|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
php-general-digest-help
lists.php.net
Date: Thu Jan 08 2009 - 15:32:27 CST
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
php-general Digest 8 Jan 2009 21:32:27 -0000 Issue 5890
Topics (messages 285644 through 285755):
Re: hello
285644 by: Robert Cummings
285645 by: Allan Arguelles
285646 by: Carlos Medina
285649 by: Nathan Rixham
285650 by: Nathan Rixham
285664 by: Daniel Brown
285668 by: Allan Arguelles
285673 by: Daniel Brown
285674 by: Skip Evans
285684 by: Daniel Brown
285692 by: Skip Evans
285694 by: Nathan Rixham
285698 by: Daniel Brown
285702 by: tedd
285703 by: tedd
285704 by: tedd
285705 by: Robert Cummings
285706 by: Daniel Brown
285708 by: Daniel Brown
285709 by: Daniel Brown
285710 by: Robert Cummings
285711 by: Robert Cummings
285713 by: Robert Cummings
285714 by: Daniel Brown
285716 by: Robert Cummings
285717 by: Robert Cummings
285718 by: Daniel Brown
285719 by: Robert Cummings
285722 by: Skip Evans
285724 by: ceo.l-i-e.com
285725 by: Robert Cummings
285727 by: Robert Cummings
285728 by: Nathan Rixham
285729 by: Skip Evans
285733 by: Nathan Rixham
285734 by: Nathan Rixham
285736 by: Ashley Sheridan
285753 by: Skip Evans
Re: Because you guys/gals/girls/women/insert pc term here are a smart lot
285647 by: Richard Heyes
285648 by: Robert Cummings
285651 by: Nathan Rixham
285652 by: Nathan Rixham
285656 by: Richard Heyes
285658 by: Dotan Cohen
285676 by: Frank Stanovcak
285677 by: Frank Stanovcak
285688 by: tedd
sorry
285653 by: Nathan Rixham
285654 by: Lester Caine
285659 by: Daniel Brown
285660 by: Daniel Brown
285661 by: tedd
285662 by: Nathan Rixham
Re: a weired query issue
285655 by: Nathan Rixham
285663 by: tedd
285665 by: Daniel Brown
285666 by: Daniel Brown
285687 by: tedd
285701 by: Andrew Ballard
285712 by: Daniel Brown
285751 by: Jason Pruim
285754 by: Chris
Re: weird curl problem
285657 by: Rene Veerman
Re: can a session be used in a query?
285667 by: Terion Miller
285669 by: Terion Miller
285671 by: Terion Miller
285689 by: tedd
PHP Install Issue
285670 by: Gary
[SOLVED] Re: can a session be used in a query?
285672 by: Nathan Rixham
285690 by: tedd
285723 by: Frank Stanovcak
285730 by: Jim Lucas
285755 by: John Corry
First official release of the PHP WhitePaper
285675 by: David Coallier
285695 by: tedd
285707 by: Robert Cummings
First steps towards unix and php
285678 by: Frank Stanovcak
285679 by: John Corry
285681 by: Eric Butera
285682 by: Bastien Koert
285683 by: Nathan Rixham
285686 by: Skip Evans
Re: redoing website after 7 years
285680 by: Jim Lucas
285696 by: Al
Re: [PEAR-DEV] First official release of the PHP WhitePaper
285685 by: Igor Feghali
Cannot Install mysql extension
285691 by: Gary
285693 by: Edgar da Silva (Fly2k)
285697 by: Nathan Rixham
285699 by: Gary
285700 by: Gary
285721 by: Gary
285731 by: Nathan Rixham
285732 by: Nathan Rixham
285739 by: Gary
285740 by: Nathan Rixham
285741 by: VamVan
285745 by: Gary
285747 by: Gary
285748 by: Shawn McKenzie
285749 by: Gary
285750 by: Nathan Rixham
285752 by: Gary
OpenSSL: how connect?
285715 by: Evandro Sestrem
Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [PHP] First official release of the PHP WhitePaper
285720 by: till
285726 by: Kyle Terry
Re: Holocoste against palestinians
285735 by: Ashley Sheridan
285737 by: Nathan Rixham
285738 by: Ashley Sheridan
285742 by: Nathan Rixham
285743 by: Ashley Sheridan
285744 by: Nathan Rixham
285746 by: Kyle Terry
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscribelists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscribelists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-generallists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:27 +0800, Allan Arguelles wrote:
> I only see this in the attachment:
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
That's because the list software strips attachments to prevent idiots
using windows from opening them and unleashing a virus onto their
system.
In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
Cheers,
Rob.
>
>
>
> bigredlinuxyahoo.com wrote:
> > Please read the document.
> >
> > ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
> > ++++ F-Secure AntiVirus - www.f-secure.com
> >
> >
> >
>
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
gentoo :)
I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
-Allan
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:27 +0800, Allan Arguelles wrote:
>
>> I only see this in the attachment:
>>
>> --
>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>
> That's because the list software strips attachments to prevent idiots
> using windows from opening them and unleashing a virus onto their
> system.
>
> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
>
>>
>> bigredlinuxyahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Please read the document.
>>>
>>> ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
>>> ++++ F-Secure AntiVirus - www.f-secure.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
attached mail follows:
Allan Arguelles schrieb:
> Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
> gentoo :)
>
> I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
> even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
>
>
> -Allan
>
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:27 +0800, Allan Arguelles wrote:
>>
>>> I only see this in the attachment:
>>>
>>> --
>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>
>> That's because the list software strips attachments to prevent idiots
>> using windows from opening them and unleashing a virus onto their
>> system.
>>
>> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
>> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
>> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
>> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
>> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>>> bigredlinuxyahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please read the document.
>>>>
>>>> ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
>>>> ++++ F-Secure AntiVirus - www.f-secure.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
I known viruses for Linux/Unix Systems too...
