Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #518112 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
worldwide internet threat map TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-02 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 08:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 09:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:22 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 10:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 15:19 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 14:59 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:32 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 14:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-02 23:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-02 18:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-02 19:09 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-02 19:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 21:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-02 23:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 01:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 03:21 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 05:42 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-03 10:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:07 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:44 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:50 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 11:38 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 12:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:03 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 17:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:48 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:32 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:44 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:14 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:22 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:17 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:28 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:17 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:53 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 12:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 00:52 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-02 18:30 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-03 10:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 05:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 07:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 08:29 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:59 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-03 14:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Bert Hickman <bert-hickman@comcast.net> - 2018-10-03 17:20 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map boB <boB@K7IQ.com> - 2018-10-04 00:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 12:53 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 10:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:36 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-03 20:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 20:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 10:53 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 11:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 08:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:01 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:06 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 13:10 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 20:55 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-04 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:04 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 08:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-05 16:12 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:00 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-06 21:17 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-07 08:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 08:54 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-07 11:56 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 17:18 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 23:41 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 15:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:05 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 16:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-10-06 00:24 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 12:57 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:19 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 22:21 +1000
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-06 09:39 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 08:13 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 09:02 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:40 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:26 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 11:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:07 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 07:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 17:11 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 09:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 20:27 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:32 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:03 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:25 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Chris <c@b.a> - 2018-10-11 11:29 +1100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-05 14:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 08:04 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:16 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:55 +0000
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-05 14:50 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-09 10:42 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 07:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-09 17:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:30 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:00 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-04 21:03 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:10 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 22:38 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 15:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 00:47 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:19 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:48 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:08 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:15 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 18:55 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-05 14:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 14:37 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 00:01 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 23:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 09:52 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 10:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 20:29 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-09 08:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 11:18 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-06 11:20 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:35 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 