Ping:BD
Peter Foldes
Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia will be less
bothersome
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
~BD~
> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>
> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>
> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia will
> be less bothersome
>
I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
haven't found one. :(
That's not much help, is it?
FYI
Quote:
A Spoofed URL describes one website that poses as another. It sometimes
applies a mechanism that exploits bugs in web browser technology,
allowing a malicious computer attack. Such attacks are most effective
against computers that lack recent security patches. Others are designed
for the purpose of a parody.
During such an attack, a computer user innocently visits a web site and
sees a familiar URL in the address bar such as http://www.wikipedia.org
but is, in reality, sending information to an entirely different
location that would typically be monitored by an information thief. When
sensitive information is requested by a fraudulent website, it is called
phishing.
The user is typically enticed to the false website from an email or a
hyperlink from another website.
In another variation, a website may look like the original, but is in
fact a parody of it. These are mostly harmless, and are more noticeably
different from the original, as they usually do not exploit bugs in web
browser technology.
*This can also take place in a hosts file*. It can redirect a site(s) to
another IP, which could be a spoofed website.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_spoofing
**
Interesting, eh?
--
Dave
Aardvark
> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
> haven't found one.
It's in /etc.
<http://www.mactricksandtips.com/2009/02/editing-a-macs-hosts-file.html>
--
"En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme,
no hace mucho tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en
astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor."
-Cervantes, 'Don Quixote'
Peter Foldes
Try harder to go to another direction purposely. The Hosts file as you know very
well is on your PC and not on Mac. You sir are doing this on purpose and probably
enjoying it,
That is why you are a Troll.
Trying to help you in all honesty gets anyone and everyone the same as you just did
here
Aardvark
> Try harder to go to another direction purposely. The Hosts file as you
> know very well is on your PC and not on Mac.
Fuckwit.
<http://www.mactricksandtips.com/2009/02/editing-a-macs-hosts-file.html>
You'll be saying next that my Linux boxen don't have hosts files.
~BD~
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:30:02 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>> haven't found one.
>
> It's in /etc.
>
> <http://www.mactricksandtips.com/2009/02/editing-a-macs-hosts-file.html>
Wow! You are right! :)
This is what I see (just as the article at the link said)
##
# Host Database
#
# localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
# when the system is booting. Do not change this entry.
##
127.0.0.1 localhost
255.255.255.255 broadcasthost
::1 localhost
fe80::1%lo0 localhost
********
Many thanks Aardy! :)
FromTheRafters
news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com...
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>
>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>
>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>> will
>> be less bothersome
>>
>
> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
> haven't found one. :(
http://decoding.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/how-to-edit-the-hosts-file-in-mac-os-x-leopard/
...or you could make one if it's not already there, and put your mind at
ease. :o)
Aardvark
Mike Easter
> A Spoofed URL
> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_spoofing
Do not over-interpret this problem to be something near to magic, as you
are prone to do.
In one example elaborated at one of the 2003-2004 links from the wiki
article, the very very multi-vulnerable IE6 had a flaw that needed a
patch which flaw caused its address line to not tell the truth.
In such an instance the perp could give the IE6 user a link like this
http://www.trusted_site.com%01%00@malicious_site.com/malicious.html
... but IE would display in its address line this link
... because the rest of the URL was 'folded' or hidden from the view of
the address line.
The business about hiding a malicious address behind the @ in an URL is
simplistic, the 'obscuring' was a new trick back in 2003.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> A Spoofed URL
>
>> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_spoofing
>
> Do not over-interpret this problem to be something near to magic, as you
> are prone to do.
Are you now advising that it is no longer possible to spoof a URL, Mike?
> In one example elaborated at one of the 2003-2004 links from the wiki
> article, the very very multi-vulnerable IE6 had a flaw that needed a
> patch which flaw caused its address line to not tell the truth.
>
> In such an instance the perp could give the IE6 user a link like this
>
> http://www.trusted_site.com%01%00@malicious_site.com/malicious.html
FYI - clicking on that link (albeit a made-up one) produced a reaction
from both Safari and SeaMonkey browsers! That's got to be a good thing!
> ... but IE would display in its address line this link
>
> http://www.trusted_site.com
>
> ... because the rest of the URL was 'folded' or hidden from the view of
> the address line.
>
> The business about hiding a malicious address behind the @ in an URL is
> simplistic, the 'obscuring' was a new trick back in 2003.
Umm - I was, actually, using a computer back then, too!
