. High school.

> The wikipedia article is the first hit on google. Just
> like it is the first hit for "shatter attack"...

Yes, that's how I found out what it actually meant.
Speaking of attacks: Microsoft is trying to make something positive
out of worms.
I'm already looking forward to the MS-worm-SDK

http://technology.newscientist.com/a...are-fixes.html