If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben
Pope" wrote: Jay T. Blocksom wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben Pope" wrote: It's a service pack for XP geared around security. [snip] And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP). Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player... [snip] You "presume" wrong. If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and installing them, then you'll probably be ok. [snip] Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as opposed to yours. OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend everybody switches over to Linux. [snip] Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately, relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are willing to make the effort to try. You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer". [snip] No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying. You still get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating control over your system to MS" is hardly correct. [snip] I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately. Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better. [snip] In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which applications and drivers one happens to need/use. Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of many problems on Win9x. [snip] It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-011.mspx -- Jay T. Blocksom -------------------------------- Appropriate Technology, Inc. usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,
"rstlne" wrote: [snip] How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious question) [snip] None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of "incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite) have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can (when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And that's the best you can ever hope for. If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around. Yea, Highly possible that one.. Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a explanation).. [snip] Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in reality. Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a registration server) and TONS of other stuff.. It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server, or really run ANY server.. [snip] All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue. Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard". -- Jay T. Blocksom -------------------------------- Appropriate Technology, Inc. usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.] On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:17:29 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben Pope" wrote: Jay T. Blocksom wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:11:05 GMT, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, R wrote: (2) Western Digital Raptor [snip] I don't see this as a "make or break" item; but since you're looking for opinions... Are you (mostly) looking for speed, or size? Either way, the WD360GD model is (currently) hard to beat on the "bytes/buck" scale, Eh? It's 36GB for like £90, [snip] You're quite right. After looking up the specs, I somehow slipped a decimal point when doing the arithmetic. I can get a drive 4 times that size for less money. [snip] Yes, but not with anything like that level of performance. while still maintaining "passable" performance. Passable? It's probably the second fastest ATA drive available. [snip] Which is still only "passable", as compared to a good high-end SCSI drive; probably less so if compared to an array. No single drive is a match for a RAID array? Well, duh... Stick two Raptors in RAID and you HAVE a match for a SCSI RAID array [snip] I don't think so. The underlying raw mechanicals may perform similarly; but the as-installed *system* performance will still suffer due to the extra overhead imposed by any flavor of IDE (granted, SATA may be *somewhat* less given to this than the older incarnations; but it's still significant). - in terms of price/performance. [snip] Well, if you sufficiently weight the comparison by price, then the three-year-old clunker you pick up for $5.00 at a garage sale can "win"; but it's a pretty pointless comparison. Now, for the place I think you're making a *serious* mistake: snip over-zealous rantings about windows security We all know Windows isn't great in terms of security, but keeping it up to date with Windows Update and a using an up to date virus checker is generally enough for most people. [snip] No, it isn't. Not even close. That's why *the* biggest source (by a wide margin) of spam and virii/worms/trojans are the vast numbers of compromised WinBoxen hung off "residential broadband" connections. -- Jay T. Blocksom -------------------------------- Appropriate Technology, Inc. usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.] On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:10:13 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben Pope" wrote: Jay T. Blocksom wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2004 19:45:38 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "Ben Pope" wrote: It's a service pack for XP geared around security. [snip] And with draconian DRM "features" shoved down your throat (not to mention all the *other* problems endemic to WinXP). Yeah, ok. But presumably only for Windows Media Player... [snip] You "presume" wrong. If you let Windows Update do it's thing, checking for critical updates and installing them, then you'll probably be ok. [snip] Actually, you'll be abrogating control over your system to MS, who will exercise that control based on *their* priorities, motives and desires, as opposed to yours. OK Mr. Paranoid. Stop using any commercial software then... use only Open Source from now on so that you can verify what it does. Recommend everybody switches over to Linux. [snip] Somewhat extreme, but a good approach, if you can pull it off. Unfortunately, relatively few folks can; and even fewer *believe* that they can, or are willing to make the effort to try. You are saying that security is a big issue, but not to apply security updates from MS in case they "take control over your computer". [snip] No, that is NOT AT ALL what I said, or am saying. You still get the choice of whether or not to install the updates, so "abrogating control over your system to MS" is hardly correct. [snip] I take it you haven't read your EULAs lately. Win98 is not a particularly good OS in terms of memory management and multi-tasking. W2K and XP are MUCH better. [snip] In this specific context, very probably so. But it's not as black-and-white as you might think. A *lot* depends on exactly which applications and drivers one happens to need/use. Well of course, but the architecture is better, which means that things like applications now can't directly access hardware, a common cause of many problems on Win9x. [snip] It may be "a common cause of ... problems", but it is hardly the root of all evil. The WinNT code base has its own set of foibles and weaknesses; and many of the more recent (and most nasty) WinWorms/trojans/exploits/etc. target those weaknesses *exclusively*. For example: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-011.mspx -- Jay T. Blocksom -------------------------------- Appropriate Technology, Inc. usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[REPOST: Apparently, the original copy of this article did not propagate.
Apologies if duplicate.] On Mon, 10 May 2004 00:09:27 +0100, in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, "rstlne" wrote: [snip] How many of those 40$ routers have been exploted by back doors (serious question) [snip] None that I can think of off the top of my head. There have been a couple of "incidents" where buggy or ill-thought-out code in the router/FW itself caused problems; but these have been *very* few and far between. And that's the point, really: No one (least of all me) is claiming that a consumer-grade NAT router/firewall is a panacea, or can be 100% effective against all possible threats. Such "magic bullets" simply do not exist, at *any* price. But even the very crudest such devices (such as the hypothetical $40-wonder you cite) have an *inherent* advantage over all so-called "software firewalls"; and can (when properly used) provide orders-of-magnitude *better* protection. And that's the best you can ever hope for. If most people were to just purchase a NAT router from a local computer place, or the the ISP enabled NAT on their routers/modems, there would be a heck of a lot less compromised systems around. Yea, Highly possible that one.. Granted.. NAT has a real downfall.. From gamers not being able to host games, to some SSL sites refusing connection (Is what I hear, never seen a explanation).. [snip] Probably because what you "heard" is an old wive's tale, with no basis in reality. Webphones wouldnt work (unless they are going through a registration server) and TONS of other stuff.. It would mean you cant host your family webpage, nor run your email server, or really run ANY server.. [snip] All (with the unlikely but just-barely-possible exception of "webphones", the operational details of which I have not investigated) completely untrue. Please do not spread misinformation based on nothing more substantial than whatever semi-random "stuff" you may "have heard". -- Jay T. Blocksom -------------------------------- Appropriate Technology, Inc. usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Operating system and drives | Shiva | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | January 5th 05 03:05 PM |
"Operating System Not Found" - revisited | seabat | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | December 4th 04 01:25 PM |
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software | Timothy Daniels | General | 11 | December 12th 03 05:38 AM |
Overheating Overclocking PSU System Temps Inifinite Loop | Nick Le Lievre | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | November 27th 03 06:10 PM |
"System temperature too high" warning | Dave Ulrick | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:03 PM |