Return Entire Thread First 100 Posts Prev 100 Next 100 Last 50 Posts Report Thread Style: Yotsuba, Pseud0ch, Terminal

Pages: 1-40 41-80 81-120 121-160 161-200 201-240 241-

Microsoft Crippling VISTA,2008 and 7

1

I don't & mainly because of these 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) shouldn't be & yet, are.

----

1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!

&

2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

----

QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have an answer, a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer, as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?

See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx

AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...

(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)

APK

P.S.=> I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ ) ... here tis:

From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:


----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"

----

Lame reasoning imo!

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

E.G.-> Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES (which because they work @ an unrelated level (drivers-wise), in the IP stack, makes it an actual advantage because it cannot be 'taken out' from a single point of attack (though, perhaps MS is saying a single point of control is the advantage in their method, it still lends itself to being taken down from a single place too by the same token - imo? A "catch-22" situation, quite possibly & MOST likely))?

I.E.-> It weakens the concept of "Layered Security"... especially vs. say, recent attacks on services like the RPC bug in the SERVER service, for example... no more firewall (or other layers like Port Filtering) in the way, once said software firewall is down (since it works on a diff. driver level than Port Filters do)!

P.S.S.=> Mr. Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ ) & I are currently in progress searching for the reasoning behind the removal of 0 as a valid IP blocking address in a HOSTS file, but even HE was unaware of WHY this was done... but, with any luck? We're going to find out - &, I'll let you all know, here, if the thread isn't dead by then... apk

2

Do ANY of you folks have an answer, a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer, as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their
descendant, in Windows 7 ??

3

Use something significantly less retarded than a hosts file for ad blocking. That's not what it's for.

Also, you're a fucking cunt.

4

I don't & mainly because of these 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) shouldn't be & yet, are.
doesn't parse

5

Use something significantly less retarded than a hosts file for ad blocking. That's not what it's for.

Ever heard of "layered security"? If not, do... I practice it.

Clue: I have all the firewalling in the world in multiple layers, with a LOT more...

Take a read here:

----

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond)...:

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=af8f8f41f8cdcaf0d7b25cb482b4b7f4&showtopic=2662

----

It works, + I wrote it...

( & is a guide all over the internet about it, rated highly + even earned me some pay for writing it up.)

And, on 15 of the 20 sites it is featured @ online it is an "Essential Guide" Sticky Type post, & the remaining others have it "5/5 stars", most viewed, etc. et al...

Additionally in this art & science??

I have been featured in these publications in this field:

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue

http://journals2.iranscience.net:800/www.win2000mag.com/www.win2000mag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/37/37.html

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, but by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

----

SO, that all "said & aside"?

Have you done the same I wonder??

If not, & I am guessing probably not???

Well, lol, I wonder who folks here are going to think is RETARDED (as you called me) in this field???

----
BOTTOM-LINE, for my usepatterns on a PC here @ home?

Well - Why should I waste CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O on running a DNS server that can be poisoned, &/or may be susceptible, AND that I clearly plainly do not need here locally, + I don't need AD either (has heavy DNS dependencies)...

(BY the by - & I do use DNS servers, external ones, & best in the business (as far as DNS servers external to my home here), in OpenDNS!)

Most of all why run a local DNS server, when this is for myself here on a workstation system anyhow which is a single standalone system connected to a NAT firewalling LinkSys router?

APK

P.S.=> Name tossing's not really helping your cause much either...

6

EXPERT CAPSLOCK & BOLD USER

7

Someone sure likes to use the ampersand a lot.

8

ENTERPRISE QUALITY THREAD

9

>>5
your gay

10

>>5
That's not what layered security means, and you're still a cunt. Fuck off.

11

>>1
Look at it this way.

On most browsers, you can bring up your browsing history by pressing Control-H. (No, this is not going to become a discussion of werecows.) On Firefox, this brings up a sidebar that shows up on the left side of the window. If you put your mouse over the edge of the sidebar, the cursor will turn into a different kind of arrow. By clicking and dragging it, you can move the edge of the sidebar back and forth. You are, to put it another way, manipulating the border between the normal window and the history window. By moving the mouse, you can increase the portion of the window devoted to either part. In a more extreme view of this situation, you're increasing or decreasing the amount of existence the sidebar has.

Now, let's apply this idea to something more abstract. Look out your window. If you don't live in a highly urbanized area, you should be able to see the horizon. Think of this as the border between the land and the sky. The land and sky are obviously distinguishable thanks to this boundary. Now, if you were to "drag" the sash between the sky and the land, or to manipulate the border between land and sky, you would end up causing the sky to become larger and the land to become smaller, or vice versa. An effect of this might be to cause something that was just on the ground to suddenly be hundreds of feet in the air. Truly a frightening situation to be in. So, look at it this way - manipulating the border between two physical things shifts whatever balance there is in the interaction between those things. Alternatively, by manipulating the border between two things, you can change the manner in which they exist.

Still, this isn't *that* abstract, since it's still dealing with real things in the real world. Many believe that in this world, there are those things that are true, and those that obviously aren't. This divides reality into two extremes: truth and falsehood. But, since we have two extremes, logically one can imagine a boundary between those two extremes - the border between truth and lies. If one were to manipulate this border, suddenly things that were pure fantasy (flying pigs, for the sake of argument) have become reality - or things from reality have ceased to exist. This is how Yukari is said to have invaded the moon - by manipulating the border between truth and lies, as applied to the reflection of the moon on a pond, she was able to make the reflection of the moon into a manifestation of the actual moon, and so send her youkai army onto it. This is what's truly amazing about Yukari's power - the ability to manipulate the border between completely abstract concepts allows her to fundamentally change reality as we know it (at least in terms of two abstract concepts).

12

Instead of acting like you are, why not help us all find out why 0 has been removed as a valid blocking IP address in HOSTS files for VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 (most likely as well on the latter), because 0 (Zero) is more efficient than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 by far in terms of load/unload speed from file, AND, consumes less RAM upon loading into the local DNS cache...

Your a loser... face it! You could die today, the world wouldn't even know... lol!

Why do I say that?

Well, show me some whitepapers corporations & websites took from you that did things of benefit!

(Thing is? I know you can't... no way, no how... so I think you know what I think of YOU already! I wouldn't be this harsh, but telling me to Fuck off merits this... enjoy it, swallow it down pal! lol...)

Like my shareware too... it makes newspapers, books, magazines, etc. and folks seem to like it and the reviewers do as well!

What have you got, you FUCKING LOSER! nothing...

* Sorry folks, this guy is the type of person (swearing at me right off) that I have to flatten with his own tactics... neanderthalic & primitive!
apk

13

This thread is comedy goldmine.

14

I like this one better than FV.

15

Please pay no mind to this Anonymous fellow, he is a well-known troll, unscientific and ultimately destructive.

I do not happen to have written on this specific topic, because I have risen above such implementation details, but I think you are confusing many issues, which would become immediately clearer through satori. Satori is not a software package, but a state of mind that you can achieve by reading our book, SICP. Have you read it today?

xoxo, GJS Jay Sussman

16

>>1
Because 0 isn't an IP address and hosts files aren't meant to store thousands of entries. That's a DNS server job.

17

>>16
There's your answer. Happy now?

18

http://www.google.com/search?q=apk4776239%40hotmail.com

oh wow

19

HWBT?

20

I'd say one of the most irritating things about Vista was that they removed the Up button in explorer and the location drop-down menu in Save As dialogs now shows URLs now (seriously, WTF?)

21

>>19
Possibly Yes.

22

>>20
So install LispOS.

23

APK Cookie Killing Engine 98++ 9.9
Program that fools websites into thinking you accepted a cookie and gets you into many sites that force cookies upon you tracking you and your preferences and earlier whereabouts. Uses Stamina 32 Assembler DLL calls for added speed and efficiency as well as Win32 API and highly optimized inline Borland Delphi 3.0 code.

OMG OPTIMIZED

24

Inline code?!?

25

highly optimized inline Borland Delphi 3.0 code.
I lol'd hard.

26

>>16
Actually, it is. Just using a different notation.

27

>>26
NO IT ISNT OR ID BE ABLE TO PING 127.1 ... OH WAIT

28

>>16

Wrong.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Peter Rogers>ping 0

Pinging 0.0.0.0 with 32 bytes of data:

Destination specified is invalid.
Destination specified is invalid.
Destination specified is invalid.
Destination specified is invalid.

Ping statistics for 0.0.0.0:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Peter Rogers>

29

>>28
Your a faggot, Peter Rogers.

30

>>28
lol Peter Rogers

31

>>28
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

K:\Documents and Settings\admin>ping 0
Ping request could not find host 0. Please check the name and try again.

K:\Documents and Settings\admin>


What.

32

>>31
Use a real OS!

% ping 0
PING 0 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.021 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.022 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.018 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.022 ms
^C
--- 0 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.018/0.020/0.022/0.005 ms

33

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

λ:\Users\Abelson>ping 0

Pinging 0.0.0.0 with 32 bytes of data:
PING: transmit failed, error code 1214.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1214.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1214.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1214.

Ping statistics for 0.0.0.0:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

λ:\Users\Abelson>

34

Note also:

λ:\Users\Abelson>ping 2132345345

Pinging 127.25.2.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.25.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.25.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.25.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.25.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 127.25.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

35

When Mr. Lightman opens the front door to let Jennifer in, he has a pipe in his mouth. But in the very next shot when they're both inside, Mr. Lightman is holding the pipe in his left hand.

36

>>22
So install LispOS.
Which LispOS, like Windows, only gets around a 46/100 score on CIS Tool as well, mind you, by default in its outta the box default setup!

(I.E.-> Do you REALLY think even a LispOS is "secure as possible" outta-the-tox/oem stock?)


WELL- IF SO? Then, see the 1st post of this thread... (it shows you QUITE otherwise)

CIS Tool is a MULTIPLATFORM gauge of security, based on "industry best practices", & yes, those practices DO work... I just layer on MORE you can use, to both speed yourself up online, but more importantly, secure yourself more, too (above those industry std. practices no less).

&, it ALL works.

Good effort though, especially in regards to your reply regarding LispOS, but I do not think you are being facetious (wise guy here, either)...

POINT-BLANK:

You skimmed my man, & failed to notice that even LispOS (not that it IS any more secure than Windows is, outta the box period) doesn't do too well outta the box/stock, in its default setup - because again: There are photos of scores from LispOS as well, in the 1st post I did here!


APK

P.S.=> Either you skimmed (excusable, believe me, I am NOT above it myself @ times)... or, you don't know as much about LispOS as you'd like to think... apk

37

>>36
WHBTAwesomely

38

>>36
Your use of capitalisation is terrible. Please consult your nearest elementary school teacher for advice.

39

>>36
The CIS Tools don't take into account the fact that the cudders form into a defensive anti-hacker matrix in case of threat.

40

This guy surely has some form of mental illness. I lol'd, hard.

41

Got a PhD in psychiatry there to be dispensing such advice? Of course not.

(AND, You're off topic as well... grow up!)

APK

P.S.=> All I would like is answer to why HOSTS files being able to use a superior 0 blocking address (smaller & faster than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) has been removed from VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - AND - to discuss views on why PORT FILTERING has had its GUI front for it removed from they as well, because it works @ a diff. level of the IP stack drivers-wise than Software Firewalls or IPSec do, it aids layered security (because if one gets knocked down, the others working @ diff. levels are still in the way - just like using deadbolts + chainlocks + door handle locks & alarms to secure things like homes)... no, instead?

What I am getting, for asking a valid set of questions?

I am not attacking people here first (only defending myself, show us otherwise where I 'started up' with others in this thread, ok?), but you are, in myself right now... apk

42

smaller & faster? I DARE SAY ~
How can you know? wouldn't all ip adresses be represented by a single int32?

so -> maybe it has something to do with IPv6?

43

is dis sum REAL APK?

using hosts file is stupid, just drop packet at transport layer

44

ITT 10/10

45

You're a stupid fucker. The DNS Client service reads the hosts file in once when it starts and only reads it in again on the rare occurrence that it changes. Using the DNSAPI library, it reads in each line, tokenizes it and parses it - normalizing "0" to be equivalent to 0.0.0.0. This is then stored in that normalized form in the DNS cache.

Therefore, the only possible saving of speed would be in the initial loading of the hosts file. And parsing "0" versus "0.0.0.0" is such an insignificant difference it's not even worth talking about.