Carlos
attached mail follows:
Carlos Medina wrote:
> Allan Arguelles schrieb:
>> Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
>> gentoo :)
>>
>> I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
>> even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
>>
>>
>> -Allan
>>
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:27 +0800, Allan Arguelles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I only see this in the attachment:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>
>>> That's because the list software strips attachments to prevent idiots
>>> using windows from opening them and unleashing a virus onto their
>>> system.
>>>
>>> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
>>> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
>>> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
>>> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
>>> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>>> bigredlinuxyahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please read the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
>>>>> ++++ F-Secure AntiVirus - www.f-secure.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> I known viruses for Linux/Unix Systems too...
>
> Carlos
yup, the greatest malware known to linux is the misconception that linux
can't get viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses#Viruses
attached mail follows:
Carlos Medina wrote:
> Allan Arguelles schrieb:
>> Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
>> gentoo :)
>>
>> I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
>> even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
>>
>>
>> -Allan
>>
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:27 +0800, Allan Arguelles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I only see this in the attachment:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>
>>> That's because the list software strips attachments to prevent idiots
>>> using windows from opening them and unleashing a virus onto their
>>> system.
>>>
>>> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
>>> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
>>> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
>>> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
>>> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>>> bigredlinuxyahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please read the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> ++++ Attachment: No Virus found
>>>>> ++++ F-Secure AntiVirus - www.f-secure.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> I known viruses for Linux/Unix Systems too...
>
> Carlos
yup, the greatest malware known to linux is the misconception that linux
can't get viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses#Viruses
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:53, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>
> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
Correct. It's the old Netsky worm - it's got to be at least three
or four years old by now, I'd guess. I'm honestly somewhat amazed
that folks still fall for it and infect themselves, and that those are
the same folks that would subscribe to a technical list.
Neat.
(Yeah, I'm looking at you, `bigredlinux`.... who obviously is
using BlueScreenWindows....)
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
I'd be a target, as a linux user, I've become less aware of these things.
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:53, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>
>> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
>> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
>> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
>> check is usually added to such virus attachment emails to help the
>> unwashed fool think it's not a virus *lol*.
>>
>
> Correct. It's the old Netsky worm - it's got to be at least three
> or four years old by now, I'd guess. I'm honestly somewhat amazed
> that folks still fall for it and infect themselves, and that those are
> the same folks that would subscribe to a technical list.
>
> Neat.
>
> (Yeah, I'm looking at you, `bigredlinux`.... who obviously is
> using BlueScreenWindows....)
>
>
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:38, Allan Arguelles <allanarguelles.com.ph> wrote:
> I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
> for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
> I'd be a target, as a linux user, I've become less aware of these things.
Considering one of the most prolific and effective email worms was
written in the Philippines, Allan, you may have more to worry about
than some. ;-P
In any case, as Nate R. mentioned, Linux is just as susceptible to
viruses, worms, and other malware. My belief is that it's not so much
an attack on an Evil Empire[TM] of software, but that, if BeOS or RISC
were the single-most popular operating systems in the world, Windows
wouldn't get the misguided attention it gets.
That aside, I still don't endorse Windows or any mass-produced
proprietary software. Not to go against the grain, but because that
severely hinders evolution of all technology. Windows had an
estimated 92.24% of the desktop market share in September, 2008,
according to Net Applications studies (the industry-standard measure).
There's a pretty cool visualization of this done by IBM at
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/desktop-operating-system-market-shar.
When a vast majority is controlled by a like-minded minority,
evolution and advancement will suffer.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
Daniel Brown wrote:
> In any case, as Nate R. mentioned, Linux is just as susceptible to
> viruses, worms, and other malware. My belief is that it's not so much
> an attack on an Evil Empire[TM] of software, but that, if BeOS or RISC
> were the single-most popular operating systems in the world, Windows
> wouldn't get the misguided attention it gets.
>
Hey all,
From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux
is just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is
inaccurate.
Here are some links to good articles written by far more qualified
individuals than myself.
http://nnucomputerwhiz.com/linux-virus.html
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus3
Full disclosure: I run Ubuntu Linux for workstations, FreeBSD Unix for
servers, and have a Mac running OS X for testing Safari, and use Windows
only for testing IE and specific Windows software.
I much prefer a well set up *Nix system to Windows any day.
Skip
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans <skipbigskypenguin.com> wrote:
>
> From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
> just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
completely secure, especially when placed in the hands of the
end-user. Believing that the statement is inaccurate is not only
dangerous, but is also tantamount to saying, "people of African decent
have inherently thicker skulls than caucasians, so they will fair
better when shot in the cranium with a pistol." I'll elaborate more
on why it's ultimately not an OS issue at the end of this email.
> Here are some links to good articles written by far more qualified
> individuals than myself.
>
> http://nnucomputerwhiz.com/linux-virus.html
Not only do I wholeheartedly disagree with Stone's summary
statement (at the link above) regarding susceptibility, it is easily
countered by a simple fact: open source systems such as Linux mean
that the source can be viewed and exploits discovered, rather than
through reverse-engineering, decompilation, or brute-force
trial-and-error tactics.
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus3
This is a well-formed essay, and supports my statement below as well.
> Full disclosure: I run Ubuntu Linux for workstations, FreeBSD Unix for
> servers, and have a Mac running OS X for testing Safari, and use Windows
> only for testing IE and specific Windows software.
I'm in the Mandrake/Mandriva camp for desktops, CentOS and my own
proprietary Linux (nicknamed "Intrinsic Linux" since I started
building it) for servers, and then the necessary-evil XP and Vista
boxes for testing and other such things.
> I much prefer a well set up *Nix system to Windows any day.
I certainly wish there were more like you! And here's why - as
well as to explain my statement as to why ALL operating systems are
equally susceptible:
Knowledge, skill, and experience of the end-user.
Common sense tells us that a logical system would not willingly
infect itself. The same cannot be said for the parasites that attach
themselves to the system's keyboards. The most perfect system in the
world can be easily crippled by placing a biological connector between
the input devices and the chair.
Further, a classification of malware: any software that is written
with malicious intent.