05:24 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-06 06:53 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-04 18:12 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:04 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-05 09:22 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 09:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:45 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-05 19:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:00 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map bitrex <user@example.net> - 2018-10-03 20:42 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2018-10-03 18:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:23 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:06 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:49 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 10:55 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 01:10 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 13:13 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2018-10-03 13:47 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 09:26 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map Neon John <no@never.com> - 2018-10-04 10:22 -0400
Re: worldwide internet threat map makolber@yahoo.com - 2018-10-04 08:16 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 08:44 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:15 +0100
Re: worldwide internet threat map John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2018-10-04 09:14 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:31 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 07:51 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2018-10-04 08:27 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-04 09:57 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2018-10-03 14:29 -0500
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 13:11 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2018-10-03 13:33 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 16:02 -0700
Re: worldwide internet threat map Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo> - 2018-10-03 21:49 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppb027$13iq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518539 |
John Larkin wrote > >Some of my customers can't accept .exe. .zip, or some other formats >from me. They take a laptop to Starbucks and expense the coffee. Make a website and put it there for download, that is what I do, few dollars per month from godaddy. No advertising, no popups, and fast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pphvos$g91$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518539 |
On 06/10/2018 17:40, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:02:51 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 05/10/18 22:04, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:18:01 +0100, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> What, exactly, do you mean by "security". The devil is in the >>>> details as well as in the 30kft picture. >>> >>> Don't furnish connections to hazards. Don't transport bad web pages. >>> Don't transport email that has viruses inside or linked to. Perform >>> the AV functions at the network level. >>> >>> Really, that's not too difficult a concept. Some of that is being done >>> now, just not universally and automatically. >> >> Here's an example of your wishes being applied in practice to >> GPS Disciplined Oscillator software... >> >> "I have had a LOT of requests for the Windows version of the >> latest version (v6.05 Beta) of Lady Heather for Windows. >> Unfortunately aggressive blocking of .exe files by ISPs makes >> it very hard to email the .exe file (even password protected >> .zip files get blocked). Also very few Windows users seem to >> be able to compile the code." >> >> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/lady-heather-v6-beta-for-windows-exe/ > > > Let people decide if they want deep packet and email protections, but > make protections the default. That, applied universally, would make > most exploits not worth launching. And it would kill the AV business. > > Tekkies will always need and find ways to transport zip and exe files. Putting it on a website would seem to be the simplest way out - then they can download it iff their corporate firewall permits them to do so. Blocking .exe's is exactly the sort of collateral damage that packet inspection blocking can be expected to cause. And the malware writers will simply devise better means to obfuscate their code in the meantime. Corporate types send each other ZIP files all the time .DOCX and .XLSX from Office are both ZIP files with a different extension. You might want try sending your real ZIP files with one of those extensions and a few spurious empty directories to make them look like Office2007 dross. > Simply blocking .exe files, regardless of content, is a pretty clumsy > way to do it. Since you can never tell what is in an exe file without running it they do represent a serious vulnerability. The worst corporate vulnerability is a USB stick with suggestive scribbles on it dropped in a carpark. The security guys are always on a hiding to nothing. Just look how long the blokes wearing red T-shirts last in original Star trek. It is always the most senior corporate types that are the worst at security too :( I once had to delouse the CEO's PC one Xmas Eve because everyone else had already gone home and his kids had been playing dodgy games on it... > Some of my customers can't accept .exe. .zip, or some other formats > from me. They take a laptop to Starbucks and expense the coffee. There is a case for not permitting anything that hasn't been digitally signed by a trusted source from ever running. Unfortunately even the major makers of hardware drivers are very sloppy about doing it. Users get accustomed to overriding important security warnings :( -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78dprdddc09e770spr1nhodpr0la6kgh17@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518808 |
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 06/10/2018 17:40, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:02:51 +0100, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 05/10/18 22:04, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:18:01 +0100, Tom Gardner >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What, exactly, do you mean by "security". The devil is in the >>>>> details as well as in the 30kft picture. >>>> >>>> Don't furnish connections to hazards. Don't transport bad web pages. >>>> Don't transport email that has viruses inside or linked to. Perform >>>> the AV functions at the network level. >>>> >>>> Really, that's not too difficult a concept. Some of that is being done >>>> now, just not universally and automatically. >>> >>> Here's an example of your wishes being applied in practice to >>> GPS Disciplined Oscillator software... >>> >>> "I have had a LOT of requests for the Windows version of the >>> latest version (v6.05 Beta) of Lady Heather for Windows. >>> Unfortunately aggressive blocking of .exe files by ISPs makes >>> it very hard to email the .exe file (even password protected >>> .zip files get blocked). Also very few Windows users seem to >>> be able to compile the code." >>> >>> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/lady-heather-v6-beta-for-windows-exe/ >> >> >> Let people decide if they want deep packet and email protections, but >> make protections the default. That, applied universally, would make >> most exploits not worth launching. And it would kill the AV business. >> >> Tekkies will always need and find ways to transport zip and exe files. > >Putting it on a website would seem to be the simplest way out - then >they can download it iff their corporate firewall permits them to do so. > >Blocking .exe's is exactly the sort of collateral damage that packet >inspection blocking can be expected to cause. Blocking based on file names is dumb. Real packet snooping would look for malware. >And the malware writers >will simply devise better means to obfuscate their code in the meantime. Sure, but the cost would escalate and the payoff would dwindle if there were serious, global defenses. Except for the highest level targets, it wouldn't be worth the effort. We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the world. Why not malware? > >Corporate types send each other ZIP files all the time .DOCX and .XLSX >from Office are both ZIP files with a different extension. You might >want try sending your real ZIP files with one of those extensions and a >few spurious empty directories to make them look like Office2007 dross. > >> Simply blocking .exe files, regardless of content, is a pretty clumsy >> way to do it. > >Since you can never tell what is in an exe file without running it they >do represent a serious vulnerability. The worst corporate vulnerability >is a USB stick with suggestive scribbles on it dropped in a carpark. > >The security guys are always on a hiding to nothing. Just look how long >the blokes wearing red T-shirts last in original Star trek. It is always >the most senior corporate types that are the worst at security too :( > >I once had to delouse the CEO's PC one Xmas Eve because everyone else >had already gone home and his kids had been playing dodgy games on it... > >> Some of my customers can't accept .exe. .zip, or some other formats >> from me. They take a laptop to Starbucks and expense the coffee. > >There is a case for not permitting anything that hasn't been digitally >signed by a trusted source from ever running. Unfortunately even the >major makers of hardware drivers are very sloppy about doing it. > >Users get accustomed to overriding important security warnings :( Then something else should be done. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32790e14-4dbf-4c5b-91da-c9b2401495c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518821 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:07:55 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 06/10/2018 17:40, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:02:51 +0100, Tom Gardner > >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 05/10/18 22:04, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:18:01 +0100, Tom Gardner > >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What, exactly, do you mean by "security". The devil is in the > >>>>> details as well as in the 30kft picture. > >>>> > >>>> Don't furnish connections to hazards. Don't transport bad web pages. > >>>> Don't transport email that has viruses inside or linked to. Perform > >>>> the AV functions at the network level. > >>>> > >>>> Really, that's not too difficult a concept. Some of that is being done > >>>> now, just not universally and automatically. > >>> > >>> Here's an example of your wishes being applied in practice to > >>> GPS Disciplined Oscillator software... > >>> > >>> "I have had a LOT of requests for the Windows version of the > >>> latest version (v6.05 Beta) of Lady Heather for Windows. > >>> Unfortunately aggressive blocking of .exe files by ISPs makes > >>> it very hard to email the .exe file (even password protected > >>> .zip files get blocked). Also very few Windows users seem to > >>> be able to compile the code." > >>> > >>> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/lady-heather-v6-beta-for-windows-exe/ > >> > >> > >> Let people decide if they want deep packet and email protections, but > >> make protections the default. That, applied universally, would make > >> most exploits not worth launching. And it would kill the AV business. > >> > >> Tekkies will always need and find ways to transport zip and exe files. > > > >Putting it on a website would seem to be the simplest way out - then > >they can download it iff their corporate firewall permits them to do so. > > > >Blocking .exe's is exactly the sort of collateral damage that packet > >inspection blocking can be expected to cause. > > Blocking based on file names is dumb. Real packet snooping would look > for malware. Except that this is a lot more difficult than you seem to imagine. > >And the malware writers > >will simply devise better means to obfuscate their code in the meantime. > > Sure, but the cost would escalate and the payoff would dwindle if > there were serious, global defenses. Except for the highest level > targets, it wouldn't be worth the effort. Except that the "serious global defenses" that you are imagining exist only in your imagination. > > We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > world. Why not malware? Smallpox and yellow fever and malaria evolve. Malware develops by intelligent design. And evolution has kept malaria ahead of several generations of anti-malarial drugs so far. There is an effective vaccine against yellow fever, but it still killed 45,000 people in 2013. Smallpox is apparently extinct in the wild, and polio is close, but it's a bit early to declare victory of yellow fever. <snip> > Then something else should be done. I'm sure the war on malware would work just as well as the war on drugs has. Having the desire to deal with a problem doesn't automatically generate solutions that work. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ppijuu$1m5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518821 |
On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > world. Why not malware? > Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without knowing the contents. Also, javascript and anything downloaded for execution is a wide open security hole, but most websites won't work at all unless script is enabled. Some web sites go out to dozens of third party sites to complete the page, non of which are verifiable by the end user and corruption of any one of those third party sites could cause problems. Then you have machines with removable media autorun enabled for everything, when any removable media should have autorun disabled by default. If you want to see how bad this is and are a Firefox user, check out the httpfox addon, which has a real time display of all the sites visited to build the page, a wireshark for http. That and lightbeam, which plots a wireframe map of referenced sites associated with a site... Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l6nprdpqvoq9ap078k85th0h5t6t9hkv11@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518827 |
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:11:12 +0100, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote: >On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > >> We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the >> world. Why not malware? >> > >Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators >directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without >knowing the contents. So don't transport the malware to them. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 20:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ppivef$ave$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518830 |