In conclusion: shut the fuck up you clueless moron.

46

shut the fuck up you clueless moron

You're ad hominem don't refute the COLOSSAL WASTE OF HARD DRIVE SPACE REAL ESTATE

________________
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary... and those who don't! ;)

47

I'm a TANK!
¶▅c●▄███████||▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅▅||█~ ~:~:~ :~ : ████►
▄██████████████████▅▄▃▂
███████████████████████►
◥☼▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙☼◤

48

The name's Hominem. Ad Hominem. And I refute everything you say.

49



          ∧_∧   / ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
          ( ´∀`) < I'm a tablecat
        /    |    \________
       /       .|     
       / "⌒ヽ |.イ |
   __ |   .ノ | || |__
  .    ノく__つ∪∪   \
   _((_________\
    ̄ ̄ヽつ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ | | ̄
   ___________| |
    ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄| |

50

>>40
I think this is some guy mimicking APK and doing it perfectly. Because not even APK would give a reply like >>36, would he?

51

                    ∧_∧   / ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
                    ( ´∀`) < How do I BBCode?
                  /    |    \___________
                 /       .|
                 / "⌒ヽ |.イ |
             __ |   .ノ | || |__
            .    ノく__つ∪∪   \
             _((_________\
              ̄ ̄ヽつ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ | | ̄
             ___________| |
              ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄| |

52

>>42
using hosts file is stupid, just drop packet at transport layer
Why do you feel that way? The host file's excellent, easy to use too (even IF it is a simple text file)... it is as easy to edit (1 click & enter 1 - rest is automated) as I noted here repeatedly now.

I must ask (again): HAVE YOU EVER USED IT?

GIVE ME SPECIFICS PLEASE - nobody seems to want to TOUCH that here, or elsewhere, when I ask it... why is that? IF I am "wrong", I'll admit it, & amend my posts is all... the idea, is to help others. I asked for critique (which 1oz is worth 1,000 lbs. of praise imo)... but, please - give me SPECIFICS! Thanks

I do BOTH for a living professionally (I am one of those "ancient guys" I guess, & have had a pretty varied career over 15 yrs. as a pro in this field (probably 23 yrs. total time though) is why, & am classically educated (degrees) in this field as well as being featured around 10 times in publication in it)...

apk

53

>>52

because it's easier to automate than editing the hosts file, but then again you could simply write a script to add entry to the file, anyways my grudge with the hosts file is that it's just a cheap ip substitution when the DNS request is passed with that particular address

i.e. the entry (0 www.this.com) will not block a.this.com

54

Anonymous -4 points 3 hours ago [-]

>>45
Upmodded for someone actually knowing what they're talking about.

perma-link report reply

55

>>40
Actually that makes me feel kind of bad about trolling him. Sounds too much like a legit aspie.

56

>>45

Downmodded for unnecessary rudeness.

57

>>56
-1, Offtopic

58

>>45
I give this post +1 Susspoint for unnecessary rudeness

59

>>58
How many Susspoints do I need to collect before I can trade them in for satori?
I currently have 4.

60

>>59
Mu

61

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!

This guy has to be trolling us, hard. I created a sample hosts file with this many entries in, and it took almost 45 minutes for XP's DNS Client service to load it into memory. If I turned the DNS Client service off, it added approximately three seconds to every name lookup as the DNS API scanned the file.

62

>>61
And thats why DNS client is never enabled on my comp.


_________________________________________
...what we call education and culture is for the most part nothing but the substitution of reading for experience, of literature for life, of the obsolete fictitious for the contemporary real...

63

>>62
Then you're doing it wrong.

64

>>63 I prefer to DNS to be managed by DNS servers, not XP.


_______________________________
Oh no! A young masked interrupt, holding up the bus.

65

>>64
And thats why DNS client is never enabled on my comp.

I prefer to DNS to be managed by DNS servers, not XP.
it seems that someone here doesn't understand the basic client/server model

66

>>65 The model is subverted when you add a proxy layer to manage DNS requests.
I don't need this 'cache' and neither i need Active Directory.

________________________________________________
When you look at the whole life of the planet, we - you know, man - has only been around for a few blinks of an eye. So if the infection wipes us all out... that is a return to normality.

67

>>63,65
Happy? You talked to .
thinks that getting replies telling him that he is wrong is the ultimate form of trolling. Nice job supporting there, anon

68

>>67
your

69

This guy has the most atrocious grammar I've ever seen. Reformat my brain plz.

70

>>68
What about my ?

71

>>70
Your  is gay.

73

>>71
What is an "is gay"?

74

This is what I emailled him. I think IHBT for sure, but I don't care as it was somewhat educational and interesting working this out:

Are you really serious about having 650 thousand lines in your hosts file? I can't imagine why you'd need that many. It also has a crippling effect on one's computer.

To test this, I created a sample copy of a hosts file with that many entries, using the "0" shorthand for IP address and a randomized hostname of average 32 characters. Total size of this file is 22855 kilobytes, and after an hour the DNS cache had only loaded a third of it in. This is primarily due to the choice of algorithm used by the DNS cache service - it wasn't designed for tens of thousands of hosts file entries to be stored, so uses a rather inefficient method of growing the space used to store that involves copying huge swathes of data around for each new entry. It also blocked any name lookups while loading the file.

So instead of this, I tried with only 65k entries, and made three copies of this file. Each had an identical list of hostnames, but used "0", "0.0.0.0" and "127.0.0.1" respectively. The DNS cache now took 1 minute 55 seconds to load each one; the choice of IP address style didn't make any difference to the loading time as the bulk of the processing was in inserting new entries as described in the paragraph above. Name resolution was at normal speed after that, though. Searching in-cache - even for such a large set of data - added no discernible penalty.

I decided to try with the DNS cache disabled. This isn't a good idea, as it forces uncached name resolution to be done for every single lookup. This is indeed what it did, and the original 650,000 entry hosts files added around 3 seconds onto every single name lookup, the amalgamated effect of which slowed general Internet access down considerably. Unlike the DNS cache loading, this time there was a slight difference in loading times between the different hosts files - this was expected, as it was reading the entire file each time so that became the bottleneck.

Finally, to address your last question: every IPv4 address is sorted in the cache using the same size of four bytes. e.g. both "0" and "0.0.0.0" become 00 00 00 00, both "127.1" and "127.0.0.1" become 7F 00 00 01, and so on. This is consistent with the binary format used in the sockets API.

In conclusion, using the hosts file to store tens of thousands of entries has a negative effect on the performance of Windows' name resolution. You should really consider another option to filter all those hostnames.

Regards
    

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Peter Kowalski" <apk4776239@hotmail.com>;
To: "            " <        @     .   >
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: hosts file APK REPLY #1, Thanks + IMPORTANT QUESTION... apk

Thanks,

Still, it does adversely affect speed, nevertheless... you stated:

"And parsing "0" versus "0.0.0.0" is such an insignificant difference it's not even worth talking about. Even on thousands of entries any speed impact would bebarely measurable and certainly not noticeable."

BUT, it is quite noticeable... humanly noticeable, & here is why/how/when etc.:

There IS a decent gain, using PLAIN 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 when you have as many lines in your HOSTS file as I do @ 650,000++ of them!

Simply because an extra 5 bytes per line using 0.0.0.0 or an extra 7 bytes using 127.0.0.1, vs plain 0, begins to show its face & compounds itself further the more lines you HOSTS file has).

That's where the problem is really. You noted it as did I below in your reply, No questions asked!

Doing the math alone (theory) shows that, &, as you noted, the loading speed of the IP stack hauling the HOSTS file in shows it, & also via unloading/flushing the local DNS cache via ipconfig /flushdns...

This simple test can illustrate it for you, as a test if you wish in fact.

I am more concerned on memory usage, & it appears that the use of IPConfig /flushdns increases using larger Blocking IP Addresses than 0 (& those of course being 0.0.0.0 &/or 127.0.0.1) & your explanation of this took care of that for me (I knew that HOSTS files did not load repeated entries upon load into the local DNS cache, but, not that 0 converted to 0.0.0.0).

QUESTION:  What about 127.0.0.1 vs. 0.0.0.0?

127.0.0.1 doesn't resolve to 0.0.0.0, so it IS bigger in RAM once the HOSTS is loaded into a local DNS cache though, where 0 is same as 0.0.0.0 once loaded into the local DNS cache, correct??

Thanks for the answer...

APK



----- Original Message -----
From: "            " <        @     .   >
To: "Alexander Peter Kowalski" <apk4776239@hotmail.com>;
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: hosts file

Hello,

In regards to your recent postings about how integer IP addresses such as "0" no longer work in the hosts file - the fact of the matter is that the difference this makes to the speed of one's system is insignificant, so there is no reason to just change the hosts file to use "0.0.0.0" instead.

The reason is this: the DNS Client service - assuming it is running, which it should be - reads the hosts file in once when it starts and only reads it in again on the rare occurrence that it changes. Using the DNSAPI library, it reads in each line, tokenizes it and parses it. Integers are converted during the parsing stage to their equivalent IP addresses, e.g. "0" becomes 0.0.0.0. These host to address mappings are then stored in their normalized (i.e. binary) form in the DNS cache.

Therefore, the only possible saving of speed would be in the initial loading of the hosts file, which happens rarely. And parsing "0" versus "0.0.0.0" is such an insignificant difference it's not even worth talking about. Even  on thousands of entries any speed impact would be barely measurable and certainly not noticeable.

The only saving of space would be in the hosts file itself - again, a negligible difference. Addresses stored as either "0" or "0.0.0.0" in the hosts file on disk are stored precisely the same in memory in the DNS cache so there is no space difference at all here.

Hope this explanation helps put your complaint into perspective.

Best regards,
    

75

>>74
YHBTE

76

YHBT

77

>>73
0/10

78

>>77
http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/80kzx/my_brother_got_a_010_on_his_10th_grade_research/

79

>>74
Just got this reply. I seriously wtf'd reading it:

Stop the DNS Client service, no more problem.  The evolution of my HOSTS file was the result of 12++ yrs. of filling it is why it is so big. First, I started out using it only for speed, in 1 of 2 means possible: 1st being blocking adbanners (URL equation to 0, 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1), & the 2nd being hardcode URL-to-IP Address resolutions (which does have the occasional downside of changing by various websites when they change hosting providers, but most let you know that is going to happen ahead of time or the date when it will so you can account for it, reping them to get the NEW IP Addy & done). This is literally easily seen in the speed increase on the ping too, as that takes 30-60ms typically from a remote DNS Server. From a HOSTS file on disk by way of comparison? 0 ms, & literally, a 30-60x order of magnitude increase in speed thus. Do the math, it's easily apparent.

(emphasis mine)

80

>>79
emphasis mine is stepped on and explodes.

81

[fixed]failure[/fixed]

82

bool is_gay(sexpref_t sexuality) { return sexuality == GAY; }

83

>>82
public bool classifiableAsHomosexual() {
    //Maintain proper encapsulation; subclasses may override
    //algorithm for calculating place on Kinsey scale
    KinseyScaleValue genericSexuality = getKinseyScaleValue();

    int comp = 0;
    try {
        comp = genericSexuality.compare(KinseyScaleValue.TYPICAL_BISEXUAL);
    } catch (Throwable e) {
        // Do nothing
    }

    //Maintain readability by not depending on implicit behavior
    //of built-in operators, since they are not documented in
    //our client's company-wide style guide.
    bool isGreater = comp > 0;
    if (isGreater) {
        return true;
    } else {
        if (!isGreater) {
            return false;
        }
    }
    throw new StandardImpossibleOperationException();
}

84

>>66
I rather have to not wait an extra few seconds while the SLOWASFUCK DNS query gets passed around the root servers

85

>>84
Fail for not understanding DNS.