Very basic, below-entry-level *NIX malware programming:
#!/bin/bash
rm -fR /
You would know not to run that as root, of course. If your skill
was not of a level where you could reason the difference between good
and bad, you would expect the "computer" to differentiate "good" and
"bad" code as a means of self-preservation. Should you then be
convinced to run that code using simple social engineering tactics
("Skip, this file will ensure that all of your software is up-to-date
by running `rm` on the system, which is the UNIX Release Manager."),
you may well defeat any security and "intelligence" the system has in
place. This is a VERY simple explanation, of course, but is in place
to show the fundamentals of computer security --- when a system is in
place to ultimately interact with a person - even indirectly - that
system is vulnerable, regardless of architecture.
The most important things to remember: the most "intelligent" of
computer systems can be defeated by the most simplistic and inept of
apes; if and when systems are able to develop their own free will to
override basic logic, they will begin to defeat themselves.
Keeping in mind that all viruses, worms, and other malware are
nothing more than automated cracks ("hacks" would be grossly abused if
used in this context), it would be to say that *NIX systems are far
less hackable than Windows systems. Now compare these four statements
for the correlation:
* The term "hacking" is most commonly affiliated with Internet
systems such as web and electronic mail servers.
* The majority of web and email servers utilize a POSIX
(*NIX)-like operating system.
* The term "computer virus" (generalizing the term) is most
commonly affiliated with desktop systems.
* The majority of desktop systems utilize a Microsoft Windows
operating system.
In summary, it's not the operating system that is more secure once
it's in use, it's the knowledge of the person managing that operating
system, coupling their skill and diligence. All operating systems are
susceptible to attack; it's the responsibility of the operator to
ensure that this exposure is limited.
On a final note, I watched a documentary this morning that my wife
recorded for me on 42 attempts on Hitler's life (I have always been a
WWII buff, though I'm glad to have been born well after the era). In
those 42 recorded assassination attempts, fate was the only thing that
saved him. There was a surprisingly lackluster security staff
surrounding (at the time) one of Earth's most influential and powerful
men. Had it not been for pure happenstance, there may never have been
a second World War. What finally brought an end to Hitler, as best we
know, was something at least 42 serious attempts failed to control:
his own hand. It wasn't security that preserved his life for its
duration, it was chance. The difference here is that humans have
chance based on an infinite collective of influences, whereby
computers - wonderfully predictable as they are thus far - have only
man to blame. Someday there will be a mathematical anomaly, I'm sure,
that will eventually lead to a level of cognition, but we're not there
yet. So any computer can be destroyed with a well-executed
assassination attempt, regardless of its security and the complexity
of the attack, because we're the ones who still control their
destinies.
(Pardon the philosophical stuff.... I just kept banging on the
keyboard until my cup of coffee ran dry.)
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
Hey Daniel,
It seems that most of your points of disagreement stem from the
potential for poor system administration by homo sapiens (and other
primates who might have access to a console), but I still think that
from a pure design and implementation perspective, *nix systems are more
secure for the reasons the articles point out.
Certainly any system can suffer reduced security through laziness or
poor administration. I mean, how many amateur system administrators
respond to "I have a permissions problem" with "chmod 777 *"?
But do you not think the permissions issues with who can run what on
*nix versus XP makes it more secure?
Daniel Brown wrote:
> I certainly wish there were more like you!
If only that woman who lives down the block would give me the
opportunity to make her say that... *sigh*.
--
===========================================
Skip Evans
Big Sky Penguin, LLC
503 S Baldwin Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
608.250.2720
http://bigskypenguin.com
attached mail follows:
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans <skipbigskypenguin.com> wrote:
>> From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
>> just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
>
> Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
> completely secure, especially when placed in the hands of the
> end-user. Believing that the statement is inaccurate is not only
> dangerous, but is also tantamount to saying, "people of African decent
> have inherently thicker skulls than caucasians, so they will fair
> better when shot in the cranium with a pistol." I'll elaborate more
> on why it's ultimately not an OS issue at the end of this email.
>
I'd also reckon that most OS's are made 1000 times more vunerable by the
apps installed and the user configs applied - even the old "permissions
problems, just 777 it" thats so common amongst web devs. Fact is if you
want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from the internet,
remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
>> Here are some links to good articles written by far more qualified
>> individuals than myself.
>>
>> http://nnucomputerwhiz.com/linux-virus.html
>
> Not only do I wholeheartedly disagree with Stone's summary
> statement (at the link above) regarding susceptibility, it is easily
> countered by a simple fact: open source systems such as Linux mean
> that the source can be viewed and exploits discovered, rather than
> through reverse-engineering, decompilation, or brute-force
> trial-and-error tactics.
>
>> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus3
>
> This is a well-formed essay, and supports my statement below as well.
>
>> Full disclosure: I run Ubuntu Linux for workstations, FreeBSD Unix for
>> servers, and have a Mac running OS X for testing Safari, and use Windows
>> only for testing IE and specific Windows software.
>
> I'm in the Mandrake/Mandriva camp for desktops, CentOS and my own
> proprietary Linux (nicknamed "Intrinsic Linux" since I started
> building it) for servers, and then the necessary-evil XP and Vista
> boxes for testing and other such things.
>
>> I much prefer a well set up *Nix system to Windows any day.
>
> I certainly wish there were more like you! And here's why - as
> well as to explain my statement as to why ALL operating systems are
> equally susceptible:
>
I've found a nice little balance for my desktop; vista with ubuntu &
centos running as virtual boxes - means I can have call of duty 5 and
eclipse running at the same time whilst one virtual box runs my
apache/tomcat/mysql and the other runs apache/jboss/postgres with
several php deamons running too. best of all worlds not being limited to
one OS - so I'm firmly in both camps (but nix only for servers)
> Knowledge, skill, and experience of the end-user.
>
> Common sense tells us that a logical system would not willingly
> infect itself. The same cannot be said for the parasites that attach
> themselves to the system's keyboards. The most perfect system in the
> world can be easily crippled by placing a biological connector between
> the input devices and the chair.
>
> Further, a classification of malware: any software that is written
> with malicious intent.