On 09/10/2018 17:53, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:11:12 +0100, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: >>> We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the >>> world. Why not malware? >>> >> >> Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators >> directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without >> knowing the contents. Unfortunately there are a lot of them about and you cannot legislate against stupidity. Some MS products have a bad tendency to fall victim to buffer overrun attacks that are all too easy. Speed vs security you have to choose one or the other. It is a bit odd really since modern PCs are now way faster than most domestic end users will ever need. There are belated attempts to improve things in the more recent compilers and libraries but there is a heck of a lot of useful but insecure legacy code about. It only takes a well crafted malformed file to break them. > > So don't transport the malware to them. Disconnecting them from the internet completely would do that. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <721f631f-0c96-4b8c-ab65-b9ffa42023c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518830 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 3:53:46 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:11:12 +0100, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> > wrote: > > >On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > > > >> We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > >> world. Why not malware? > >> > > > >Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators > >directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without > >knowing the contents. > > So don't transport the malware to them. This turns out to be technically difficult - a point that you seem to be unwilling to take on board. It would be nice if you could notice when you get caught talking about matters you don't understand, and shut up. It would be even nicer if you did the work required to get some understanding of the problems for which you have posted click-bait non-solutions, but that would probably require a brain implant. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a9c47fe-1de5-4452-bae6-2026ae3e6c51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518830 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:53:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:11:12 +0100, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> > wrote: > > >On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > > > >> We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > >> world. Why not malware? > >> > > > >Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators > >directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without > >knowing the contents. > > So don't transport the malware to them. So how about you give us the magic algorithm that distinguishes malware from anything else on the Internet? I don't know why anyone responds to you on this thread. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. What you are suggesting is like saying we need to build cars and roads that won't hurt people in accidents. Yeah, let's prevent accidents from happening by building better cars and roads. We've pretty much done as much as we can do and over 30,000 still die each year in the US in auto accidents. Good improvement, but far from eliminating the problem as you are suggesting we do with malware. You don't actually have any ideas on this. You have a complete misconception and won't listen to anyone who tries to explain it to you. God, you must be hard to work for. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ffdeb4a-12bc-4c8e-aec1-683306c5c307@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518916 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:03:23 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:53:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:11:12 +0100, Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > >On 10/09/18 15:07, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > > > > > >> We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > > >> world. Why not malware? > > >> > > > > > >Fwir, most of the problems with malware are not from the perpetrators > > >directly, but poor training and idiots who click on attachments without > > >knowing the contents. > > > > So don't transport the malware to them. > > So how about you give us the magic algorithm that distinguishes malware from anything else on the Internet? > > I don't know why anyone responds to you on this thread. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. What you are suggesting is like saying we need to build cars and roads that won't hurt people in accidents. Yeah, let's prevent accidents from happening by building better cars and roads. We've pretty much done as much as we can do and over 30,000 still die each year in the US in auto accidents. Good improvement, but far from eliminating the problem as you are suggesting we do with malware. > > You don't actually have any ideas on this. You have a complete misconception and won't listen to anyone who tries to explain it to you. God, you must be hard to work for. > > Rick C. Writing this post made me think about a total dick head I once worked for who would make snap decisions based on little or wrong information. Once I was working on a coworker's computer when he was out for the day. We were on a time critical project and he told me to use his machine as it was nearly as fast as the servers we had for doing FPGA design work. I'm banging away at the keyboard and my boss comes in, probably because I was in someone else's office and he felt he needed to know why. I explained this to him and he looked under the desk to see a computer case he recognized. He said that was not a fast machine, he had one a year ago and it was a dog so I should use the servers. I explained that I didn't know anything about the machine he had used, but I was clearly told by my coworker (who was not insane) that this was a very fast machine and there was little point in my using one of the servers, plus I had not used them before and was not familiar with the details. To him this was a direct confrontation and he belligerently ordered me to use a server. I spent the rest of the day chasing the guy who could get me on the server but was always far to busy to do low level things like this. He was actually one of the more senior engineers. That was a crazy place. If John runs his company the way he talks about other topics he would make this guy seem like a management expert. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <c@b.a> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 11:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ppm5gt$1djr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #518821 |