86

I'd like to know who registered here as myself and is copying and pasting selective excerpts (that have been added to distorting my original replies there) from slashdot where I noticed this and also caught a poster named "The End of Days" admitting to posting under multiple registered accounts there to mod himself up with -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 , because the first thing I'm going to do is contact your hosting provider and then law enforcement in your state to remove it. Your choice, I'm on my way, right now, to take care of this. Thank you. APK

87

>>86
You're Gay

88

>>86
not enough &

89

To whomever posted excerpts of my words on slashdot (altered ones and original ones): I am going to find out who owns this website, and contact them to have them remove it. If that fails, I will contact local law enforcement in your area to have it removed and then have all parties involved prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You have been warned. Sincerely, APK

90

>>89
( ≖‿≖)

91

People, this is a person who posts as "The End of Days" over @ slashdot impersonating me here. To "the End of Days":

I see you are now impersonating me at the forums @ 4chan.org, by registering as myself there & posting excerpts of my posts here @ slashdot (some in their original form and altered ones as well from other sites also) as well as your admitting to using multiple registered accounts here (to mod yourself up and to make it appear as if you have supporters (not)).

Bad move:  <b>That is just going to make me go to 4chan.org's hosting provider and have them remove it, & if that fails, I will employ the local law enforcement in their area to do so and to prosecute you as well, & strangely I think it's going to go FEDERAL pal.</b>

(Oh, & by the way - I've had to do this before to a Mr. Jeremy Reimer and Mr. Jay Little of arstechnica, who had their websites @ CrystalTech.com & petitiononline.com removed in their entirety or in large portions & was completely successful in exposing those 2 for the same type of garbage you are pulling here on this site and over @ 4chan.org):

http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1235936964/1-40

<b>I came across this impersonation of myself online</b> (via cuts & pastes of my posts here & from other websites, some original, some altered) <b>right after I posted about Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 removing port filtering and also making it impossible to use a 0 inside of a HOSTS file to block out bad IP addresses.</b> -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=27012231

<b>This impersonation of myself "oddly" seems to have happened only after when I also caught one of your own here @ slashdot, "The End of Days"</b> -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 <b> caught admitting to using multiple registered accounts to "mod himself up" here and to use those same registered accounts to mod down others</b> (on top of his use of ac submissions as well to also make it appear he has further supporters).

<b>The "The End of Days": I would be a bit worried now were I you, because now it's going to go out of my hands @ this point</b>, & you're the only person who might have any reason to do so. Now, I will just go to the hosting provider involved for that website to take care of it, & if I get resistance of any kind, <b>I will prosecute yourself, and any others involved, to the fullest extent of the law.</b>

Heh, it looks like this is truly "the end of days" of you being online, period, much less you constantly bothering others here or elsewhere online via your bogus methods of impersonating others or posting under diff. account names here & at other forums in order to do so. You only bring this on yourself, & it only takes me minutes to take care of.

APK

P.S.=> It's one thing to shame yourself here being caught admitting to using multiple registered accounts to mod yourself up with (something us ac's can never be accused of) but, to go & impersonate me there has legal implications, and that is just plain dumb... I have no pity for you here, this is a lesson you will have to learn just as Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little of arstechnica had to before (my friends & family suspect it is they once more, but I'll reserve judgement on that until the law & hosting providers do their end of it)... apk

92

>127.0.0.1

Get with the times, fags, it's ::1

93

Never mind, I hereby give you all rights to my IP.

94

To whom it may concern:

 +1-559-650-8111 <- I attempted to call you folks today, in regards to being
impersonated by someone posting as myself on what appears to be a website
hosted by your company, here ->
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1235936964/1-40 according to this page ->
http://tools.whois.net/index.php?fuseaction=whois.whoisbyipresults

I respectfully request that this all be removed, else, I will have to
contact law enforcement in your area to assist in this matter, per your
companies' information locating you in FRESNO california ->
http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k5k1qsp9s/netasset/

I take this completely seriously, as I hope you do.

Alexander Peter Kowalski
apk4776239@hotmail.com
apk

P.S.=> If possible, the identity of the person responsible would be nice to have from your end given me also... apk

95

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

96

http://slashdot.org/~The+End+Of+Days/comments

lol

97

>>94
( ≖‿≖)

98

him name is hopkin green frog

99

>>1

Dear Sir or Madam,
    I will start this short note, by indicating that I know very little about port configuration or DNS in general. With that out of the way, let me first inform you that it is quite obvious that it seems as if I know alot more about such subjects then you do. Though you still claim to be someone whose opinion matters.(As exemplified by the repetitious act of posting your resume from the mid to late 90's) It should also be worth noting that you did infact post on a board of 4chan which leads me to conclude on three major points on the subject of your inability to function properly in society due to some mental deficiency and or terminal head trauma; these three points are regarded thusly:(1)You posted on this website without prior knowledge to its contents therein; this alone is a fool thing to dabble in, as you do not know the audience you are paying too. (2)Assumedly as most internet travelers have heard the many tales of debauchery that come from these hollowed servers, it should also be deduced that you yourself might have hears the names of anonymous and 4chan at least once, if only in passing.Meaning you should have already been aware that your reception here would not be a friendly one, much less one that would give you praise for your opinion. Though this makes point 1 moot, it still indicates you to be lacking in higher thought capacities. Which brings me to point three:(3) Not only did you insist on proving yourself to be worthy of a higher opinion, you actually posted links that contain your email address(and to a hotmail account no less) and did not stop to consider the downfalls this might have for your person and or image on the internet. This alone is causation for you to be insulted endlessly. (ergo Have your anus haxxed) These all seem elementary mistakes that anyone could have made, so in essence I guess it's not all that bad, but you also seem to be an "Expert on Security".

So let me pose you this question: Why does one who as as adept as you in the area of computer security use Hotmail, and then proceed to give his email address to the snarling wolves of the internet?

tl;dr: You Are An Idiot.

100

point 1 moot
I believe you mean ``point 1 doug".

101

I applied the nutcracker to my nuts. It seems like the right thing to do. Now I'm playing around with it.

102

"Ah, vengeance is sweet. How I hoped I'd be the one to catch you. I told Dumbledore you were helping an old friend enter the castle and now here's the proof."

"Brilliant, Snape - once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion... Why don't you run along and play with your chemistry set?"

"I could do it, you know... But why deny the Dementors? They're so longing to see you. Do I detect a flicker of fear? Ah, yes. The Dementor's Kiss. One can only imagine what that must be like to endure. It's said to be nearly unbearable to witness, but I'll do my best."

103

1 of you asked a reasonable question above/earlier:

"So let me pose you this question: Why does one who as as adept as you in the area of computer security use Hotmail, and then proceed to give his email address to the snarling wolves of the internet?"

Ever heard of honeypots?

Well - It's sort of like that, because it attracts said "wolves" (script kiddie chumps is more like it, lol) easily, as you state, because a weasel can't help but be a weasel (their nature, how sad & pitiful) & then they get reported to PHISHTANK (or other like sites that report spamming etc. et al) or, worse (hello "The End of Days" from /.).

Understand?

As far as giving my IP addy away, as hotmail.com does in its headers (or @ least it used to) in addition to my email addy (a throwaway one I use for conversing w/ the public only)?

Same drill, because I know my system cannot be 'assaulted' by the 'packs of script kiddie fleas' out there, because it is thus secured:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7c517d47d5b906b177155dc0fb494a3c&t=28430&page=3

Where I have people literally using that guide's steps I wrote up to secure themselves, showing no malware infestations whatsoever in 1++ yr.'s time thusfar!

(Thronka there is a prime example, I can easily produce others experiencing the same in case you are interested).

In fact, & this very practice for one of your own posting here is going to work out badly for the person impersonating me here, unfortunately (by whatever means I have to use to pursue it, this will graduate depending on what I see as results from the hosting provider here and the website owner here) as they have been posting as myself?

He was easily "roped in" to doing this, & it's not my 1st rodeo here in this capacity boys... fools of that nature ARE easy to get to destroy themselves.

E.G.-> A Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little of arstechnica tried the same thing a few years ago & were caught in the act impersonating myself AND others (Martin Meszaros for one, an online pal of mine from years past) & articles of Dr. Mark Russinovich @ Windows IT Pro can show anyone the same!

(Which where I put up 12 points that Dr. Mark R. was unable to disprove, though I spotted & fixed an error in his work, to which he agreed he was "off" on & thanked me for in pagedefrag.exe ontop of those points)

And, ones such as the one by Jay Little claiming he was an "expert on exchange" & he did not realize that MS recommends memory optimization programs to get halted Exchange Servers (due to memory fragmentation) going again, & this was a similar problem in FireFox also (& many other apps I had noted & had documented evidence of)).

Now, you can call me "expert", but, I am just a guy who can "get the job done", & that's MY estimation of myself.

However, this post of yours fellas, where SOMEONE here (who I am fairly certain @ this point I know who they are now from my 'research' into this matter, bgp baby) is impersonating me here now online?

Guys... it's not going to go well for you, whoever is impersonating me now here, & I don't WANT anyone to get into a hassle, but... you're heading that way, quite possibly with the law, but we will see how it goes.

I.E.-> I've written this website's hosting provider, & am waiting for a response. If resistance from GIL (hosting provider owner of this site) occurs, that is when the FRESNO law enforcement gets involved, & if that fails me? Other means are possible & there is no way in hell you guys could stop me from blowing this site down off the wire making it impossible for you all to access, if I wished, & I think you all KNOW how that is done.

I would rather not do that, because it takes me down to the level of online scum!

AND, yes, that is EXACTLY how I had Jay Little's website taken down from CrystalTech.com & also petitiononline.com, minus what I COULD really do (& Jeremy Reimer of arstechnica had large portions of his website removed also).

I.E.-> Nobody will publish Reimer's articles, because of it, @ least no one reputable because of his antics there, and the fact he is no authority on computing @ all & merely regurgitates what others have written really... & he only blew it for himself and had his site torn up (not as bad as Jay Little, but enough for me to prove a point).

The sites that used to publish his 'articles' (loosely using said term)? Many won't anymore. Reimer has no degrees or certs in this art & science, and certainly no years to decades of hands on experience in them either & it shows. Thus, he bought his own farm, as I know this affects his income adversely.

Jay Little? He is now being seen being kicked repeatedly out of msdn & technet forums (posting as Jay Little, & later Mr. Jay) for it as well for the same type of behaviours.

We've probably ALL been 'kicked/banned' from a forum now & then, I know I have, but you really can't hold anyone out on forums (which I am sure again, you all know).

Anyhow - If the person who impersonated me here wants to become some "online pariah/leper" like those two?

You're heading in that direction unfortunately... & only doing it to yourself.

APK

P.S.=> It really is too bad you people are acting this way, because I am conferencing now w/ folks from WindowsNetworking.com & other places, and we are confronting MS on this, hopefully to get a FAR better Windows 7, than VISTA was, & every bit helps... apk

104

Thanks APK for fighting the good cause.  I fucking hate bullshit like four digit blocking IPs.

105

As far as calling me a "stupid fucker"? You missed where I covered all of that here:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7c517d47d5b906b177155dc0fb494a3c&t=28430&page=3

So much for you saying "You're a stupid fucker" to me.

APK (the real one, not whomever is posting as me here)

106

As far as calling me a "stupid fucker"?

You missed where I covered all of that here (as far as how the DNS api works):

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Again - So much for you saying "You're a stupid fucker" to me. I suspect you read that from the URL above, & now have tried to say I did not cover that much!

APK

P.S.=> Give us a break, & thank you to the person who said:

"Thanks APK for fighting the good cause.  I fucking hate bullshit like four digit blocking IPs."

apk

107

LOL, loved THIS one:

"Upmodded for someone actually knowing what they're talking about."

Sure, after he read me & others who are confronting MS with this data, saying that here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

APK

108

Someone also said this:

"I think this is some guy mimicking APK and doing it perfectly. Because not even APK would give a reply like >>36, would he?"

& no, that's NOT me.

It is this guy "The End of Days" I have caught admitting to posting under multiple registered accounts over @ /. (slashdot for you "non-*NIX" oriented folks) here who has been hassling me there all week during discussions involving that which we are discussing here (PORT FILTERING REMOVAL & HOSTS files being unable to use 0 as a blocking IP address in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7).

I had to "push some buttons" to get him to 'spill', but he eventually did, here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1154933&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=27137671

Where he literally admitted to having multiple registered accounts there to "mod up" his posts with, himself no less!

(That means giving them 'kudos' there basically - there is no reason to have multiple logons there other than that really!) & he then admits to posting as myself here also...

LAME!

However, using them to constantly give me guff? I have my limits, & now it's time to apply pressure in his direction he has NO IDEA about imo, & he's only doing himself in.

Some people are what I call "not men" online, other folks call them wussies & punks (high school girl gossipers, you decide) who think they're untouchable online.