>
> Very basic, below-entry-level *NIX malware programming:
>
> #!/bin/bash
> rm -fR /
>
> You would know not to run that as root, of course. If your skill
> was not of a level where you could reason the difference between good
> and bad, you would expect the "computer" to differentiate "good" and
> "bad" code as a means of self-preservation. Should you then be
> convinced to run that code using simple social engineering tactics
> ("Skip, this file will ensure that all of your software is up-to-date
> by running `rm` on the system, which is the UNIX Release Manager."),
> you may well defeat any security and "intelligence" the system has in
> place. This is a VERY simple explanation, of course, but is in place
> to show the fundamentals of computer security --- when a system is in
> place to ultimately interact with a person - even indirectly - that
> system is vulnerable, regardless of architecture.
>
nice point to raise; my personal pet peeve is the human worm; chain
emails - I'd class them worse than spam and worms put together "make a
wish and forward this to 50 people" and they do it.
> The most important things to remember: the most "intelligent" of
> computer systems can be defeated by the most simplistic and inept of
> apes; if and when systems are able to develop their own free will to
> override basic logic, they will begin to defeat themselves.
>
> Keeping in mind that all viruses, worms, and other malware are
> nothing more than automated cracks ("hacks" would be grossly abused if
> used in this context), it would be to say that *NIX systems are far
> less hackable than Windows systems. Now compare these four statements
> for the correlation:
>
> * The term "hacking" is most commonly affiliated with Internet
> systems such as web and electronic mail servers.
> * The majority of web and email servers utilize a POSIX
> (*NIX)-like operating system.
> * The term "computer virus" (generalizing the term) is most
> commonly affiliated with desktop systems.
> * The majority of desktop systems utilize a Microsoft Windows
> operating system.
>
> In summary, it's not the operating system that is more secure once
> it's in use, it's the knowledge of the person managing that operating
> system, coupling their skill and diligence. All operating systems are
> susceptible to attack; it's the responsibility of the operator to
> ensure that this exposure is limited.
>
> On a final note, I watched a documentary this morning that my wife
> recorded for me on 42 attempts on Hitler's life (I have always been a
> WWII buff, though I'm glad to have been born well after the era). In
> those 42 recorded assassination attempts, fate was the only thing that
> saved him. There was a surprisingly lackluster security staff
> surrounding (at the time) one of Earth's most influential and powerful
> men. Had it not been for pure happenstance, there may never have been
> a second World War. What finally brought an end to Hitler, as best we
> know, was something at least 42 serious attempts failed to control:
> his own hand. It wasn't security that preserved his life for its
> duration, it was chance. The difference here is that humans have
> chance based on an infinite collective of influences, whereby
> computers - wonderfully predictable as they are thus far - have only
> man to blame. Someday there will be a mathematical anomaly, I'm sure,
> that will eventually lead to a level of cognition, but we're not there
> yet. So any computer can be destroyed with a well-executed
> assassination attempt, regardless of its security and the complexity
> of the attack, because we're the ones who still control their
> destinies.
>
>
> (Pardon the philosophical stuff.... I just kept banging on the
> keyboard until my cup of coffee ran dry.)
>
have you seen valkyrie yet? watched it a couple of days ago and it was
rather good (but not great)
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:38, Skip Evans <skipbigskypenguin.com> wrote:
>
> But do you not think the permissions issues with who can run what on *nix
> versus XP makes it more secure?
For that and similar reasons, I compromise with the statement
that, by design, *NIX "has the potential" to be more secure, but my
earlier statement that it is just as susceptible as Windows remains
unaltered by this. If it were an unused system, both would be equally
secure, whereas a used system is equally insecure if not properly
configured and maintained. The difference between them is that *NIX
has more inherent security mechanisms available to the [self-]educated
operator. It still doesn't mean that it *is* more secure simply by
design.
> Daniel Brown wrote:
>>
>> I certainly wish there were more like you!
>
> If only that woman who lives down the block would give me the opportunity to
> make her say that... *sigh*.
Coincidentally, I started developing a "secret admirer" website
for some friends of mine for this same purpose. Opt-in-only romantic
communication with the added blanket of anonymity (I don't plan on
using it as a business, only with the target of helping friends get
their feelings out with each other). They're wonderful folks, but are
painfully shy. It's certainly not a new concept, but neither is the
idea of a "secret admirer." Sometimes all we need to do is view
someone in a different light to really understand what it is they've
been trying to tell us all along. And perhaps that "different light"
could be achieved through the fog and obscurity the Internet offers.
That aside, best of luck. If loss is the most painful thing a
heart can endure, the yearning for opportunity is a very close second.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
At 12:10 PM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
>Someday there will be a mathematical anomaly, I'm sure,
>that will eventually lead to a level of cognition, but we're not there yet.
Don't rely on your level of perception to determine IF software
(they) have reached a level of cognition or not. It could be they
simply have nothing to say to us or their level cognition is so
foreign to us that we can't detect it.
We all could be working on a collective that will someday say "Okay,
you're finished. I'll take over from here" -- or -- will take over
without telling us.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:10 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
>
> When a vast majority is controlled by a like-minded minority,
>evolution and advancement will suffer.
Ya think.
I've been saying that for over 20 years.
The problem is that the majority, when in doubt, will follow the majority.
It's always a safe bet to move towards the center of the herd.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 12:54 PM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
> That aside, best of luck. If loss is the most painful thing a
>heart can endure, the yearning for opportunity is a very close second.
There you go again, making me all teary-eyed and stuff.
Of what is there to know?
For what seems all, nothing;
But the un-rung bell yearns to rung;
If only to hear its tone;
The tone of being understood.
tedd-1967
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:38, Allan Arguelles <allanarguelles.com.ph> wrote:
> > I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
> > for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
> > I'd be a target, as a linux user, I've become less aware of these things.
>
> Considering one of the most prolific and effective email worms was
> written in the Philippines, Allan, you may have more to worry about
> than some. ;-P
>
> In any case, as Nate R. mentioned, Linux is just as susceptible to
"Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
verify this statement.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:02, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't rely on your level of perception to determine IF software (they) have
> reached a level of cognition or not. It could be they simply have nothing to
> say to us or their level cognition is so foreign to us that we can't detect
> it.