So I'll ask you again, the other way round. Is it *still* possible to
spoof a URL?
I haven't had time to research matters much further today, but there's a
great site here appropriate for today!
--
Dave - wondering if Jenn could make a site (visually) like this!
Mike Easter
> So I'll ask you again, the other way round. Is it *still* possible to
> spoof a URL?
I gave a link to a cute movie about DNS cache poisoning in 24hshd.
http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/dnsvideo/index.html
--
Mike Easter
Dustin
news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>
>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>
>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>> will be less bothersome
>>
>
> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
> haven't found one. :(
Your imac doesn't make use of one...
> That's not much help, is it?
It is if you had a fucking clue.
> Interesting, eh?
Old news. In fact, I use the spoofing here on the lan to make
raidyland.com a real site pointing to the computer in the other room.
Spoofing is a cute word for it, I suppose. But i'm really just giving
the machine a local domain name.
--
Some people are like a Slinky. Not much good for anything, but you
can't help but smile when one tumbles down the stairs.
Dustin
news:6MKdnVzGmo0U6FDR...@bt.com:
LOL... I forgot, imacs actually do have them... same file structure
evidently.. Nice...
wanna bet BD doesnt have a clue tho? :(
Dustin
news:-8qdnWScF8FPOFDR...@bt.com:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> A Spoofed URL
>>
>>> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL_spoofing
>>
>> Do not over-interpret this problem to be something near to magic,
>> as you are prone to do.
>
> Are you now advising that it is no longer possible to spoof a URL,
> Mike?
Your a real ass. Read what he said.
> FYI - clicking on that link (albeit a made-up one) produced a
> reaction from both Safari and SeaMonkey browsers! That's got to be a
> good thing!
Ugh. <smacks forehead>
>> The business about hiding a malicious address behind the @ in an
>> URL is simplistic, the 'obscuring' was a new trick back in 2003.
>
> Umm - I was, actually, using a computer back then, too!
And?
> So I'll ask you again, the other way round. Is it *still* possible
> to spoof a URL?
Yes.
> I haven't had time to research matters much further today, but
> there's a great site here appropriate for today!
I don't think you understand the concept of research.
Dustin
news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
> Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>
>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>
>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>> will be less bothersome
>>
>
> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
> haven't found one. :(
DIsregard previous comment about yours not having one.. I glanced too
damn fast and just saw "mac". shrug.
> That's not much help, is it?
Strangely enough, it's in the same place as the windows one.. under etc..
lol
Dustin
news:Xns9E22B298F42DAHHI2948AJD832@no:
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>>
>>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>>
>>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>>> will be less bothersome
>>>
>>
>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>> haven't found one. :(
>
> Your imac doesn't make use of one...
Self correction, but feel free, the "imac" does use one.
> It is if you had a fucking clue.
Still accurate tho. hehehe
FromTheRafters
news:Xns9E22B2FDC99E2HHI2948AJD832@no...
Even if the so called research was done within the wikipedia article
itself, one should realize that the IE vulnerability discussed was just
one aspect of URL spoofing and not its entirety. Maybe he should go to
www.g00gle.com to see if URL spoofing is still possible.
~BD~
[....]
>
> Even if the so called research was done within the wikipedia article
> itself, one should realize that the IE vulnerability discussed was just
> one aspect of URL spoofing and not its entirety. Maybe he should go to
> www.g00gle.com to see if URL spoofing is still possible.
Aardvark says that if it says www.microsoft.com in a read-only
environment like this (Usenet) the link can *only* take one to the
genuine Microsoft domain.
At least that is what I've understood him to say in 24hsh.
IIRC I said I didn't believe him! (in a nice way <g>)
~BD~
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>>
>>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>>
>>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>>> will be less bothersome
>>>
>>
>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>> haven't found one. :(
>
> DIsregard previous comment about yours not having one.. I glanced too
> damn fast and just saw "mac". shrug.
>
>
>> That's not much help, is it?
>
> Strangely enough, it's in the same place as the windows one.. under etc..
> lol
>
>
I didn't know anything at all about the 'hosts' file before going to
Annexcafe U2U getting on for 5 years ago. I learnt as much as I could
about it thereafter and carried out much experimentation.
One thing I do remember well. The group 'Moderator', a Mr Roy C, told
folk on the group, categorically, that the only protection he had *ever*
used on his computers over many years was the MVP Hosts file
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
He was quite adamant that *nothing* else was needed to keep one safe.
I didn't believe he was properly protected, but what do I know?!!!