On 10/10/2018 1:07 am, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:37 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 06/10/2018 17:40, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:02:51 +0100, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/10/18 22:04, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:18:01 +0100, Tom Gardner >>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What, exactly, do you mean by "security". The devil is in the >>>>>> details as well as in the 30kft picture. >>>>> >>>>> Don't furnish connections to hazards. Don't transport bad web pages. >>>>> Don't transport email that has viruses inside or linked to. Perform >>>>> the AV functions at the network level. >>>>> >>>>> Really, that's not too difficult a concept. Some of that is being done >>>>> now, just not universally and automatically. >>>> >>>> Here's an example of your wishes being applied in practice to >>>> GPS Disciplined Oscillator software... >>>> >>>> "I have had a LOT of requests for the Windows version of the >>>> latest version (v6.05 Beta) of Lady Heather for Windows. >>>> Unfortunately aggressive blocking of .exe files by ISPs makes >>>> it very hard to email the .exe file (even password protected >>>> .zip files get blocked). Also very few Windows users seem to >>>> be able to compile the code." >>>> >>>> http://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/lady-heather-v6-beta-for-windows-exe/ >>> >>> >>> Let people decide if they want deep packet and email protections, but >>> make protections the default. That, applied universally, would make >>> most exploits not worth launching. And it would kill the AV business. >>> >>> Tekkies will always need and find ways to transport zip and exe files. >> >> Putting it on a website would seem to be the simplest way out - then >> they can download it iff their corporate firewall permits them to do so. >> >> Blocking .exe's is exactly the sort of collateral damage that packet >> inspection blocking can be expected to cause. > > Blocking based on file names is dumb. Real packet snooping would look > for malware. Packet snooping is ultimately useless when the packets are encrypted and/or the 'malware' payload is similarly encrypted/obfuscated. Pretty much the only time the malware reveals itself is when it deploys by which time it's too late unless the AV software catches it. > >> And the malware writers >> will simply devise better means to obfuscate their code in the meantime. > > Sure, but the cost would escalate and the payoff would dwindle if > there were serious, global defenses. Except for the highest level > targets, it wouldn't be worth the effort. > > We defeated smallpox and malaria and yellow fever in most of the > world. Why not malware? > > > > >> >> Corporate types send each other ZIP files all the time .DOCX and .XLSX >>from Office are both ZIP files with a different extension. You might >> want try sending your real ZIP files with one of those extensions and a >> few spurious empty directories to make them look like Office2007 dross. >> >>> Simply blocking .exe files, regardless of content, is a pretty clumsy >>> way to do it. >> >> Since you can never tell what is in an exe file without running it they >> do represent a serious vulnerability. The worst corporate vulnerability >> is a USB stick with suggestive scribbles on it dropped in a carpark. >> >> The security guys are always on a hiding to nothing. Just look how long >> the blokes wearing red T-shirts last in original Star trek. It is always >> the most senior corporate types that are the worst at security too :( >> >> I once had to delouse the CEO's PC one Xmas Eve because everyone else >> had already gone home and his kids had been playing dodgy games on it... >> >>> Some of my customers can't accept .exe. .zip, or some other formats >>> from me. They take a laptop to Starbucks and expense the coffee. >> >> There is a case for not permitting anything that hasn't been digitally >> signed by a trusted source from ever running. Unfortunately even the >> major makers of hardware drivers are very sloppy about doing it. >> >> Users get accustomed to overriding important security warnings :( > > Then something else should be done. > -- Cheers, Chris.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c4254b5-1d73-4743-ac73-993804a30146@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518429 |
fredag den 5. oktober 2018 kl. 17.55.20 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:04:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > >On 10/04/2018 09:03 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an > >>>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire > >>>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. > >>>> > >>>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little > >>>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real > >>>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. > >>> > >>> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that > >>> > >>> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. > >> > >> Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security > >> mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international > >> espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft > >> messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. > >> > >> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > >> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group > >> is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are > >> capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. > >> > >> So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet > >> architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. > >> > > > >Not hostile to new ideas but "scrap it all and start over" is > >incidentally not what I'd call a very "conservative" philosophy on > >engineering! > > My original suggestion, that the internet transport layer could apply > security for everyone, is hardly a suggestion to scrap anything. I'd > pay a ISP more if they scrubbed hazards at the network level. We > already pay a DNS provider to not serve up suspected IP addresses. > Some free ones now do that too. about two seconds after DNS filtering was mandated by court to "protect the children" the politicians and copyright lawyers lined up to have what see as "suspect" IP addresses added to the filter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27thrdl4e1vf4vvl55o6dhpae1odup1rcs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518472 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >fredag den 5. oktober 2018 kl. 17.55.20 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:04:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >> >On 10/04/2018 09:03 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown >> >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >> >>>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >> >>>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >> >>>> >> >>>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >> >>>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >> >>>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >> >>> >> >>> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >> >>> >> >>> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. >> >> >> >> Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security >> >> mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international >> >> espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft >> >> messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. >> >> >> >> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here >> >> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group >> >> is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are >> >> capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. >> >> >> >> So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet >> >> architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. >> >> >> > >> >Not hostile to new ideas but "scrap it all and start over" is >> >incidentally not what I'd call a very "conservative" philosophy on >> >engineering! >> >> My original suggestion, that the internet transport layer could apply >> security for everyone, is hardly a suggestion to scrap anything. I'd >> pay a ISP more if they scrubbed hazards at the network level. We >> already pay a DNS provider to not serve up suspected IP addresses. >> Some free ones now do that too. > >about two seconds after DNS filtering was mandated by court to >"protect the children" the politicians and copyright lawyers lined >up to have what see as "suspect" IP addresses added to the filter The only thing a court should mandate is privacy protection. Otherwise, let ISPs offer packet snooping and let uses elect to buy it. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fccc033d-888f-48c1-b048-023a4f669024@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:03:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an > >> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire > >> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. > >> > >> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little > >> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real > >> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. > > > >It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that > > > >for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. > > Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security > mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international > espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft > messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. > > I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. John Larkin's idea of a "good idea" is one that he finds emotionally satisfying. Intellectual satisfaction does seem to be beyond his scope. > This "design" group is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Your "new ideas" tend to be old mistakes that you have rediscovered. The hostility is to somebody who is wasting bandwidth because he hasn't done his homework. > Only a few people here are capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. And John Larkin isn't one of them. > So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet > architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. John Larkin is an idiot. You don't have to be all that clever to be aware that there are lot of operating systems around but you do have to know quite a bit to be able to creditably claim that one of them might be better than the bunch we currently use. The current internet architecture is a stunningly effective distributed system. It's complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server I know very little about it, but I do seem to know more than John Larkin. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f018ca3-ccf0-4edc-8bcc-18a31ec29bce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an > >> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire > >> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. > >> > >> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little > >> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real > >> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. > > > >It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that > > > >for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. > > Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security > mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international > espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft > messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. > > I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. This "design" group > is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are > capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. > > So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet > architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. I don't see any real ideas, just complaining. Saying "someone should do something about the Internet" is not brainstorming. Rick C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 08:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <W1EtD.588649$0v.553398@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On 05/10/18 02:03, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >>> >>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >> >> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >> >> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. > > Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security > mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international > espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft > messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. > > I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. And you think other people haven't already thought of and considered those? It has been an active research topic for at least a quarter of a century, with the results you see. Publish your ideas. I'll lay good money they have already been found wanting. > This "design" group > is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are > capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. Just because you have some skill and experience in electronics, means zilch about your skill in software and networks. Brainstorming is trivial, particularly when ignorant of the theoretical, practical and commercial constraints. Implementation is "difficult". > So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet > architecture, and we'll see which group you are in. See the work done on /interplanetary/ internet. They take security seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vb2frd5eq3voot6vdl9f4737unt16vqhi7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518404 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:04:22 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/10/18 02:03, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >>>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >>>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >>>> >>>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >>>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >>>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >>> >>> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >>> >>> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. >> >> Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security >> mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international >> espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft >> messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. >> >> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here >> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. > >And you think other people haven't already thought of >and considered those? Nobody here, obviously. > >It has been an active research topic for at least a >quarter of a century, with the results you see. > >Publish your ideas. I'll lay good money they have >already been found wanting. > > >> This "design" group >> is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are >> capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. > >Just because you have some skill and experience in >electronics, means zilch about your skill in software >and networks. Three RTOS, several compilers, lots of modem and protocol designs, original work in networking, maybe a million lines of code. But experience doesn't make ideas good or bad; ideas stand on their own. In many, maybe most fields of study, there is sufficient group-think that experience eventually becomes a liability; nobody dares to question accepted theories. This group is mostly now people who don't do design and are reflexively hostile to ideas. > >Brainstorming is trivial, particularly when ignorant >of the theoretical, practical and commercial constraints. Brainstorming is trivial? Do you always work alone? And get all your designs from textbooks and appnotes? > >Implementation is "difficult". Sure. That's why it's fun. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <40NtD.764$8g.102@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #518430 |
On 05/10/18 17:08, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:04:22 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 05/10/18 02:03, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown >>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> This thread has turned pretty well south. Internet security is an >>>>> important issue, but talking about trashing pretty much our entire >>>>> network system and redesigning all PCs from the ground up is insane. >>>>> >>>>> JL like simple solutions whether or not they work. In his little >>>>> designs he can try things out, but in things like this he has no real >>>>> concept of the magnitude of what he is suggesting. >>>> >>>> It is a concrete example of the classic maxim that >>>> >>>> for every complex problem there is a simple *WRONG* answer. >>> >>> Oh, I have no illusions that anyone will fix the internet security >>> mess in my lifetime. With a zillion IoT devices and international >>> espionage, things will only get worse. IBM and Intel and Microsoft >>> messed things up too badly to fix any time soon. >>> >>> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here >>> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. >> >> And you think other people haven't already thought of >> and considered those? > > Nobody here, obviously. > > > >> >> It has been an active research topic for at least a >> quarter of a century, with the results you see. >> >> Publish your ideas. I'll lay good money they have >> already been found wanting. >> >> >>> This "design" group >>> is mostly emotionally hostile to new ideas. Only a few people here are >>> capable of brainstorming, or of serious electronic design. >> >> Just because you have some skill and experience in >> electronics, means zilch about your skill in software >> and networks. > > Three RTOS, several compilers, lots of modem and protocol designs, > original work in networking, maybe a million lines of code. But > experience doesn't make ideas good or bad; ideas stand on their own. > > In many, maybe most fields of study, there is sufficient group-think > that experience eventually becomes a liability; nobody dares to > question accepted theories. This group is mostly now people who don't > do design and are reflexively hostile to ideas. There's truth in that, but it is entirely reasonable to be hostile to half-baked half-expressed ideas that conflict with solid theory. I, and others, have seen far too many "revolutionary ideas" that are only "revolutionary" because history has been forgotten (or disguised), or theory not understood. There's an awful lot of that in the software domain. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. >> Brainstorming is trivial, particularly when ignorant >> of the theoretical, practical and commercial constraints. > > Brainstorming is trivial? Do you always work alone? And get all your > designs from textbooks and appnotes? I do "work" alone now, but not when I was in HP Labs nor Cambridge Consultants (UK part of Arthur D Little), to name two places you may have heard of. There was no shortage of ideas; the "problem" was choosing which ones to follow and which to drop. That was a great "problem" to have!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32890c7d-93f6-4e7b-8992-f825142644ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #518430 |
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 2:08:21 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:04:22 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 05/10/18 02:03, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:27:52 +0100, Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 04/10/2018 18:27, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: <snip> > >> I have some good ideas of how to make things better, but nobody here > >> wants to discuss them, or suggest any alternates. > > > >And you think other people haven't already thought of > >and considered those? > > Nobody here, obviously. Tom Gardner obviously has, but John Larkin only pays attention to people who post stuff that flatters him, so he hasn't noticed. > >It has been an active research topic for at least a > >quarter of a century, with the results you see. > > > >Publish your ideas. I'll lay good money they have > >already been found wanting. <snip> > Three RTOS, several compilers, lots of modem and protocol designs, > original work in networking, maybe a million lines of code. But > experience doesn't make ideas good or bad; ideas stand on their own. And John Larkin's are all in the dust-bin of history. > In many, maybe most fields of study, there is sufficient group-think > that experience eventually becomes a liability; nobody dares to > question accepted theories. This group is mostly now people who don't > do design and are reflexively hostile to ideas. We don't flatter John Larkin's re-inventions of the wheel with the enthusiasm he feels to be appropriate. He interprets this as "hostility to ideas" rather than disdain for old ideas. > >Brainstorming is trivial, particularly when ignorant > >of the theoretical, practical and commercial constraints. > > Brainstorming is trivial? Do you always work alone? And get all your > designs from textbooks and appnotes? Brainstorming is a way of getting new ideas out of people who aren't used to looking for them. I've got three patents while John Larkin has just one to his name, as a co-inventor. I didn't need brainstorming to come up with any of the ideas that got turned into my three patents - nor the one that turned out to have been already patented by the guy who had edited the article that had inspired me. > >Implementation is "difficult". > > Sure. That's why it's fun. Brainstorming ought to be fun too. If it isn't you aren't doing it right. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp851g$8gl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #518389 |
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 18:03:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > So, call me an idiot, or suggest a better os and internet architecture, > and we'll see which group you are in. I remember you saying about 20 years ago here that you weren't the least interested in operating systems! What's changed?? -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web