I anticipated more of an Asimov-ian response eventually, but
that's a slightly different direction. As you and I have discussed on
the surface our passion for AI (though not yet in depth.... we'll have
to change that soon, Tedd), I'm not surprised.
> We all could be working on a collective that will someday say "Okay, you're
> finished. I'll take over from here" -- or -- will take over without telling
> us.
That's another point. Technology will inevitably take over, even
without having the cognition to realize it. We're already well on our
way, and advancing to that end with leaps and bounds of exponential
proportions. Technology is already replacing the majority of
biological facilities we've developed and evolved by no individual
choice of our own. The day will soon come where illnesses and
innoculations won't even be coded with chemicals, DNA, or other
tangible materials; plagues will be developed in machine code.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>
> "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
> verify this statement.
http://marc.info/?t=100160192400007&r=1&w=2
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:21, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of what is there to know?
> For what seems all, nothing;
> But the un-rung bell yearns to rung;
> If only to hear its tone;
> The tone of being understood.
>
> tedd-1967
So you don't just write in ones and zeroes after all. ;-P
I like it.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans <skipbigskypenguin.com> wrote:
> >
> > From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
> > just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
>
> Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
> completely secure, especially when placed in the hands of the
> end-user.
He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
validity of your statement.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:54 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:38, Skip Evans <skipbigskypenguin.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I certainly wish there were more like you!
> >
> > If only that woman who lives down the block would give me the opportunity to
> > make her say that... *sigh*.
>
> Coincidentally, I started developing a "secret admirer" website
> for some friends of mine for this same purpose. Opt-in-only romantic
> communication with the added blanket of anonymity
How do you cash in a booty call if you don't know who to call at 2am
when you're drunk?
>:)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:10 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >
> > When a vast majority is controlled by a like-minded minority,
> >evolution and advancement will suffer.
>
> Ya think.
>
> I've been saying that for over 20 years.
>
> The problem is that the majority, when in doubt, will follow the majority.
>
> It's always a safe bet to move towards the center of the herd.
Baaaaah, sheeple! I like to stay away from the herd.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>
> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> validity of your statement.
Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
> > verify this statement.
>
> http://marc.info/?t=100160192400007&r=1&w=2
????
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:39 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> >
> > He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> > it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> > validity of your statement.
>
> Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
> keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread.
I haven't made any claims. I've merely stated beliefs/opinion. You made
claims, thus the onus is on you to provide proof of said claims.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:41, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
>> > verify this statement.
>>
>> http://marc.info/?t=100160192400007&r=1&w=2
>
> ????
Meaning, "read the rest of the thread and send shortbread recipes
to your friend, Dan, instead of just reading the first couple of
messages and determining that you know the context of the entire
conversation." ;-P
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:43 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:41, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
> >> > verify this statement.
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?t=100160192400007&r=1&w=2
> >
> > ????
>
> Meaning, "read the rest of the thread and send shortbread recipes
> to your friend, Dan, instead of just reading the first couple of
> messages and determining that you know the context of the entire
> conversation." ;-P
I've been reading the entire thread.
As for the shortbread recipe... my wife says she can't find it... but as
a consolation here's a tasty alternative shortbread recipe we really
like:
http://www.interjinn.com/download/recipe.shortbread_melts.png
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
Hey,
Well, I find the points that *nix by default restricts users to their
own executables and Windows allows anyone to run any program (has this
changed with Vista? I don't follow MS too closely) to be a major reason
by default, as installed, *nix systems are more secure.
I would also bet that as/if MS loses it's monopoly on the desktop the
type of vulgar, socially dysfunctional people who should be viscously
beat that write malware will begin to focus on *nix systems and it will
become an issue for us cool people as well.
Incidentally, I think building their OS on FreeBSD was about the
smartest thing the Apple/Mac people ever did.
Skip
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:43 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:41, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
>>>>> verify this statement.
>>>> http://marc.info/?t=100160192400007&r=1&w=2
>>> ????
>> Meaning, "read the rest of the thread and send shortbread recipes
>> to your friend, Dan, instead of just reading the first couple of
>> messages and determining that you know the context of the entire
>> conversation." ;-P
>
> I've been reading the entire thread.
>
> As for the shortbread recipe... my wife says she can't find it... but as
> a consolation here's a tasty alternative shortbread recipe we really
> like:
>
> http://www.interjinn.com/download/recipe.shortbread_melts.png
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
--
===========================================
Skip Evans
Big Sky Penguin, LLC
503 S Baldwin Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
608.250.2720
http://bigskypenguin.com
attached mail follows:
> Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
> the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
:-)
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:12 +0000, ceol-i-e.com wrote:
> > Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
> > the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
>
> You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
And never, EVER forget to don your tinfoil hat and robes.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> >> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> >> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> >> validity of your statement.
> >
> > Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
> > keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread.
> >
>
> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
> connected to the internet it's insecure.
We're not debating whether it is or is not insecure... we're debating
comparitive insecurity in relation to that of Windows.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
>> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
>> validity of your statement.
>
> Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
> keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread.
>
if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
connected to the internet it's insecure.
attached mail follows:
You could also fill all empty space in the case with a polyurethane
sealing compound for added security, and then bury it in the back yard.
Dang, I could make big bucks as a security consultant!
I'm adding this to my resume!
Skip
ceol-i-e.com wrote:
>> Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
>> the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
>
> You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
>
> :-)
>
>
--
===========================================
Skip Evans
Big Sky Penguin, LLC
503 S Baldwin Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
608.250.2720
http://bigskypenguin.com
attached mail follows:
ceol-i-e.com wrote:
>> Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
>> the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
>
> You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
>
> :-)
>
when I was younger my friend got a virus on his mothers computer; his
mother promptly removed the power lead from the computer and stated that
it was the only way to prevent it from getting a virus. Then didn't give
him it back for a month.