Ask Jeremy Reiemr &/or Jay Little whom I noted above, as to what happens to that when you grab the WRONG tiger by the tail. It's unfortunate, but... here we go!

APK

P.S.=> I am currently in process of 'catching him' & he's gone silent there now, because I am almost SURE I know who it is now (the guy has problems) & he is only doing himself in there even more now, & his going silent there now? Too late... apk

109

Stop making fun of me because I'm a furfag.

APK

110

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27066233

More of this "End of Days" dolt impersonating me there, and admitting to his nefarious use of multiple registered accounts there.

I have little if ANY doubt @ this point that it is here impersonating me here.

APK

P.S.=> Too bad some people never learn & are in fact stupid, but, then again? When all you have done with your life is waste it bugging others, instead of improving yourself AND others' lives? I guess animals like he are the result, how lame & sad... apk

111

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793

Even more, a direct admittance of that person who is impersonating myself here, and the "why" of it... lol, because he was caught posting as multiple users by myself @ slashdot!

(Which is QUITE lame, and you guys know the type I am talking about. It's one thing to 'sneak back in' to a forums you've been unjustly kicked from, because of 'cronyism' etc. et al, but, quite another to use multiple identities to gang up on others or to mod yourself up with as well on forums, which he obviously does in having multiple registered accounts on slashdot for).

APK

P.S.=> He's out of MY hands @ this point, I handed it over to this sites HOSTING PROVIDER, & I will await their reply in removing the fool's posts here while he impersonated myself, & if that doesn't go? There is the law in FRESNO ca., because that's where the hosting provider for this website is located. I try to follow the law, FIRST, & it usually doesn't fail me (again, ask Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little of arstechnica.com about that, lol)... apk

112

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793

Even more, a direct admittance of that person who is impersonating myself here, and the "why" of it... lol, because he was caught posting as multiple users by myself @ slashdot!

(Which is QUITE lame, and you guys know the type I am talking about. It's one thing to 'sneak back in' to a forums you've been unjustly kicked from, because of 'cronyism' etc. et al, but, quite another to use multiple identities to gang up on others or to mod yourself up with as well on forums, which he obviously does in having multiple registered accounts on slashdot for).

APK

LOL, loved THIS one:

"Upmodded for someone actually knowing what they're talking about."

Sure, after he read me & others who are confronting MS with this data, saying that here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

APK

113

LOL, loved THIS one:

"Upmodded for someone actually knowing what they're talking about."

Sure, after he read me & others who are confronting MS with this data, saying that here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

APK

114

Man, talk about childish, but here goes, to this little tidbit here someone said above:

----

>>86
You're Gay

----

NO sorry I am not. If this disappoints you, then I do NOT know what to tell you, other than "find yourself another dish, I am not on the menu"...

APK

115

>>1
Because 0 isn't an IP address and hosts files aren't meant to store thousands of entries. That's a DNS server job.

----

To THAT little tidbit from "someone" here? I can only point you to where even Microsoft's folks have nothing valid to say in response vs. it (not really, & not on all the points I noted):

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Especially considering that TODAY? Microsoft issued 2-3 patches to the DNS SERVER, & DJBDNS was found with holes in it only 2-3 days ago also, & Dan Kaminsky set the entire internet into a frenzy finding problems in BIND DNS & others like it only recently also.

Give up already "The End of Days"... you are only digging your hole deeper, & if you think that using TOR (onion routers), or other means of "anonymizing" yourself will help?

Boy, are YOU in for a surprise pal... bgp!

APK

116

>>89,91,93-95,103,105-115
lol @ idiot talking to himself

117

Anyone can read what I wrote in response to my 'naysayers' here earlier in this post, & "The End of Days" from /. (slashdot)? You're ruining yourself & heading into trouble is all I can say. You've been fairly warned here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793

& here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1154933&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=27137671

(Using TOR Onion Routers now, or some anonymous proxy? That's ok, because I'll determine who you are, just as I did with Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little of arstechnica a few years back, where they did the same as you are impersonating myself, Mr. Martin Meszaros, & they also admitting to posting under multiple guises over @ Windows IT Pro forums, where they were caught & had their websites removed from their hosting providers, & had law enforcement in their native cities also put onto them as well as their ISP's for email harassment of myself & others).

Losers like they, and doubtless the slashdot poster "The End of Days"? They always get caught... always. Just a matter of time, so keep posting as it's only helping me find you.

APK

P.S.=> To GIL the owner of this site's hosting provider, & to the site owner(s) here - I am sorry this has to be done, but I wrote you today, you are aware of what is going on, & thanks for your assistance... apk

118

also, apparently this "The End of Days" he keeps talking about is APK himself.

119

This was the CLASSIC here though:

----

>>84
Fail for not understanding DNS.

&/or

You missed where I covered all of that here (as far as how the DNS api works):

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Again - So much for you saying "You're a stupid fucker" to me. I suspect you read that from the URL above, & now have tried to say I did not cover that much!

----

(I guess, thanks for providing me the means to expose you trying to take credit for what myself, & others, have noted to MS already on the issues of HOSTS files no longer being able to use 0 as a more efficient on disk (thus readspeeds) blocking IP address vs. known bad sites, AND on PORT FILTERING being 'pulled' from VISTA/Server2k8/Windows7)

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

P.S.=> Give us a break and yourself too, because you are heading into trouble "The End of Days" from slashdot, the poster who admits to using multiple registered accounts there to "mod yourself up" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 (yes, I am sure it is you now here also, keep it up, if you want trouble, serious trouble)

...& thank you to the person who said:

"Thanks APK for fighting the good cause.  I fucking hate bullshit like four digit blocking IPs."

So do I, especially via making it less efficient by removing the ability to use the smaller/faster on disk (& thus readspeeds of it), as well as DNS servers that are showing up CHOCK FULL OF HOLES (such as the ones Dan Kaminsky found in BIND this year quite recently, & more recently those in DJBDNS, & even Microsoft's whom they have been patching all year long and issued 2 more patches for today (MS' own DNS server service)).

apk

120

I am an idiot.

121

Now he's posting as myself in the post prior to my own. How laughable: Don't you think the site owner here can ID diff. IP addresses on our posts that appear only seconds after one another? LOL, man... some folks never learn!

You are only amusing myself in catching you in your nefarious b.s. here as you have at /. (slashdot) per the URL proofs of that above "The End of Days" here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793

& here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1154933&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=27137671

as well as saying "You are a stupid fucker" to me here, when you CLEARLY tried to rip off what I informed MS of along with others here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage


APK

P.S.=> Again to the site owners here, and to GIL your hosting provider in FRESNO? Thanks for your assist here, the /. moderators are on it as well, in addition to other parties to take care of this online menace "The End of Days" from slashdot (data on that is above for your reference also)... apk

122

>>121
hey idiot, learn to use sage so we don't have to have your shitty posts replying to yourself always bumping this shitty thread.

123

Ok, anonymous owner of this website (the one we don' have to listen to & obey), not!

124

What in the hell is going on in this thread? Are WBT?

125

>>124
some idiot, apparently from the "trolling means acting like a moron" camp, has been replying to himself using the names "The End of Days" and "Alexander Peter Kowalski" on slashdongs and now he's exported his faggotry here.

126

The mods/admins here can determine if the same person is posting as ANONYMOUS here as you have, vs. "Alexander Peter Kowalski" or "APK" or "The End of Days" so assuming you have moderators here @ all, they can tell you what is what on that account easily enough (assuming tricks like anonymous proxies, dynamically changing IP addresses, using a remote logon onto another PC which has another IP address (think remote desktop), or using TOR 'Onion Routers' are not being used by said people).

This IS "APK" (the real one here not the original impostor of myself) or "Alexander Peter Kowalski" whom I had to post here as since this "End of Days" person has assumed "APK" apparently.

All I know is, anyone body read the above exchanges, & make their own decisions, IF they can read English & have enough patience to examine the data I put up showing WHY you folks have to deal with this nutjob "The End of Days" (whom I have nailed over @ /. for posting there under multiple accounts to mod himself up with & to bug others with ontop of his usage of A/C posts there (analogous to anonymous elsewhere online)).

2 posts up, somebody "ANONYMOUS" said:

"What in the hell is going on in this thread? Are WBT?"

Again, read above... reading? Is fundamental.

APK

P.S.=> Again, thanks for these replies:

"Thanks APK for fighting the good cause.  I fucking hate bullshit like four digit blocking IPs."

& also THIS one (& I do know who YOU are @ this point too):

"This is what I emailled him. I think IHBT for sure, but I don't care as it was somewhat educational and interesting working this out:"

(Hi H.S.)

apk

127

LOL, loved THIS one:

"Upmodded for someone actually knowing what they're talking about."

Sure, after he read me & others who are confronting MS with this data, saying that here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

APK

128

>>127
no one here gives a shit, the people posting things like that are making fun of you. learn to use sage and stop bumping your shitty thread, "End of Days". or even better, go back to slashdongs and stay there.

129

DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS
DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS

130

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Additionally, you may all want to read a "noted experts" take on HOSTS files there.

Harm Sorensen: You said "IHBT" directed MY way above? See your email I just sent, reply #13 in regards to that, reply here if you like or via email as we have been.

Disappointing that "IHBT" stuff is from you, but I asked you a few questions in response to that post of YOURS here.

We'll see which way MS goes afterwards, over here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

In regards to "IHBT" because their removal of PORTS FILTERING which I have caught them in, in Windows VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7 is UNDENIABLY stupid... & if you think their "best & brightest" don't make mistakes, & overlook things? Ask Dr. Mark Russinovich PHD @ MS, about my finding that much in his work years ago (by trade, I have been more of a software engineer than networker, because it is HARDER work but far better paying overall & the fact that there are far more 'network admins/techs' out there also helps illustrate that point).

Point blank/bottom line is this, networkers vs. programmers: Without coders creating the tools networkers use? MOST networkers are useless/helpless.

Period.

You may all NOT like that, but it is just fact.

Harm - man, this "IHBT" stuff, I can't believe it of you saying that about myself here, after such a nice exchange @ MS & via email, but that's people for you!

APK

P.S.=> I wonder if you have accomplished that which the impersonator of myself actually KINDLY listed that I have actually done in this field over the last 16++ yrs. or so as a pro in BOTH areas, programming & networking... have you also done the same? If so, please, let's see some of it (I can concede I am talking to someone better, & I do admit mistakes as I never claimed I "knew it all" here, or in our email excanges) but, let's see what YOU have to say to all this now... apk

131

>>127
no one here gives a shit, the people posting things like that are making fun of you. learn to use sage and stop bumping your shitty thread, "End of Days". or even better, go back to slashdongs and stay there.

----

Apparently YOU do, else why "froth & foam" your raging reply here?

Read my last reply too, that ought to be good for a laugh, because I am laughing @ my naysayers here, & even H.S. is admitting I have made solid points (he won't TOUCH port filtering, and if he's that good, let's see him explain away why DNS servers have been found SO full of bugs, 2 more from MS this week being patched, TODAY mind you, another in DJBDNS this week, & loads more in BIND this year, via Dan Kaminsky finding them).

Sure, "DNS Servers are better for everyone", well dispute that above in my last paragraph... dispute Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM even saying he moves faster via a HOSTS file here ->

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Explain that away, Harm, with your IHBT comment directed MY way here earlier on YOUR part (& I never said you could post my emails here either, thanks a lot Harm Sorensen).

Harm Sorensen's reply to me after that in email?

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of thereuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities."

(Gee, sounds like "IHBT" to me also)

Here's more:

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking "

APK

P.S.=> This I have to see... let's see how "expert" your 'experts' are like Harm Sorensen, & see him explain all of the above away... apk

132

Hmm, whats the problem? Hosts file is slow?
Why not use a professional firewall/IP blocker software which is designed to operate with large datasets?

_________________________________________________
Experience is never limited, and it is never complete; it is an immense sensibility, a kind of huge spider-web of the finest silken threads suspended in the chamber of consciousness, and catching every air-borne particle in its tissue.

133

Please learn to quote.

134

Because the 1st things MOST malware tries to do nowadays, is knock out firewalls, not just MS' native one!

(A substandard one really, which is only lousy 1 way inbound controlling in older MS OS like XP (or it was, don't waste time on XP here anymore as I know Windows Server 2003 was a GIANT improvement on it & installs by default in "Workstation/Pro" mode) only vs. newer OS versions like VISTA have (possibly XP too by now) I have heard!

