Posts by slycrane94

It’s great if you just want to feel like you’ve actually secured your machine. But honestly, if that's the level of security you're aiming for, Windows XP SP2 is more than enough.

Another supposedly "secure" firewall. I guess it beats having nothing at all.

It doesn't work, yet it blocks everything perfectly? Why does that sound so fundamentally incompatible to me?

Sure, it’s doable. You could just whip up a little script in Visual Basic to convert those numbers into text and call it a day.

It shouldn't be anything too crazy. Just count the digits and write them out sequentially. There's already an established system for naming numbers; you just have to implement it.

Raymond Palmer8 said:Since I figure no actual hacker is going to waste their time on my machine—there’s nothing interesting there anyway—I see the firewall's only job as keeping the wannabes at bay. In that regard, ZoneAlarm seems fine.

If I actually had data on there worth a damn, I'd probably look into something more heavy-duty, but for now...

It's exactly the script kiddies you have to worry about; they love targeting junk hardware. DDoS attacks are still huge, not to mention being used as spam relay servers and the like.

Nobody cares about your files; they just want your bandwidth.

Joe@ said:yeah
some things just won't work by default
and he isn't going to figure out why they aren't working

Having everything wide open isn't exactly ideal. It's nothing more than a false sense of security.

The standard approach should always be to block everything first, then only open what's absolutely necessary. If you're just leaving everything open anyway, why bother with the illusion of security at all?

Karen Brooks said:slycrane94, you have no clue. That’s not how real guys talk—take a page out of mark45's book if you want to get anywhere. You've got a long way to go. 😬

Honestly, there's zero chance for ZA, unless someone performs a lobotomy on me first. I'd recommend Sygate, though I'm hardly one of those "real guys." In fact, I'm not even a guy at all. 🤣

There’s just some nonsense happening here. I see people acting like experts on specific terms when they’ve clearly never even seen them, let alone actually implemented them. 😁

A hardware firewall isn't the same thing as an application firewall, and they certainly don't protect you in the same way. Anyone claiming hardware is the ultimate solution clearly doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

Has any actual advocate here ever bothered to learn about protocols, ports, or anything else? Norton is fine if you just want a false sense of security (in which case, the built-in firewall does the job just as well).

If you actually care about security, the FBI is the way to go, though it’s a bit of a headache to configure (I hate how it doesn't recognize that TCP, UDP, and ICMP are blocked if you just ban all protocols from 0-255). But once it's dialed in, it's solid—just be careful with the Windows module, because if you block everything at startup, the system won't even boot.

I actually thought the movie was pretty good. It’s definitely too short, though. They probably should have stuck to the original plan of splitting it into two films released a couple of months apart, but what can you do?

There’s more humor than the last one, and the exterior shots of Hogwarts look great and all.

My only real gripe is how Dumbledore deviates from the book. In the novels, he’s clearly composed and knows everything—he's basically an omniscient, incredibly cool figure.

It’s a similar story with Hermione; the director definitely went overboard with her constant saving of the day, especially considering Harry and the gang usually only escape because of her.

But then again, when you realize how much plot they crammed into just two hours, there wasn't much other way to do it.🙂

Overall, I enjoyed it. I’ve already seen it twice in theaters (those jerks charged me $18 for the ticket, and I sat through about 90 minutes of commercials—basically, American efficiency at its finest)😠

It seems like people aren't really using that on the scene much anymore, if you ask me.

gentlebear14
MD5 is outdated, and honestly, there’s always a way to crack it. There is no such thing as an unbreakable checksum. Mathematically speaking, that's just impossible.

It’s still popular, just not in the warez scene where SFV is the standard. You see it used in Linux distributions and stuff, so it holds its own there.

Joe@ said:you'll end up 👍

I'm actually worried she won't put on any weight if I just walk her over to Starbucks.😁
And what do you think happens when she can't move an inch away from her PC? 😱

Joe@ said:I’d suggest heading over to Buffalo Wild Wings for you two.👍

Personally, I’m feeling more like hitting up a local diner for some ice cream.😁

Math_baby said:Don't worry about me, I can read just fine. Probably better than you can write, you idiot. 😁 😁 😁

Math_baby🙄

Where should we grab coffee when I'm in Washington, D.C.?🙂

Daniel Fowler9 said:I’m quoting you here because I think you did a great job—specifically this part where you caught yourself in yet another one of your endless lies and contradictions:

So now I have to ask: how can they be harmless if Secunia classified them as highly critical? Either they're lying or you are.

Bonus question for the rest of the forum: who's lying? slycrane94 or Secunia? 😁😁😁

slycrane94, look, I get it—you hate Microsoft and worship anything with an open-source label, but you can't just ignore reality. The fact remains that this hole in Mozilla is labeled highly critical. No matter what you claim or whatever nonsense you spout, it doesn't change that losing fact for you open-source zealots.

👋 👋 👋 👋 👋

Daniel Fowler9🙄

Honey, please. Don't be confused. I'll be in Washington, D.C. at the start of November, so maybe I can help you with whatever it is you clearly lack. It seems like you struggle with basic reading comprehension, too.

I said "mostly" (look it up in a dictionary if you need to). I wasn't saying all bugs are harmless; I was saying the vast majority of discovered vulnerabilities have been harmless (or close to it). I never claimed there aren't any critical errors—that currently mostly applies to Opera 😁.

Look, I never said Mozilla didn't have critical vulnerabilities. I said Opera doesn't. Maybe try reading what I actually wrote.

Even with this specific flaw, Mozilla has far fewer critical bugs than Internet Explorer and patches them way faster.

Timothy Turner11 said:That’s not how it works. Internet Explorer has fewer vulnerabilities; it's just that nobody wants to waste their time writing exploits for Firefox because its user base is too small to be worth the effort.

If I were designing malware, I’d target software used by a billion people, not some niche tool used by a single city block. 😉

In other words, you claim to know more about security flaws than the top firm in the world right now? Should we all just bow down to our all-knowing expert? 🙏 🙏

John Palmer4 said:What prizes? Maybe they were handed out in Sweden.😬

😱 😱 😱 Don't go scaring me like that.😁

Timothy Turner11 said:I’m asking you all to please stay on topic and stop drifting away from the main point!

HAhaahahahahhahhah. Fine then, go ahead and try to find a single flaw in my first post. We're just as solid as the topic itself, aren't we?😁

John Palmer4 said:Since when did we ever ban her???

Give me a break. If he thinks we banned her and he's trying to make it up to me in bed, he can forget about it.😁