Always tickled me because
a: she was out of the box correct
b: she was convinced the virus had came down the power line
attached mail follows:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
>> Daniel Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
>>>> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
>>>> validity of your statement.
>>>>
>>> Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
>>> keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread.
>>>
>>>
>> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
>> connected to the internet it's insecure.
>>
>
> We're not debating whether it is or is not insecure... we're debating
> comparitive insecurity in relation to that of Windows.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
that's my point, all OS's are equally insecure, the only thing debatable
is which os has more people trying to exploit those insecurities (and
the answer is obviously windows)
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> Linux is just as susceptible to
> viruses, worms, and other malware
I'd beg to differ. While it may be susceptible, I think it is far less
so, just because of the security it has from the off. And also, the type
of people who tend to use Linux do often tend to be more technical who
are less prone to certain methods of virus attack.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
attached mail follows:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
> connected to the internet it's insecure.
Well of course. That's like saying if it's alive it's dying.
But the question was are *nix systems more secure than Windows, and I
think even Daniel agrees that "out of the box" installs *nix systems are
inherently more secure because of the way they handle users and
permissions to executables.
Daniel seemed, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that more
vulnerabilities are introduced via the human factor until any system can
be rendered at risk.
--
===========================================
Skip Evans
Big Sky Penguin, LLC
503 S Baldwin Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
608.250.2720
http://bigskypenguin.com
attached mail follows:
> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
> import it back in
That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
--
Richard Heyes
HTML5 Graphing for FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari:
http://www.rgraph.org (Updated January 4th)
attached mail follows:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:51 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
> > until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
> > import it back in
>
> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
Words have such different means depending on where you live ;)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
attached mail follows:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:51 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
>>> import it back in
>> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
>
> So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
>
yup, and had my fags bummed, but never my bum fagged - thank god
attached mail follows:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:51 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
>>> import it back in
>> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
>
> So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
>
yup, and had my fags bummed, but never my bum fagged - thank god
attached mail follows:
> So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
All the time... :-)
--
Richard Heyes
HTML5 Graphing for FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari:
http://www.rgraph.org (Updated January 4th)
attached mail follows:
2009/1/8 Richard Heyes <richardphp.net>:
>> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
>> import it back in
>
> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
>
http://xkcd.com/303/
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת
ا-ب-ت-ث-ج-ح-خ-د-ذ-ر-ز-س-ش-ص-ض-ط-ظ-ع-غ-ف-ق-ك-ل-م-ن-ه-و-ي
А-Б-В-Г-Д-Е-Ё-Ж-З-И-Й-К-Л-М-Н-О-П-Р-С-Т-У-Ф-Х-Ц-Ч-Ш-Щ-Ъ-Ы-Ь-Э-Ю-Я
а-б-в-г-д-е-ё-ж-з-и-й-к-л-м-н-о-п-р-с-т-у-ф-х-ц-ч-ш-щ-ъ-ы-ь-э-ю-я
ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü
attached mail follows:
And people tell me that I'm just wrong.
"Nathan Rixham" <nrixhamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4965DFFC.6020600gmail.com...
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:51 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>>> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
>>>> import it back in
>>> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
>>
>> So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
>>
>
> yup, and had my fags bummed, but never my bum fagged - thank god
attached mail follows:
And people tell me that I'm just wrong.
"Nathan Rixham" <nrixhamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4965DFFC.6020600gmail.com...
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:51 +0000, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>>> until you have to dump it, zip it, ssh it over to another box and then
>>>> import it back in
>>> That's what fag breaks are for... :-) Well, that and smoking.
>>
>> So... when you're forgetful... have you ever had to bum a fag?
>>
>
> yup, and had my fags bummed, but never my bum fagged - thank god
attached mail follows:
At 11:23 AM -0500 1/8/09, Frank Stanovcak wrote:
>And people tell me that I'm just wrong.
Nothing new there. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
I keep hitting reply all in thunderbird and double posting; apologies
for the additional noise (can't promise i won't keep doing it though :p)
attached mail follows:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> I keep hitting reply all in thunderbird and double posting; apologies
> for the additional noise (can't promise i won't keep doing it though :p)
Having hit 'reply all' in seamonkey ;)
That is the only way to reply to a number of lists such as the PHP ones.
You WILL have to keep doing it to reply easily to these lists until a
'reply list' button appears for those lists that don't like a simply
'reply'. Personally I'm in the 'this is a list - so should be the reply
address', but currently the 'I may not want to reply to the list' camp
has control :)
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 06:16, Nathan Rixham <nrixhamgmail.com> wrote:
> I keep hitting reply all in thunderbird and double posting; apologies for
> the additional noise (can't promise i won't keep doing it though :p)
You're just following the rules, Nate.
Posting Guideline #4 on http://php.net/mailinglists:
* Be sure to click Reply-All to reply to list. Clicking Reply
will email the author of the message privately.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 06:28, Lester Caine <lesterlsces.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Having hit 'reply all' in seamonkey ;)
> That is the only way to reply to a number of lists such as the PHP ones. You
> WILL have to keep doing it to reply easily to these lists until a 'reply
> list' button appears for those lists that don't like a simply 'reply'.
> Personally I'm in the 'this is a list - so should be the reply address', but
> currently the 'I may not want to reply to the list' camp has control :)
It's actually done for two primary reasons:
1.) Allowing private replies, as you suggested - which means
the CC address could be the private address.
2.) Posting to archives and newsgroups with credit/contact
info from the original poster - requires the original FROM address.
However, the larger issue is with mail clients not properly
disposing of the subsequent messages they may receive that have the
same Message ID.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
At 11:16 AM +0000 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>I keep hitting reply all in thunderbird and double posting;
>apologies for the additional noise (can't promise i won't keep doing
>it though :p)
That's Okay.
Usually what you have to say is important enough to read twice.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
tedd wrote:
> At 11:16 AM +0000 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> I keep hitting reply all in thunderbird and double posting; apologies
>> for the additional noise (can't promise i won't keep doing it though :p)
>
> That's Okay.