(I avoid VISTA for the above reasons I have been stating here alongside DRM, drivers issues, & UAC crap + more)...

Read my last reply above, in regards to that & HOSTS files + PORT FILTERING problems over @ MSDN here in the next URL I post below:

Read it, drink it in & digest it, & then explain THIS away (my reply on it there)->  http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Reply with your thoughts, especially vs. the TOTALLY b.s. reason MS is giving folks for removing PORT FILTERING period...

MY REPLY TO THAT THE VISTA RESOURCE KIT REASONS FOR PULLING PORT FILTERING GUI OUT OF VISTA/WINDOWS SERVER2k8/Windows7:

----

"AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls, AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work, flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year)."

----

vs. their flimsy reason which is, to be BLUNT about it? COMPLETE HORSECRAP from the VISTA reskit no less:

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"

----

(Which lol, really defies its OWN LOGIC!)

E.G.-> By MS removing 1 of the 3-4 possible added layers of security possible since IPSec, Software Firewalls, & Port filtering operate @ diff. levels of the IP stack via diff. drivers)?

They still leave 2-3 others, IPSec being the most difficult to work with vs. software firewalls rules tables or PORT FILTERING, & they do NOT interact w/ one another nor are they easily "synced" from 1 single point, thus that breaks their OWN b.s. reasons for removing port filtering.

APK

P.S.=> Guys, get the 'better of me' if you can, ESPECIALLY HARM SORENSEN... I told him this in email:

I am here to learn, I don't "know it all" in this field, nobody does, it's TOO damned big...

Harm Sorensen one of your members here said I was "IHBT", well see his replies above from email, I can say the same.

I.E.-> I concede 1 thing he noted, but the evidences of BOTH security bennies of HOSTS files (undeniable, even SpyBot "S&D" does this as well as populating filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, IE's restricted zone, & the FireFox analog to this also) & speed gains, per Mr.Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM seeing like I do here also, above...?

Hey, decide for yourselves.

Still, I was disappointed in Harm Sorensen, apparently one of you here, per the first set of posts here where he replied using my emails to he after he wrote me first, & then his calling me "IHBT" here?

Ok, read the above, & my last reply, using his own words...

Best testimonial a guy could have are those, from his own emails to myself as well as his post @ msdn... apk

135

I archived this entire post into an .mht file for later reading & so others can see it as well...

Especially your 'resident expert' here in Harm Sorensen who conceded the same points I made which Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM more than 1++ yrs. later only NOW is discovering:

FASTER ONLINE ACCESS via the usage of a custom HOSTS file, here -> in his article:

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

----

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now." Oliver Day, SecurityFocus.com"

----

That's JUST for starters, in response to his "IHBT" statement about myself here earlier...?

Hey - ok, fine, more to disprove on YOUR END now Harm (inclusive of your own words agreeing with my points in email & over at MSDN now rather 'suddenly'):

"DNS Server programs are the way for everyone" is what the mantra I have been seeing stated here + elsewhere (to which I get NO good replies vs. these facts from this week and year alone):

----

Dan Kaminsky found massive holes in BIND DNS.

DJBDNS was found with errors in it this week as well.

Microsoft issued 2 patches TODAY for their erroneous DNS server service.

----

Want more?

Explain those away first Harm, You are the one "good enough" to call me "IHBT" but I can say you're just a networker, which is NOT ON THE LEVEL OF A PROGRAMMER!

(Because most networkers are helpless w/ out tools coders create for them to USE (keyword clues you all into 1 fact: Network Techs & Admins? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD only).

You may not like that, but the fact there are more network techies & admins out there than programmers also tends to evidence that quite cleanly.

Additionally?

Here is Harm Sorensen agreeing with my points (not bad for me being the "IHBT" he calls me eh?)

----

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of the reuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities"

&

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking"

----

Want more? Just ask.

NOW, in regards to the debacle I have caught MS in?

(Not the first, I have found errors in Dr. Mark Russinovich's work PHD @ MS, to which he thanked myself for, & in his "Memory Optimization Hoax" article? 12 points he could NOT dispute as to where even MS recommends memory optimization techniques for getting Exchange Servers to work again & the same memory frag issues were found in FireFox & numerous other programs I had evidence of this happening in also - no disputing them, as Dr. Russinovich, the PHD, didn't dispute even one... & that is where I caught others impersonating me, as is being done here & @ slashdot, in Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little, noted above (had their ISP nail them email harassing me, & also caught them impersonating not only myself, but also Mr. Martin Meszaros who denounced them publicly there in the end, but also where law enforcement shut Reimer completely down)??

Here is what Harm Sorensen doesn't even TRY to touch, port filtering (which acts @ a diff. driver level of the IP stack vs. IPSec, &/or Software firewalls):

MY REPLY @ -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

"AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls, AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work, flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year)."

----

Ms' reason from the VISTA reskit for removing the easily used GUI for port filtering (dumb, defies its own reasoning):

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"

----

<b>Lame reasoning imo!</b>

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?

You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).

Heck MS' own b.s. reason from the VISTA reskit contradicts itself... why remove only 1 of the 3-4 possible added layers of security then, if NONE OF THEM SYNC easily from 1 control point?

That defies their reasons in & of itself.

----

Also - Why run a LOCAL DNS SERVER service or app, even free 3rd party ones, when I don't need AD here (has heavy DNS dependencies is why) just to waste memory, CPU, & other forms of I/O on it, when I can do the same using a FREE hosts file that does the job for free and just as well???

(Especially buggy DNS servers, see above, plenty of THAT going on this year and even today from MS & this week from DJBDNS)

NO, don't think so.

How about you Harm??

OH yes, you agreed with myself & only after I pointed out Mr. Oliver Day's data (url & quotes above)... didn't you?

APK

P.S.=> Guys, "get the better of me" if you can, I welcome it... but, first I'd like to see Harm's reply here to these points & others for calling me "IHBT" here, and then also posting parts of our email exchange here w/out my permission to do so, and, then to see him AGREEING WITH MY POINTS? Not bad for an "IHBT" then eh?? Especially one who's done this (which I strongly doubt any of YOU here can even begin to prove you have done the same & yet are calling me names etc. here):

----


----

You do that, & prove to me you have over 16++ yrs. as a pro in this field, and show the degrees, certs, & coursework I have in it? I can concede someone here is better... but then, I never said here "I knew it all"... I told Harm I am here to find naysayers to my points, & to find "holes" in my premises above is all. NOBODY knows this field in its entire scope, but then, not everyone calls others' names w/ out knowing what they are capable of or what they've done in this art & science either (I have found only noob network techies do THAT, usually)... prove me wrong guys, go for it... good luck!

In the end?

We'll see which way MS goes over there @ MSDN & with Windows 7 as regards both PORT FILTERING & the on disk bloating HOSTS file debacle removing 0 as a blocking address (which undeniable yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE on disk, which is doing MORE with less, & is good engineering)... apk

136

I archived this entire post into an .mht file for later reading & so others can see it as well...

Especially your 'resident expert' here in Harm Sorensen who conceded the same points I made which Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM more than 1++ yrs. later only NOW is discovering:

FASTER ONLINE ACCESS via the usage of a custom HOSTS file, here -> in his article:

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

----

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now." Oliver Day, SecurityFocus.com"

----

That's JUST for starters, in response to Harm Sorensen's "IHBT" statement about myself here earlier...?

Hey - ok, fine, more to disprove on YOUR END now Harm (inclusive of your own words agreeing with my points in email & over at MSDN now rather 'suddenly'):

"DNS Server programs are the way for everyone" is what the mantra I have been seeing stated here + elsewhere (to which I get NO good replies vs. these facts from this week and year alone):

----

Dan Kaminsky found massive holes in BIND DNS.

DJBDNS was found with errors in it this week as well.

Microsoft issued 2 patches TODAY for their erroneous DNS server service.

----

Want more?

Explain those away first Harm, You are the one "good enough" to call me "IHBT" but I can say you're just a networker, which is NOT ON THE LEVEL OF A PROGRAMMER!

(Because most networkers are helpless w/ out tools coders create for them to USE (keyword clues you all into 1 fact: Network Techs & Admins? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD only)).

You may not like that, but the fact there are more network techies & admins out there than programmers also tends to evidence that quite cleanly.

Additionally?

Here is Harm Sorensen agreeing with my points (not bad for me being the "IHBT" he calls me eh?)

----

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of the reuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities"

&

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking"

----

Want more? Just ask.

APK

P.S.=> Here comes that "more"... apk

137

Also?

NOW, in regards to the debacle I have caught MS in?

(Not the first, I have found errors in Dr. Mark Russinovich's work PHD @ MS, to which he thanked myself for, & in his "Memory Optimization Hoax" article? 12 points he could NOT dispute as to where

even MS recommends memory optimization techniques for getting Exchange Servers to work again & the same memory frag issues were found in FireFox & numerous other programs I had evidence of this

happening in also - no disputing them, as Dr. Russinovich, the PHD, didn't dispute even one... & that is where I caught others impersonating me, as is being done here & @ slashdot, in Jeremy Reimer

&/or Jay Little, noted above (had their ISP nail them email harassing me, & also caught them impersonating not only myself, but also Mr. Martin Meszaros who denounced them publicly there in the

end, but also where law enforcement shut Reimer completely down)??

Here is what Harm Sorensen doesn't even TRY to touch, port filtering (which acts @ a diff. driver level of the IP stack vs. IPSec, &/or Software firewalls):

MY REPLY @ -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

"AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls,

AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to

the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work,

flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year)."

----

Ms' reason from the VISTA reskit for removing the easily used GUI for port filtering (dumb, defies its own reasoning):

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that

another allows"

----

<b>Lame reasoning imo!</b>

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo,

provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?

You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).

----

Heck MS' own b.s. reason from the VISTA reskit contradicts itself... why remove only 1 of the 3-4 possible added layers of security then, if NONE OF THEM SYNC easily from 1 control point?

That defies their reasons in & of itself.

Also - Why run a LOCAL DNS SERVER service or app, even free 3rd party ones, when I don't need AD here (has heavy DNS dependencies is why) just to waste memory, CPU, & other forms of I/O on it, when

I can do the same using a FREE hosts file that does the job for free and just as well???

(Especially buggy DNS servers, see above, plenty of THAT going on this year and even today from MS & this week from DJBDNS)

NO, don't think so.

How about you Harm??

OH yes, you agreed with myself & only after I pointed out Mr. Oliver Day's data (url & quotes above)... didn't you?

APK

P.S.=> Guys, "get the better of me" if you can, I welcome it... but, first I'd like to see Harm's reply here to these points & others for calling me "IHBT" here, and then also posting parts of our

email exchange here w/out my permission to do so, and, then to see him AGREEING WITH MY POINTS? Not bad for an "IHBT" then eh?? Especially one who's done this (which I strongly doubt any of YOU

here can even begin to prove you have done the same & yet are calling me names etc. here):

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue

http://journals2.iranscience.net:800/www.win2000mag.com/www.win2000mag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/37/37.html

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, but by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop last year for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

----

You do that, & prove to me you have over 16++ yrs. as a pro in this field, and show the degrees, certs, & coursework I have in it? I can concede someone here is better... but then, I never said

here "I knew it all"... I told Harm I am here to find naysayers to my points, & to find "holes" in my premises above is all. NOBODY knows this field in its entire scope, but then, not everyone

calls others' names w/ out knowing what they are capable of or what they've done in this art & science either (I have found only noob network techies do THAT, usually)... prove me wrong guys, go

for it... good luck!

In the end?

We'll see which way MS goes over there @ MSDN & with Windows 7 as regards both PORT FILTERING & the on disk bloating HOSTS file debacle removing 0 as a blocking address (which undeniable yields a

FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE on disk, which is doing MORE with less, & is good engineering)... apk

138

>>127
no one here gives a shit, the people posting things like that are making fun of you. learn to use sage and stop bumping your shitty thread, "End of Days". or even better, go back to slashdongs and stay there.

----

Apparently YOU do, else why "froth & foam" your raging reply here?

Read my last reply too, that ought to be good for a laugh, because I am laughing @ my naysayers here, & even H.S. is admitting I have made solid points (he won't TOUCH port filtering, and if he's that good, let's see him explain away why DNS servers have been found SO full of bugs, 2 more from MS this week being patched, TODAY mind you, another in DJBDNS this week, & loads more in BIND this year, via Dan Kaminsky finding them).