FromTheRafters
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
> [....]
>>
>> Even if the so called research was done within the wikipedia article
>> itself, one should realize that the IE vulnerability discussed was
>> just
>> one aspect of URL spoofing and not its entirety. Maybe he should go
>> to
>> www.g00gle.com to see if URL spoofing is still possible.
>
> Aardvark says that if it says www.microsoft.com in a read-only
> environment like this (Usenet) the link can *only* take one to the
> genuine Microsoft domain.
But a name such as www.aItavista.com might look like www.altavista.com
in some typefaces.
Or www.rnicrosoft.com like www.microsoft.com in others
http://hostphotofree.com/?bookmark=28552
Which are spoofed and which are not?
> At least that is what I've understood him to say in 24hsh.
He would not even be considering poisoned lookup tables, just the
simpler misdirection tricks.
FromTheRafters
[...]
> I didn't know anything at all about the 'hosts' file before going to
> Annexcafe U2U getting on for 5 years ago. I learnt as much as I could
> about it thereafter and carried out much experimentation.
>
> One thing I do remember well. The group 'Moderator', a Mr Roy C, told
> folk on the group, categorically, that the only protection he had
> *ever* used on his computers over many years was the MVP Hosts file
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> He was quite adamant that *nothing* else was needed to keep one safe.
>
> I didn't believe he was properly protected, but what do I know?!!!
It's not even what the hosts file was designed for, but I won't bore you
with trivial details. :oD
Dustin
news:uN6dnVXNTqimaVDR...@bt.com:
I'm pretty sure he didn't claim such a thing.
> IIRC I said I didn't believe him! (in a nice way <g>)
Listen, assuming your hosts file hasn't been meddled with; nor has
anything on your machine or that of whatever DNS server you use; the
domain will resolve to the real IP and will take you to the real site.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand, BD? Really, if simple
stuff like this is too hard for you, you've got no chance in hell of
catching ANY real bad guys on this net.
Dustin
news:CLWdnYnJrIXia1DR...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
>>
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>>>
>>>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>>>> will be less bothersome
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>>> haven't found one. :(
>>
>> DIsregard previous comment about yours not having one.. I glanced
>> too damn fast and just saw "mac". shrug.
>>
>>
>>> That's not much help, is it?
>>
>> Strangely enough, it's in the same place as the windows one.. under
>> etc.. lol
>>
>>
>
> I didn't know anything at all about the 'hosts' file before going to
> Annexcafe U2U getting on for 5 years ago. I learnt as much as I
> could about it thereafter and carried out much experimentation.
I see. So you essentially did troll Peter when you claimed ignorance
about it previously? :)
> I didn't believe he was properly protected, but what do I know?!!!
Wow. I'll disclose this:
1. No computer here runs resident antivirus.
2. No computer here runs resident antimalware
I use a modified hosts file to point all of the computers to a fake
local domain called raidyland.com; instead of typing in the LAN IP
address to the specific computer.
Despite this so called lack of protection, my network remains clean and
germ free; excluding samples archived of course.
~BD~
[....]
> I see. So you essentially did troll Peter when you claimed ignorance
> about it previously? :)
Kinda yes *and* no! Hehe! ;-)
Like you, I had no idea that Apple machines also had a Hosts file; the
fact had never come to my attention before.
Perhaps I should have spent more time looking into matters.
>> I didn't believe he was properly protected, but what do I know?!!!
>
> Wow. I'll disclose this:
>
> 1. No computer here runs resident antivirus.
> 2. No computer here runs resident antimalware
>
> I use a modified hosts file to point all of the computers to a fake
> local domain called raidyland.com; instead of typing in the LAN IP
> address to the specific computer.
>
> Despite this so called lack of protection, my network remains clean and
> germ free; excluding samples archived of course.
You may recall me mentioning on Jenn's BB a Dutch guy living in Russia
called P2U. Amongst other things, he was into computer forensics. He
told me *exactly* the same thing!
Another thing he said in a PM on the Kaspersky forums was .......
"I finally managed to register there and I must say that this is not a
domain I like to be on. First of all, the site doesn't seem to work
properly without scripts enabled. Second, indeed, a lot of 'wrong'
redirections. I'd advise you get out of there right away. I have a
feeling the host is no longer in charge there...
Paul
*****
How could he tell, Dustin?
D.
~BD~
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>>
>>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>>
>>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>>> will be less bothersome
>>>
>>
>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>> haven't found one. :(
>
> damn fast and just saw "mac". shrug.