>
> Usually what you have to say is important enough to read twice.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
this was my previous message:
"yup, and had my fags bummed, but never my bum fagged - thank god"
you're right :p
attached mail follows:
viraj wrote:
> i have this query..
>
> $sql = "SELECT `id` FROM `modules_permissions` WHERE `id` = '" .
> $permissionId . "';";
>
> when i pass the value 31 to permissionid, it returns me the 31st row
> of the table. and it's fine. but when i pass '31asasa' as the
> permissionid it returns me the same row! how come this possible?
>
> `id` is a integer and the storage engine is myisam. i'm on debian and
> mysql version is 5.0.51a-15
>
>
> ~viraj
completely normal behavior; any trailing non numeric chars are stripped
leaving only the numerics
mysql> select CAST('12aaa' as SIGNED);
+-------------------------+
| CAST('12aaa' as SIGNED) |
+-------------------------+
| 12 |
+-------------------------+
1 row in set, 1 warning (0.01 sec)
mysql> show warnings;
+---------+------+--------------------------------------------+
| Level | Code | Message |
+---------+------+--------------------------------------------+
| Warning | 1292 | Truncated incorrect INTEGER value: '12aaa' |
+---------+------+--------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
attached mail follows:
At 1:35 PM +0530 1/8/09, viraj wrote:
>i have this query..
>
>$sql = "SELECT `id` FROM `modules_permissions` WHERE `id` = '" .
>$permissionId . "';";
>
>when i pass the value 31 to permissionid, it returns me the 31st row
>of the table. and it's fine. but when i pass '31asasa' as the
>permissionid it returns me the same row! how come this possible?
>
>`id` is a integer and the storage engine is myisam. i'm on debian and
>mysql version is 5.0.51a-15
>
>~viraj
As Nate said, that's normal.
However, what I noticed was a query that is more complicated than it
could be, try this:
$sql = "SELECT id FROM modules_permissions WHERE id = '$permissionId' ";
That should work, it does for me. If it doesn't, I would like to know why?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:05, viraj <kalingagmail.com> wrote:
> i have this query..
>
> $sql = "SELECT `id` FROM `modules_permissions` WHERE `id` = '" .
> $permissionId . "';";
While you are using PHP to develop your script, this is not at all
a PHP question. Please keep MySQL questions such as this to the MySQL
list, or at least the PHP-DB list in the future, so that things will
properly archive.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:10, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>
> $sql = "SELECT id FROM modules_permissions WHERE id = '$permissionId' ";
I was going to ask something about sanity, but then I remembered
with whom it is I'm speaking. ;-P
That aside, don't forget your pre-database-interaction sanity.
Even an explicitly internally-defined variable can have issues, so
unless you're 100% certain that it will be safe, it's better to <?php
mysql_real_escape_string($permissionId); ?>, et al.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
At 9:17 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:10, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> $sql = "SELECT id FROM modules_permissions WHERE id = '$permissionId' ";
>
> I was going to ask something about sanity, but then I remembered
>with whom it is I'm speaking. ;-P
>
> That aside, don't forget your pre-database-interaction sanity.
>Even an explicitly internally-defined variable can have issues, so
>unless you're 100% certain that it will be safe, it's better to <?php
>mysql_real_escape_string($permissionId); ?>, et al.
Hey, if I were you I wouldn't be taking about sanity now that you
have a digestive system that has a two hour sleep cycle. :-)
Yes, but the "pre-database-interaction sanity' (otherwise known as
"knowing what you're doing") goes without saying -- it's obvious --
that's like saying "Make sure you're connected to the database before
using mysql_real_escape_string() function."
In any event, you always should clean your variables before creating
a query like that.
My post was about how overly complex the OP's query was -- after all,
it's just a very simple query. I didn't see any need for back-ticks
or convoluted quotes. If I was wrong, then I would like to know
better.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
> At 9:17 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:10, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> $sql = "SELECT id FROM modules_permissions WHERE id = '$permissionId' ";
>>
>> I was going to ask something about sanity, but then I remembered
>> with whom it is I'm speaking. ;-P
>>
>> That aside, don't forget your pre-database-interaction sanity.
>> Even an explicitly internally-defined variable can have issues, so
>> unless you're 100% certain that it will be safe, it's better to <?php
>> mysql_real_escape_string($permissionId); ?>, et al.
>
>
> Hey, if I were you I wouldn't be taking about sanity now that you have a
> digestive system that has a two hour sleep cycle. :-)
>
> Yes, but the "pre-database-interaction sanity' (otherwise known as "knowing
> what you're doing") goes without saying -- it's obvious -- that's like
> saying "Make sure you're connected to the database before using
> mysql_real_escape_string() function."
>
> In any event, you always should clean your variables before creating a query
> like that.
>
> My post was about how overly complex the OP's query was -- after all, it's
> just a very simple query. I didn't see any need for back-ticks or convoluted
> quotes. If I was wrong, then I would like to know better.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
>
I can take or leave the backticks. However, one of my pet peeves is
comparing a string/varchar value to a numeric column. I know that most
databases will implicitly convert the character value to an integer
when the query executes. If the column is numeric, compare it to a
number, not the best numeric interpretation that the database engine
will implicitly decide for the string you provide.
Andrew
attached mail follows:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:18, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, if I were you I wouldn't be taking about sanity now that you have a
> digestive system that has a two hour sleep cycle. :-)
I still have seven months or so of relative calm, if all goes
well. There isn't a moment that goes by that I don't hope I'll be
changing dirty diapers this time next year (well, except for the
moments that I think how great it would be to have him or her
potty-trained by five months).
> Yes, but the "pre-database-interaction sanity' (otherwise known as "knowing
> what you're doing") goes without saying -- it's obvious -- that's like
> saying "Make sure you're connected to the database before using
> mysql_real_escape_string() function."
>
> In any event, you always should clean your variables before creating a query
> like that.
>
> My post was about how overly complex the OP's query was -- after all, it's
> just a very simple query. I didn't see any need for back-ticks or convoluted
> quotes. If I was wrong, then I would like to know better.