Sure, "DNS Servers are better for everyone", well dispute that above in my last paragraph... dispute Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM even saying he moves faster via a HOSTS file here ->

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Explain that away, Harm, with your IHBT comment directed MY way here earlier on YOUR part (& I never said you could post my emails here either, thanks a lot Harm Sorensen).

Harm Sorensen's reply to me after that in email?

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of thereuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities."

(Gee, sounds like "IHBT" to me also)

Here's more:

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking "

APK

P.S.=> This I have to see... let's see how "expert" your 'experts' are like Harm Sorensen, & see him explain all of the above away... apk

139

I archived this entire post into an .mht file for later reading & so others can see it as well...

Especially your 'resident expert' here in Harm Sorensen who conceded the same points I made which Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM more than 1++ yrs. later only NOW is discovering:

FASTER ONLINE ACCESS via the usage of a custom HOSTS file, here -> in his article:

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

----

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now." Oliver Day, SecurityFocus.com"

----

That's JUST for starters, in response to his "IHBT" statement about myself here earlier...?

Hey - ok, fine, more to disprove on YOUR END now Harm (inclusive of your own words agreeing with my points in email & over at MSDN now rather 'suddenly'):

"DNS Server programs are the way for everyone" is what the mantra I have been seeing stated here + elsewhere (to which I get NO good replies vs. these facts from this week and year alone):

----

Dan Kaminsky found massive holes in BIND DNS.

DJBDNS was found with errors in it this week as well.

Microsoft issued 2 patches TODAY for their erroneous DNS server service.

----

Want more?

Explain those away first Harm, You are the one "good enough" to call me "IHBT" but I can say you're just a networker, which is NOT ON THE LEVEL OF A PROGRAMMER!

(Because most networkers are helpless w/ out tools coders create for them to USE (keyword clues you all into 1 fact: Network Techs & Admins? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD only).

You may not like that, but the fact there are more network techies & admins out there than programmers also tends to evidence that quite cleanly.

Additionally?

Here is Harm Sorensen agreeing with my points (not bad for me being the "IHBT" he calls me eh?)

----

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of the reuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities"

&

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking"

----

Want more? Just ask.

NOW, in regards to the debacle I have caught MS in?

(Not the first, I have found errors in Dr. Mark Russinovich's work PHD @ MS, to which he thanked myself for, & in his "Memory Optimization Hoax" article? 12 points he could NOT dispute as to where even MS recommends memory optimization techniques for getting Exchange Servers to work again & the same memory frag issues were found in FireFox & numerous other programs I had evidence of this happening in also - no disputing them, as Dr. Russinovich, the PHD, didn't dispute even one... & that is where I caught others impersonating me, as is being done here & @ slashdot, in Jeremy Reimer &/or Jay Little, noted above (had their ISP nail them email harassing me, & also caught them impersonating not only myself, but also Mr. Martin Meszaros who denounced them publicly there in the end, but also where law enforcement shut Reimer completely down)??

Here is what Harm Sorensen doesn't even TRY to touch, port filtering (which acts @ a diff. driver level of the IP stack vs. IPSec, &/or Software firewalls):

MY REPLY @ -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

"AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls, AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work, flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year)."

----

Ms' reason from the VISTA reskit for removing the easily used GUI for port filtering (dumb, defies its own reasoning):

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"

----

<b>Lame reasoning imo!</b>

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?

You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).

Heck MS' own b.s. reason from the VISTA reskit contradicts itself... why remove only 1 of the 3-4 possible added layers of security then, if NONE OF THEM SYNC easily from 1 control point?

That defies their reasons in & of itself.

----

Also - Why run a LOCAL DNS SERVER service or app, even free 3rd party ones, when I don't need AD here (has heavy DNS dependencies is why) just to waste memory, CPU, & other forms of I/O on it, when I can do the same using a FREE hosts file that does the job for free and just as well???

(Especially buggy DNS servers, see above, plenty of THAT going on this year and even today from MS & this week from DJBDNS)

NO, don't think so.

How about you Harm??

OH yes, you agreed with myself & only after I pointed out Mr. Oliver Day's data (url & quotes above)... didn't you?

APK

P.S.=> Guys, "get the better of me" if you can, I welcome it... but, first I'd like to see Harm's reply here to these points & others for calling me "IHBT" here, and then also posting parts of our email exchange here w/out my permission to do so, and, then to see him AGREEING WITH MY POINTS? Not bad for an "IHBT" then eh?? Especially one who's done this (which I strongly doubt any of YOU here can even begin to prove you have done the same & yet are calling me names etc. here):

----


----

You do that, & prove to me you have over 16++ yrs. as a pro in this field, and show the degrees, certs, & coursework I have in it? I can concede someone here is better... but then, I never said here "I knew it all"... I told Harm I am here to find naysayers to my points, & to find "holes" in my premises above is all. NOBODY knows this field in its entire scope, but then, not everyone calls others' names w/ out knowing what they are capable of or what they've done in this art & science either (I have found only noob network techies do THAT, usually)... prove me wrong guys, go for it... good luck!

In the end?

We'll see which way MS goes over there @ MSDN & with Windows 7 as regards both PORT FILTERING & the on disk bloating HOSTS file debacle removing 0 as a blocking address (which undeniable yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE on disk, which is doing MORE with less, & is good engineering)... apk

140

I archived this entire post into an .mht file for later reading & so others can see it as well...

Especially your 'resident expert' here in Harm Sorensen who conceded the same points I made which Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM more than 1++ yrs. later only NOW is discovering:

FASTER ONLINE ACCESS via the usage of a custom HOSTS file, here -> in his article:

Resurrecting the Killfile
Oliver Day, 2009-02-04

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

----

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now." Oliver Day, SecurityFocus.com"

----

That's JUST for starters, in response to Harm Sorensen's "IHBT" statement about myself here earlier...?

Hey - ok, fine, more to disprove on YOUR END now Harm (inclusive of your own words agreeing with my points in email & over at MSDN now rather 'suddenly'):

"DNS Server programs are the way for everyone" is what the mantra I have been seeing stated here + elsewhere (to which I get NO good replies vs. these facts from this week and year alone):

----

Dan Kaminsky found massive holes in BIND DNS.

DJBDNS was found with errors in it this week as well.

Microsoft issued 2 patches TODAY for their erroneous DNS server service.

----

Want more?

Explain those away first Harm, You are the one "good enough" to call me "IHBT" but I can say you're just a networker, which is NOT ON THE LEVEL OF A PROGRAMMER!

(Because most networkers are helpless w/ out tools coders create for them to USE (keyword clues you all into 1 fact: Network Techs & Admins? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD only)).

You may not like that, but the fact there are more network techies & admins out there than programmers also tends to evidence that quite cleanly.

Additionally?

Here is Harm Sorensen agreeing with my points (not bad for me being the "IHBT" he calls me eh?)

----

"You raise a very good point. I hadn't considered and was not aware of the reuse of old hostnames for such nefarious activities"

&

"I do agree with you and Mr Day about the benefits of blocking"

----

Want more? Just ask.

APK

P.S.=> Here comes that "more"... apk

141

Also?

NOW, in regards to the debacle I have caught MS in?

(Not the first, I have found errors in Dr. Mark Russinovich's work PHD @ MS, to which he thanked myself for, & in his "Memory Optimization Hoax" article? 12 points he could NOT dispute as to where

even MS recommends memory optimization techniques for getting Exchange Servers to work again & the same memory frag issues were found in FireFox & numerous other programs I had evidence of this

happening in also - no disputing them, as Dr. Russinovich, the PHD, didn't dispute even one... & that is where I caught others impersonating me, as is being done here & @ slashdot, in Jeremy Reimer

&/or Jay Little, noted above (had their ISP nail them email harassing me, & also caught them impersonating not only myself, but also Mr. Martin Meszaros who denounced them publicly there in the

end, but also where law enforcement shut Reimer completely down)??

Here is what Harm Sorensen doesn't even TRY to touch, port filtering (which acts @ a diff. driver level of the IP stack vs. IPSec, &/or Software firewalls):

MY REPLY @ -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

----

"AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls,

AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to

the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work,

flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year)."

----

Ms' reason from the VISTA reskit for removing the easily used GUI for port filtering (dumb, defies its own reasoning):

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that

another allows"

----

<b>Lame reasoning imo!</b>

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo,

provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?

You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).

----

Heck MS' own b.s. reason from the VISTA reskit contradicts itself... why remove only 1 of the 3-4 possible added layers of security then, if NONE OF THEM SYNC easily from 1 control point?

That defies their reasons in & of itself.

Also - Why run a LOCAL DNS SERVER service or app, even free 3rd party ones, when I don't need AD here (has heavy DNS dependencies is why) just to waste memory, CPU, & other forms of I/O on it, when

I can do the same using a FREE hosts file that does the job for free and just as well???

(Especially buggy DNS servers, see above, plenty of THAT going on this year and even today from MS & this week from DJBDNS)

NO, don't think so.

How about you Harm??

OH yes, you agreed with myself & only after I pointed out Mr. Oliver Day's data (url & quotes above)... didn't you?

APK

P.S.=> Guys, "get the better of me" if you can, I welcome it... but, first I'd like to see Harm's reply here to these points & others for calling me "IHBT" here, and then also posting parts of our

email exchange here w/out my permission to do so, and, then to see him AGREEING WITH MY POINTS? Not bad for an "IHBT" then eh?? Especially one who's done this (which I strongly doubt any of YOU

here can even begin to prove you have done the same & yet are calling me names etc. here):

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue

http://journals2.iranscience.net:800/www.win2000mag.com/www.win2000mag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/37/37.html

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, but by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop last year for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

----

You do that, & prove to me you have over 16++ yrs. as a pro in this field, and show the degrees, certs, & coursework I have in it? I can concede someone here is better... but then, I never said

here "I knew it all"... I told Harm I am here to find naysayers to my points, & to find "holes" in my premises above is all. NOBODY knows this field in its entire scope, but then, not everyone

calls others' names w/ out knowing what they are capable of or what they've done in this art & science either (I have found only noob network techies do THAT, usually)... prove me wrong guys, go

for it... good luck!

In the end?

We'll see which way MS goes over there @ MSDN & with Windows 7 as regards both PORT FILTERING & the on disk bloating HOSTS file debacle removing 0 as a blocking address (which undeniable yields a

FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE on disk, which is doing MORE with less, & is good engineering)... apk

142

I see someone is deleting my posts here, that's ok: Like I said, I have it all archived & can replace it in seconds... let's hear Harm Sorensen's take on the above though, shall we & point by point... I don't see your "resident expert" here in he disproving my points only actually agreeing with them, after he called me "IHBT" here... lol!

Come on people, grow up, face the music!

APK

P.S.=> IF you're going to FIRST impersonate me here, which someone has, & then call me names... then, you must be my "superiors" here right? Show us all that, by disproving what I wrote above... apk

143

>>142

'-._                  ___.....___
    `.__           ,-'        ,-.`-,
        `''-------'          ( p )  `._       HAVE YOU READ
                              `-'      \     YOUR SICP TODAY?
                                        \
                              .         \
                               \---..,--'
   ................._           --...--,
                     `-.._         _.-'
                          `'-----''

144

Wow, some valid reply from "the great 4chan.org forums gurus" (not)

145


'-._                  ___.....___
    `.__           ,-'       /,-.`-,
        `''-------'          ( o )  `._          NOTHING TO
                              `-'      \         SICP ABOUT
                                        \
                                        \
                                         '
   ................._           --...--,'
                     `-.._         _.-'
                          `'-----''

146

                     
                          _____
                         |     | 
'-._                 .___|=====|__-
    `.__           ,-'           `-,
        `''-------'          ( O )  `._      
                                       \_    
                                         \
                                          \
                                \         '
   ................._            \--...--,'
                     `-.._         _.-'
                          `'-----''

147

'-._                  ___.....___                           ___,,,,,___                  _,-'
    `.__           ,-'        ,-.`-,                     .-`,-.        '-.           __,`
        `''-------'          ( p )  `._               _,`  ( q )          '-------''`
                              `-'      \     SICP    /      '-'
                                        \           /
                              .         \           /         ,
                               \---..,--'           '--.,,---/
   ................._           --...--,             .--,,,--           _,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                     `-.._         _.-'               '-,_         _,,-`
                          `'-----''                       ''-----'`

148

>>146
ILFNRAA

149

>>148
NYJMUA.