Not a problem - but is a "mac" in some way different to an 'iMac?
>> That's not much help, is it?
>
> Strangely enough, it's in the same place as the windows one.. under etc..
> lol
I noticed! :)
Peter Foldes
HeHe no you did not. I got you going as usual which is not hard to do. All Mac's
have a host file except the ones that are pre 2001. Just shows your Trollish
behavior. Only if you knew what to do with a computer aside from Home use/
Aardvark
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:uN6dnVXNTqimaVDR...@bt.com:
>
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>>>
>>> Even if the so called research was done within the wikipedia article
>>> itself, one should realize that the IE vulnerability discussed was
>>> just one aspect of URL spoofing and not its entirety. Maybe he should
>>> go to www.g00gle.com to see if URL spoofing is still possible.
>>
>> Aardvark says that if it says www.microsoft.com in a read-only
>> environment like this (Usenet) the link can *only* take one to the
>> genuine Microsoft domain.
>>
>> At least that is what I've understood him to say in 24hsh.
>
> I'm pretty sure he didn't claim such a thing.
>
I did, but I didn't want to complicate matters by adding other ways that
a plain-text link can take one's browser to where one didn't expect, or
want, to go. It was, after all, BD I was addressing.
>> IIRC I said I didn't believe him! (in a nice way <g>)
>
> Listen, assuming your hosts file hasn't been meddled with; nor has
> anything on your machine or that of whatever DNS server you use; the
> domain will resolve to the real IP and will take you to the real site.
>
That's basically what I was trying to explain to him. In words of one
syllable or less.
> Why is this so difficult for you to understand, BD? Really, if simple
> stuff like this is too hard for you, you've got no chance in hell of
> catching ANY real bad guys on this net.
IAWTP
~BD~
That is the *VERY* best back pedal I've yet seen! Congratulations! :)
Aardvark
No back pedal. I stand by what i said in 24hshd.
~BD~
[....]
>>>
>> That is the *VERY* best back pedal I've yet seen! Congratulations! :)
>
> No back pedal. I stand by what i said in 24hshd.
You appear to have shrunk from *I* to *i* though! ;-)
Tell me Aardvark, when you view a 'page' on your screen - which looks
exactly like the real McCoy - how do *you* know that it's a fraudulent copy?
I'm quite serious, btw!
D.
Peter Foldes
I myself do not know since this does not happen here unless I do it on purpose which
I do at times for testing on the test machine. Links I pick out for testing is at
random and when a bad link opens then I can tell instantly
You need to get to this sort of level and then you will also be able to recognize
those malicious links
BTW: That Portuguese page for the XP3 Service Pack from Microsoft and which was
posted, is a perfectly healthy link with no ulterior motive as you are probably
still thinking and believing
Aardvark
> Aardvark wrote:
> [....]
>>>>
>>> That is the *VERY* best back pedal I've yet seen! Congratulations! :)
>>
>> No back pedal. I stand by what i said in 24hshd.
>
>
> You appear to have shrunk from *I* to *i* though! ;-)
Nope, the capital 'I' remains.
>
> Tell me Aardvark, when you view a 'page' on your screen - which looks
> exactly like the real McCoy - how do *you* know that it's a fraudulent
> copy?
In much the same way as I can look at a structure like a bridge or a
scaffold which might or might not have members missing or in the wrong
place/at the wrong angle and know that it's unsafe and where and why.
There's rarely any real conscious thought involved in it. I just know to
a degree of certainty much higher than 90%.
An intuition born of education, experience, common sense and subliminal
clues and cues.
And well above average intelligence. Mustn't forget that.
>
> I'm quite serious, btw!
>
Me too.
> D.
A.
~BD~
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:22:39 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>> [....]
>>>>>
>>>> That is the *VERY* best back pedal I've yet seen! Congratulations! :)
>>>
>>> No back pedal. I stand by what i said in 24hshd.
>>
>>
>> You appear to have shrunk from *I* to *i* though! ;-)
>
> Nope, the capital 'I' remains.
>
>>
>> Tell me Aardvark, when you view a 'page' on your screen - which looks
>> exactly like the real McCoy - how do *you* know that it's a fraudulent
>> copy?
>
> In much the same way as I can look at a structure like a bridge or a
> scaffold which might or might not have members missing or in the wrong
> place/at the wrong angle and know that it's unsafe and where and why.