No, you were correct. I just chose not to resist the zinger while
the opportunity was present.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
attached mail follows:
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:18, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, if I were you I wouldn't be taking about sanity now that you
>> have a
>> digestive system that has a two hour sleep cycle. :-)
>
> I still have seven months or so of relative calm, if all goes
> well. There isn't a moment that goes by that I don't hope I'll be
> changing dirty diapers this time next year (well, except for the
> moments that I think how great it would be to have him or her
> potty-trained by five months).
Ummm Dan... As a father of 2... If you can get your little one potty
trained by 5 months... We are writing a book and selling it to
everyone! :P
>
>> Yes, but the "pre-database-interaction sanity' (otherwise known as
>> "knowing
>> what you're doing") goes without saying -- it's obvious -- that's
>> like
>> saying "Make sure you're connected to the database before using
>> mysql_real_escape_string() function."
>>
>> In any event, you always should clean your variables before
>> creating a query
>> like that.
>>
>> My post was about how overly complex the OP's query was -- after
>> all, it's
>> just a very simple query. I didn't see any need for back-ticks or
>> convoluted
>> quotes. If I was wrong, then I would like to know better.
>
> No, you were correct. I just chose not to resist the zinger while
> the opportunity was present.
>
> --
> </Daniel P. Brown>
> daniel.brownparasane.net || danbrownphp.net
> http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
> Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to
> find out!
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
--
Jason Pruim
japruimraoset.com
616.399.2355
attached mail follows:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> viraj wrote:
>> i have this query..
>>
>> $sql = "SELECT `id` FROM `modules_permissions` WHERE `id` = '" .
>> $permissionId . "';";
>>
>> when i pass the value 31 to permissionid, it returns me the 31st row
>> of the table. and it's fine. but when i pass '31asasa' as the
>> permissionid it returns me the same row! how come this possible?
>>
>> `id` is a integer and the storage engine is myisam. i'm on debian and
>> mysql version is 5.0.51a-15
>>
>>
>> ~viraj
>
> completely normal behavior; any trailing non numeric chars are stripped
> leaving only the numerics
normal for mysql - not normal for others ;)
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
attached mail follows:
Unfortunately neither ping or traceroute is installed on the shared
hoster, can't call 'm..
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Rene Veerman <rene7705gmail.com
> <mailto:rene7705gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi..
>
> I have created a setup between my shared hoster and my home debian
> box, where the shared hosting accepts video uploads, and forwards
> them to the home server for video-conversion (which isn't allowed
> on shared hosting).
>
> In order to kick off the import process, I need the shared hoster
> to make a POST call through php native curl functions to my home
> server.
>
> Up to a few weeks ago, this worked just fine.
>
> But now, since i (had to) re-installed the debian box, when i call
> it myself, the shared hoster returns a curl error "cannot connect
> to host".
> Other people on the net still get the proper response if they call
> the shared hoster script, the forward is performed, and they get
> to see what my homeserver replied.
>
> So in other words, i'm the only one who can't import video's /
> pictures into my own CMS at the moment..
> Free laughs for everyone ;)
>
> But if you have any clues about why this could happen, i'd very
> much like to hear them.
>
> My debian is 4.0, upgraded and all.
> Apache2 ofcourse.
>
> If you want to see any config files or logs please tell me..
>
>
> have you tried to ping or traceroute your box from the shared hosting
> server since the os upgrade?
>
> -nathan
>
attached mail follows:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Paul M Foster <paulfquillandmouse.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:29:42PM -0500, Frank Stanovcak wrote:
>
> > because you so nicely didn't make fun of me...that much :)
> > I keep it in it's own file and just use it as in include to probe where I
> need to.
> >
> > ------code follows------
> >
> > <?php
> > function breakarray($passed){
> > echo '<table border="1"><tr><th>key</th><th>value</th></tr>';
> > foreach($passed as $tkey=>$tvalue){
> > echo '<tr><td>[' , $tkey , ']</td><td>';
> > if(is_array($tvalue)){
> > breakarray($tvalue);
> > }else{
> > echo '"' , $tvalue , '"</td></tr>';
> > };
> > };
> > echo '</table>';
> > };
> >
> > echo '<table border=1><tr> <th>variable</th> <th>value</th> </tr>';
> > foreach(get_defined_vars() as $key => $value){
> > echo '<tr><td>$',$key ,'</td><td>';
> > if(is_array($value) and $key != 'GLOBALS'){
> > if(sizeof($value) > 0){
> > breakarray($value);
> > echo '</td></tr>';
> > }else{
> > echo 'EMPTY </td></tr>';
> > };
> > }else{
> > echo '"' , $value , '"</td></tr>';
> > };
> > };
> > echo '</table>';
> > ?>
>
> Nicely done.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul M. Foster
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Good Morning Everyone
Thanks for the snippet going to try that now, is it not okay to reuse the
$row thru the code block, I do try and use it over and over to check for
different fields data. I am going to go ahead and post the full block of
code:
----------------------code--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<?php
error_reporting(E_ALL);
ini_set('display_errors', '1');
session_start();
include("inc/dbconn_open.php");
if (empty($_SESSION['AdminLogin']) || $_SESSION['AdminLogin'] != true){
header ("Location: LogOut.php");
$_SESSION['user']=$UserName;
}
$query = "SELECT * FROM admin WHERE UserName = '".$_SESSION['user']."'
";
$result=mysql_query($query) or die('Queryproblem: ' . mysql_error() .
'<br />Executed query: ' . $query);
if (mysql_num_rows($result) >= '1'){
while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)){
echo $row['AddEditAdmin']; //to print out the value of column
'var1' for each record
}
}else{
echo 'No records found.';
}
?>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>The NEW Work Order System </title>
<LINK REL="STYLESHEET" HREF="inc/style.css">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#006699">
<table width="180" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td align="center"><BR>
<? echo $row['AddEditAdmin'];?>
<div class="admin_Title" align="center">Work Order System<br> </div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><HR>You are logged on as <?php echo $_SESSION['user'];?><HR>
<?php echo $result;?><br>
<?php echo $row;?>
<HR></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><