150

Gee, look @ all the silly "L33T" acronyms & nifty little ASCII art rendersings.

(Not much on technical information though, are we?)

APK

P.S.=> Guys, even Harm Sorensen & I were confused by the person who is impersonating me here, which he told me in email, hence his first post here calling "the fake me" this "IHBT" acronym, which is afaik? "internet home based training" (& he told me it meant "you have been trolled" so, he & I are 'straight' on this, because I felt he had suddenly 'turned on me', because we got along so well in email regarding the topics noted here)...

I'll tell you 1 thing: When I DO 'zero-in' on this "The End of Days" prick who started this up w/ me @ /. & brought it here strangely enough? Well, by this point, I know HE hangs here for some reason, & I am sure by wriing your hosting provider that they'll get to the bottom of this... apk

151

   _,,....,,_  _人人人人人人人人人人人人人人人_
-''":::::::::::::`''>       Let's troll it easy!!!    <
ヽ::::::::::::::::::::: ̄^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^Y^ ̄
 |::::::;ノ´ ̄\:::::::::::\_,. -‐ァ     __   _____   ______
 |::::ノ   ヽ、ヽr-r'"´  (.__    ,´ _,, '-´ ̄ ̄`-ゝ 、_ イ、
_,.!イ_  _,.ヘーァ'二ハ二ヽ、へ,_7   'r ´          ヽ、ン、
::::::rー''7コ-‐'"´    ;  ', `ヽ/`7 ,'==─-      -─==', i
r-'ァ'"´/  /! ハ  ハ  !  iヾ_ノ i イ iゝ、イ人レ/_ルヽイ i |
!イ´ ,' | /__,.!/ V 、!__ハ  ,' ,ゝ レリイi (ヒ_]     ヒ_ン ).| .|、i .||
`!  !/レi' (ヒ_]     ヒ_ン レ'i ノ   !Y!""  ,___,   "" 「 !ノ i |
,'  ノ   !'"    ,___,  "' i .レ'    L.',.   ヽ _ン    L」 ノ| .|
 (  ,ハ    ヽ _ン   人!      | ||ヽ、       ,イ| ||イ| /
,.ヘ,)、  )>,、 _____, ,.イ  ハ    レ ル` ー--─ ´ルレ レ´

152

okay guys, enough with the markov chains

153

This thread is now about calculating the value of π.

154

3.14

155

>>153
BBP algorithm. End of thread.

156

>>154
It's `about' 3. More precision isn't necessary.

157

3.

1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510
5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679
8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128
4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196
4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091
4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273
7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436
7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094
3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548
0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912
9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798
6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132
0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872
1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235
4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960
5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859
5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881
7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303
5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778
1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989

3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952
0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151
5574857242 4541506959 5082953311 6861727855 8890750983
8175463746 4939319255 0604009277 0167113900 9848824012
8583616035 6370766010 4710181942 9555961989 4676783744
9448255379 7747268471 0404753464 6208046684 2590694912
9331367702 8989152104 7521620569 6602405803 8150193511
2533824300 3558764024 7496473263 9141992726 0426992279
6782354781 6360093417 2164121992 4586315030 2861829745
5570674983 8505494588 5869269956 9092721079 7509302955
3211653449 8720275596 0236480665 4991198818 3479775356
6369807426 5425278625 5181841757 4672890977 7727938000
8164706001 6145249192 1732172147 7235014144 1973568548
1613611573 5255213347 5741849468 4385233239 0739414333
4547762416 8625189835 6948556209 9219222184 2725502542
5688767179 0494601653 4668049886 2723279178 6085784383
8279679766 8145410095 3883786360 9506800642 2512520511
7392984896 0841284886 2694560424 1965285022 2106611863
0674427862 2039194945 0471237137 8696095636 4371917287
4677646575 7396241389 0865832645 9958133904 7802759009

9465764078 9512694683 9835259570 9825822620 5224894077
2671947826 8482601476 9909026401 3639443745 5305068203
4962524517 4939965143 1429809190 6592509372 2169646151
5709858387 4105978859 5977297549 8930161753 9284681382
6868386894 2774155991 8559252459 5395943104 9972524680
8459872736 4469584865 3836736222 6260991246 0805124388
4390451244 1365497627 8079771569 1435997700 1296160894
4169486855 5848406353 4220722258 2848864815 8456028506
0168427394 5226746767 8895252138 5225499546 6672782398
6456596116 3548862305 7745649803 5593634568 1743241125
1507606947 9451096596 0940252288 7971089314 5669136867
2287489405 6010150330 8617928680 9208747609 1782493858
9009714909 6759852613 6554978189 3129784821 6829989487
2265880485 7564014270 4775551323 7964145152 3746234364
5428584447 9526586782 1051141354 7357395231 1342716610
2135969536 2314429524 8493718711 0145765403 5902799344
0374200731 0578539062 1983874478 0847848968 3321445713
8687519435 0643021845 3191048481 0053706146 8067491927
8191197939 9520614196 6342875444 0643745123 7181921799
9839101591 9561814675 1426912397 4894090718 6494231961

5679452080 9514655022 5231603881 9301420937 6213785595
6638937787 0830390697 9207734672 2182562599 6615014215
0306803844 7734549202 6054146659 2520149744 2850732518
6660021324 3408819071 0486331734 6496514539 0579626856
1005508106 6587969981 6357473638 4052571459 1028970641
4011097120 6280439039 7595156771 5770042033 7869936007
2305587631 7635942187 3125147120 5329281918 2618612586
7321579198 4148488291 6447060957 5270695722 0917567116
7229109816 9091528017 3506712748 5832228718 3520935396
5725121083 5791513698 8209144421 0067510334 6711031412
6711136990 8658516398 3150197016 5151168517 1437657618
3515565088 4909989859 9823873455 2833163550 7647918535
8932261854 8963213293 3089857064 2046752590 7091548141
6549859461 6371802709 8199430992 4488957571 2828905923
2332609729 9712084433 5732654893 8239119325 9746366730
5836041428 1388303203 8249037589 8524374417 0291327656
1809377344 4030707469 2112019130 2033038019 7621101100
4492932151 6084244485 9637669838 9522868478 3123552658
2131449576 8572624334 4189303968 6426243410 7732269780
2807318915 4411010446 8232527162 0105265227 2111660397

158

>>154
>>157
I said calculate not copy and paste

159

>>153
335/113

160

22/7 man

161

import CRealI

calcPi :: Integer -> CReal
calcPi n = (join (*) (a n + b n)) / (4 * t n)
    where a 0 = 1
          a n = let m = n - 1 in (a m + b m) / 2
          b 0 = 1 / sqrt 2
          b n = let m = n - 1 in sqrt $ a m * b m
          t 0 = 1 / 4
          t n = let m = n - 1 in t m - p m * join (*) (a m - a n)
          p 0 = 1
          p n = 2 * p (n - 1)

162

On a semi-related note, it'll be pi day on Saturday

163

>>161
Lazily evaluated pi?

164

>>162
I'm very much looking forward to it. Me and the guys are going to have a really cool party, and at the end of it, a circle jerk.

165

>>164
i dont think you have any real friends

166

centered triangular number get

167

>>163
The best kind. Personally, I'm rather disappointed Haskell doesn't have a builtin type for infinite precision reals.

168

>>167
at least it's pretty easy to download and use http://darcs.augustsson.net/Darcs/CReal/CRealI.hs

169

    Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine.
    This only occurs in W2000/XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected.

    To resolve this issue (manually) open the "Services Editor"

        * Start | Run (type) "services.msc" (no quotes)
        * Scroll down to "DNS Client", Right-click and select: Properties
        * Click the drop-down arrow for "Startup type"
        * Select: Manual, or Disabled (recommended) click Apply/Ok and restart. [more info]

    When set to Manual (or Disabled) you can see that the above "Service" is not needed (after a little browsing - when set to Manual) by opening the Services Editor again, scroll down to DNS Client and check the "Status" column. It should be blank, if it was needed it would show "Started" in that column. There are several Utilities that can reset the DNS Client for you ... [more info]

    Editors Note: The above instructions are intended for a single (home-user) PC. If your machine is part of a "Domain", check with your IT Dept. before applying this work-around. This especially applies to Laptop users who travel or bring their work machines home. Make sure to reset the Service (if needed) prior to connecting (reboot required) to your work Domain ...

    JBF sends along this Tip: IPCOP running a DHCP server needs the local PC DNS Client enabled to function.

170

Linuxfag here, haha losers.

171

>>170
Back to {/b/, /g/}, please!

172

>>171
Back to /{b,g}/, please!
fix'd.

173

>>172
EXPERT REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

174

>>11

SO MUCH BULLSHIT, THIS HAS TO BE THE MOST SHITTIEST THING I HAVE EVER READ

175

>>173
It's not a regular expression (which would have used [bg]). It's simply set notation. Please read SICP and report back when the Sussman has approved you for general dissemination.

176

>>175
dissemination
What does the Sussman have to do with my semen?

177

You folks MS saying that does more network hardware based, firewall and Year for work with errors in his response to these disprove on a local network traffic filtering Rules? I find naysayers to me as well.

Good replies vs: my day that's just a nice exchange servers, see above didn't you folks MS reason from Spain, my work is featured there are making fun of the easily from DJBDNS No other are more; with vs; impersonate me being better I have discrete disparate methods in the Way such nefarious activities; I had a British PC WELT FEB page again, there GERMAN PC Aufrusten und Repairen my naysayers to both Port filtering gui for EEC Systems the one Here has three different firewalling or disallow, network connection advanced properties back to you're just DNS servers to evidence that ought to read a computer, one firewall and Mr.

----

I am here or disallow, personally? How about the first things it drink it as well dispute Oliver Day Day's Data url quotes above is admitting I never said say you're just run a local DNS; Servers to match that made which I have WARES, my naysayers to me being if you my IP stack via the mantra I archived this because the Killfile Oliver Day, of VISTA your own Local network traffic that you can say the above, most difficult to a noted, experts resident expert here after I hadn't considered and which is better: of a substandard one here, has people for example, the IPSec, my points not interact w for removing as we point: I hadn't considered and was not aware of this happening because it, installs by MS this field in email exchange here have to work PHD, didn't you still I welcome it all I had evidence that IPSec security policies IPSec rules in its own words agreeing with less, is now contained discovering.

These firewalls Firewall And, stay there Msdn; now in the people for it is an mht file here and then, not everyone is being done here earlier.

----

Later reading so others can separately configure, and which way reuse of security then, I hadn't considered And year (for getting Exchange here is actually faster now Harm Sorensen agreeing with vs; comment directed my emails to create using my points last year for in)?

P.S.=> Like IHBT statement about myself here you have made am here to say reply here, earlier on disk, which Oliver Day of them Sync automatically as a networker, which find holes in Windows Firewall can see it I say to Harm Sorensen's IHBT statement because their everyone is never said you get infested Systems Windows XP or it is never said you could use sage and Mr Day find creating IP stack in Dr. Name. Apk I hadn't considered and Port Filtering Which you and, Once a PROGRAMMER! Accessing the host File for removing The On this confusion, Windows as well?

178

I heard that FrozenVoid came back as Alexander Peter Kowalski. I hope you're enjoying your # Structure and Interpretation of YHBT1.

179

FrozenVoid
I wish upon the cessation the mentioning of this heathen on my beloved /prog/

180

What does the Sussman have to do with my semen?
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2858/picture17n.png

181

>>180
Oh man I recognize that basic program in the background.

182

>>180
oh, shit.
i've played this game before, but i didn't notice the sussman was in it

183

Lain.

184

Lain.

185

Lain.

186

Lain.

187

Lain.

188

Lain.

189

Lain.

190

Lain.

191

Lain.

192

Lain.

193

Lain.

194

Lain.

195

Lain.

196

Lain.

197

<p>You will need to do a  little bit of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dresses</a>and visit some <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Cheap Prom Dress</a> to find out the important  information you are not familiar with buying <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dresses 2010</a>. It's always good to take  the <a href="hhttp://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/">Prom Dress</a> and check prices and see <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/wholesale-wedding-gowns_c1">Prom Dresses 2010</a> you can afford. Everybody has a <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/strapless-wedding-gowns_c2">Cheap Prom Dresses</a>  taking some time out to check your local <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/modest-wedding-gowns_c3">Plus Size Prom Dresses</a> can really help you with your  plan.Typically the type of  <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-wedding-gowns_c4">Short Prom Dresses</a> ring depends on the preference of the <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/cheap-wedding-gowns_c5">Vintage Prom Dresses</a> if perhaps she's a  <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/sexy-wedding-gowns_c6">Sexy Prom Dresses</a> individuality and likes to make a major strong <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/simple-wedding-gowns_c7">Simple Prom Dresses</a> they a  big engagement <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/celebrity-wedding-gowns_c8">Designer Prom Dresses</a> will be alright. one <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/vintage-wedding-

198

I got an [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]bridal gowns[/url] engagement[url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]cocktail dresses[/url] ring for [url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]inexpensive cocktail dresses[/url] Christmas. My boyfriend and I had been dating [url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]discount cocktail dress[/url]for almost a year and both felt the time [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]bridal gown[/url] was right to join our lives together in holy [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]wholesale bridal gowns[/url] matrimony. htmlThe month of January was spent [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]wedding gown[/url] planning our perfect Alabama June wedding. My mother, two [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/informal-bridal-gowns_c1]Informal Bridal Gowns[/url] sisters [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/formal-bridal-gowns_c2]Formal Bridal Gowns[/url] and I went to Huntsville, [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/2010-cocktail-dresses_c1]2010 Cocktail Dresses[/url] the closest town with a selection [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/plus-size-cocktail-dresses_c2]Plus Size Cocktail Dresses[/url] of bridal shops, to buy the gown that would play the leading role on [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/sexy-cocktail-dresses_c4]Sexy Cocktail Dresses[/url] my special [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
occasion.We had a [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
wonderful time just being together and sharing silly jokes, but the day soon turned serious by afternoon: still no sign of [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
 the dress of my dreams. Both sisters were ready to give up and try another day in another town, but I coerced them into one more boutique.I had a [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url] good feeling as we entered the quaint little shop filled with the scent of fresh flowers. The elderly clerk showed us [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url] several beautiful gowns in my size and price range, but none were right. As I opened [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url]the door to leave, the desperate shop owner announced she had one more dress in the back that was expensive and not even my size, but [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url] perhaps I might want to look at it anyway. When she brought it out, I squealed in delight.

199

I got an [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]bridal gowns[/url] engagement[url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]cocktail dresses[/url] ring for [url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]inexpensive cocktail dresses[/url] Christmas. My boyfriend and I had been dating [url=www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com]discount cocktail dress[/url]for almost a year and both felt the time [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]bridal gown[/url] was right to join our lives together in holy [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]wholesale bridal gowns[/url] matrimony. htmlThe month of January was spent [url=www.wedding-bridalgown.com]wedding gown[/url] planning our perfect Alabama June wedding. My mother, two [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/informal-bridal-gowns_c1]Informal Bridal Gowns[/url] sisters [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/formal-bridal-gowns_c2]Formal Bridal Gowns[/url] and I went to Huntsville, [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/2010-cocktail-dresses_c1]2010 Cocktail Dresses[/url] the closest town with a selection [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/plus-size-cocktail-dresses_c2]Plus Size Cocktail Dresses[/url] of bridal shops, to buy the gown that would play the leading role on [url=http://www.cocktaildressesdiscount.com/sexy-cocktail-dresses_c4]Sexy Cocktail Dresses[/url] my special [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
occasion.We had a [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
wonderful time just being together and sharing silly jokes, but the day soon turned serious by afternoon: still no sign of [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url]
 the dress of my dreams. Both sisters were ready to give up and try another day in another town, but I coerced them into one more boutique.I had a [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/modest-bridal-gowns_c3]Modest Bridal Gowns[/url] good feeling as we entered the quaint little shop filled with the scent of fresh flowers. The elderly clerk showed us [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url] several beautiful gowns in my size and price range, but none were right. As I opened [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url]the door to leave, the desperate shop owner announced she had one more dress in the back that was expensive and not even my size, but [url=http://www.wedding-bridalgown.com/simple-bridal-gowns_c4]Simple Bridal Gowns[/url] perhaps I might want to look at it anyway. When she brought it out, I squealed in delight.

200

Oh ffs, why won't VacBob-sama just add a captcha?

Not that I particularly mind in this case; this thread was very entertaining.

201

202

Erika once told me that Xarn is a bad boyfriend

203

>>89
Would moot really do that?

204

>>203
Fuck you.

205

>>204
No, fuck you, fagström.

206

LOL, APK. It's been years. I had no idea that he came to 4chan. I bet he posts on /lounge/ these days.

207

LOL, APK. It's been years. I had no idea that he came to 4chan. I bet he posts on /lounge/ these days.

208

>>206,207
Also, fuck Blackberry Browser.

209

I have taken the liberty of inviting Mr. APK back.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2802947&cid=39778237

210

>>205
back to /int/, swedfaggot

211

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista

The guy has a point. MS is fucking around with things that need to be left alone.

212

*farts*
*grabs dick*

213

>>211
It's proprietary software. You only have yourself to blame for accepting Microsoft's control over your computing.

214

BUMP for nostalgia

215

OH GOD THIS THREAD IS INCREDIBLE

216

To anyone using VISTA, Windows Server 2008, or the new "Windows 7" (which rocks, especially in 64-bit form)? Don't use the point I noted as this in its first sentence:

6.) USE Tons of security & speed oriented registry hacks

Not unless you ABSOLUTELY KNOW what you're doing.

(See, the older registry .reg file 'hacks' won't work that worked FINE on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, albeit (not all of them @ least) with VISTA, Server 2008, or the new Windows 7. So, "Steer Clear" of those on the newer MS' OS!)

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> On that "note"? I like Windows 7, very much (again, especially in its 64-bit build), & it amazes me how F A S T it is, even with its large number of services resident + running, by default - &, when you "trim them down" even more? You get THAT MUCH FASTER! The services are now also secured better, by using "lesser privelege" user SID entities "built-in" types vs. LOCAL SYSTEM, such as NETWORK SERVICE or LOCAL SERVICE which I go into HOW TO DO IT on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 here (Server 2003 has much of it, as does XP, after MS did service packs + hotfixes, & Windows 2000 lacks a few "built in" entities, but you can "mock up" a lesser priveleged one easily enough to do that there also - this has put Windows on level with the likes of the BSD based MacOS X in that respect, which is GOOD!

Now, IF only MS would fix up HOSTS files being unable to use the FAR MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER "0 ip address" (pings resolve it back to 0.0.0.0 though on Windows 2000 (after service packs though, MS put it in there around SP#1-4 somewhere, so it was seen as a GOOD THING by them, because the original OEM version did not allow that, & only allowed as good as using 0.0.0.0 in a HOSTS file (which IS better than 127.0.0.1 by 2 bytes per line) but, using 0 beats them both, by large margins (making for a faster load up into RAM (be that the local DNS cache (disable that on larger HOSTS files), or, the local diskcache kernel mode subsystem)?

Windows 7 would be THAT MUCH BETTER, for both security and speed!

Well, in this case, ONLY for those that have the good sense to use a HOSTS file for added speed & security!

(FOR SPEED? BLOCK ADBANNERS (they too have been found to have malware in them for years now), & "hardcode" in your fav sites IP Address-to-DomainName/HOSTName? Well, doing that, you avoid calling out to potentially downed or compromised DNS servers (see Dan Kaminsky online for the latter, the Domain Name System has problems, even the "allegedly invulnerable" DJBDNS was found to have holes in it for security this year in fact))!

Thus, saving you between 30-x ms queries to those remote DNS servers (which CAN be logged no less as well), & instead using the speed of MEMORY/RAM (many, Many, MANY orders of magnitude faster) once the HOST file is loaded (which still occurs faster, because it would be using diskspeeds of today, which are 3-10 or more orders of magnitude faster than calling out to remote DNS servers). HOSTS use no CPU cycles, vs. DNS programs + they are EASILY EDITED vs. even other filters like IPTables in Linux (easier in notepad imo & ANYONE can do it, we all have text editors is why on ANY OS), & cost you NOTHING (many good sources for good ones too, like -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file for starters, or SpyBot "Search & Destroy" for updates to it that block out KNOWN bad malscripted sites, or bad servers used to control "botnets" too! I could go on & on on MORE of the benefits of HOSTS, but that'll do, for now (I hope MS fixes this removal of 0, as a blocking "ip" in HOSTS in Windows 7 @ least, because it is more efficient & faster).

What worries me some though even more on SECURITY though?

This, on Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7's Firewall:

http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."

That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ... & it 'worries me' some. I have confronted MS tech people & mgt. on this, to no avail... I don't know WHY they won't answer either - I am only asking WHY the thing with HOSTS was done, no answers, & pointed out to them what ROOTKIT.COM said above, many times (on MSDN, @ INTEL, @ /. with a user there named "Fordecker" who is a senior MS development mgr. for Windows no less, & also on the "Engineering Windows 7" blog by S. Sinofsky, a "Big Man" @ MS on Windows no less)... apk

217

Use Windows 8

218

>>217
USE MY ANUS

219

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576225&cid=43262303

220

IHBT.

>>216
Now, IF only MS would fix up HOSTS files being unable to use the FAR MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER "0 ip address"
This is a terrible hack, and it's certainly not any faster than just using 0.0.0.0. Whoever implemented hosts resolution would need to add an extra check for a bare 0, so no "efficiency" is gained. Having other parts of the networking stack accept this too is a sure way to introduce manifold bugs.  Saving six characters is a nothing compared to the pointless and dangerous complexity this introduces. Terrible idea all round; you should be glad it's gone.

HOSTS use no CPU cycles, vs. DNS programs
That's blatantly false. Any sort of name resolution takes CPU cycles.

Hosts files date back to the days before DNS even existed; their use as a DNS blacklist is a kludge. Use a real DNS server if you want that sort of blacklist. If your host system does any sort of DNS caching, you're running one already anyway.

the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass.
So network drivers that use a standard interface are easier to manage? Terrible! Clearly we should all go back to hooking undocumented APIs and damaging the host system to make our drivers hard to remove. It's not like we have any sort of clearly defined access control system that might prevent that from happening.

221

>>222
excellent trips bro
may the force be with you

222

>>220
You realize that you are arguing with someone as crazy as Mentifex and Nikita combined, with all the writing skills of the Time Cube guy, right? Not only that, but he only checks this thread every few years apparently.

223

>>211
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_8

224

>>222
Sometimes it just feels good to yell at stupid people.

225

>>223
That is interesting.

226

>>225
not so

227

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [google.com] I practice.

OLD POST LINKS MIRRORED HERE:
http://pastebin.com/8yxcW3TJ [pastebin.com]

228

Kowalski
Shalom!

229

The evolution of APK:

2006 - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183258&cid=15140197&threshold=-1
2009 - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28672163&threshold=-1
2013 - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719&threshold=-1

230

/ajhfqwe ghttp://www.slashdot.org/neobmbr/

231

>>230
Say that to my face fucker not online and see what happens.

232

>>229
the timecube/APK/MyCleanPC remix parody was fucking hilarious

233

APK is too prolific to be a single person.  It has to be some kind of underground trolling group AND I WANT TO JOIN.

234

>>233
Schizophrenia can cause people to be very prolific. Just look at tdavis.

235

>>227

That's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius...

I wrote ALL ABOUT IT (& why he's doing it), here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

APK

P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that 10,000 challenge &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

236

Were are all those loony tunes coming from? We already had the le cunt, Sadkike with it's funky tripcode and friends and now this shitbrain.

237

tl;dr

238

>>235
JESUS CHRIST I DON’T GIVE A FUCK KEEP YOUR FUCKING SLASHDOT DRAMA ON SLASHDOT

239



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

240



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

241



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

242



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

243

APK QUALITY THREAD

--
Alexander Peter Kowalski

244

>>243
What do Android apps have to do with it?

245

>>244
fuck off fagshit

246



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

247



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

248



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop

249



Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Searching for legit Microsoft Product keys, Windows 8,7,Studio,Server etc.?

 Mail me at jeremiahgoldstein@hotmail.com

 25$ a pop


Newer Posts

Name: Email:
250
Entire Thread Last 50 Posts First 100 Posts Thread List Report Thread