>
> There's rarely any real conscious thought involved in it. I just know to
> a degree of certainty much higher than 90%.
>
> An intuition born of education, experience, common sense and subliminal
> clues and cues.
>
> And well above average intelligence. Mustn't forget that.
Yet another, *louder*, Far Canal! :)
I expect you, like me, can drive down a motorway and know - before the
driver of same - *which* vehicle(s) is/are going to pull out in front of
you!
Well - that's if you still have a licence to drive!
Dustin
news:iamsv4$63m$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I did, but I didn't want to complicate matters by adding other ways
> that a plain-text link can take one's browser to where one didn't
> expect, or want, to go. It was, after all, BD I was addressing.
I understand. I took his implication as some kind of twist and bait;
sorry. :)
>> Listen, assuming your hosts file hasn't been meddled with; nor has
>> anything on your machine or that of whatever DNS server you use;
>> the domain will resolve to the real IP and will take you to the
>> real site.
>>
>
> That's basically what I was trying to explain to him. In words of
> one syllable or less.
Are you saying I talk too much? :)
Dustin
news:UPSdnapapPQ9nFLR...@bt.com:
What back pedal? He agreed that he did say as you previously claimed
and explained it a bit. Based on conversations of a technical nature
with you isn't very useful, so he essentially dumbed it - way down -
for you.
Dustin
news:ian372$tf1$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> And well above average intelligence. Mustn't forget that.
Just for curiosity sake, how much trouble in your childhood/early adult
life could you possibly blame for that?
Dustin
news:sMydnbmKAJ4wHlPR...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>> I see. So you essentially did troll Peter when you claimed
>> ignorance about it previously? :)
>
>
> Kinda yes *and* no! Hehe! ;-)
>
> Like you, I had no idea that Apple machines also had a Hosts file;
> the fact had never come to my attention before.
Slight correction is due here. I confused your imac thing with a
vintage mac that didn't run a unix like OS; and didn't natively support
tcpip... That was a fuckup on my part for not paying closer attention
to what you actually wrote.
You have to understand that I'm primarily a PC guy and didn't realize
how PC wannabe your macs have become in the last few years.
OTH, I think you knew your imac had a hosts file and if you didn't, a
quick google search would have told you all about it. Knowing how you
"research" things; you got that far.
> You may recall me mentioning on Jenn's BB a Dutch guy living in
> Russia called P2U. Amongst other things, he was into computer
> forensics. He told me *exactly* the same thing!
I'm into computer forensics myself. <G> Ever used Encase?
> Another thing he said in a PM on the Kaspersky forums was .......
>
> "I finally managed to register there and I must say that this is not
> a domain I like to be on. First of all, the site doesn't seem to
> work properly without scripts enabled. Second, indeed, a lot of
> 'wrong' redirections. I'd advise you get out of there right away. I
> have a feeling the host is no longer in charge there...
Without being able to converse with Paul and observe the wrong
directions he's noted, I can't make an educated comment here. I don't
have enough specific information.
Dustin
news:l-WdncfEA5MrGVPR...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:Ifqdnf9J15TX_FDR...@bt.com:
>>
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Did you update your Hosts file from the new one of yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Do it quick before your OS runs into problems from hijackers
>>>>
>>>> Now you can see that I am looking out for you so as your paranoia
>>>> will be less bothersome
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've spent hours looking for a 'hosts' file on my iMac and *still*
>>> haven't found one. :(
>>
>> Disregard previous comment about yours not having one.. I glanced
>> too damn fast and just saw "mac". shrug.
>
> Not a problem - but is a "mac" in some way different to an 'iMac?
When you mention "mac" yea, it's alot different than what you know as
an imac... Google macintosh sometime.. you'll get an idea. When i think
of mac, I don't think of the unix based systems; just the old stuff
that has no clue about a tcpip network on it's own.
Aardvark
> I was just a little disappointed that although this machine *can* run
> Windows (in what's called 'bootcamp') my original Windows XP set-up disk
> which I bought in 2002 cannot be used (I think the criteria said I need
> an XP SP2 disk).
You could always try slipstreaming SP2 with the original XP installation
disc. Easy-peasy.
Google is your friend.
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:52:54 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I was just a little disappointed that although this machine *can* run
>> Windows (in what's called 'bootcamp') my original Windows XP set-up disk
>> which I bought in 2002 cannot be used (I think the criteria said I need
>> an XP SP2 disk).
>
> You could always try slipstreaming SP2 with the original XP installation
> disc. Easy-peasy.
>
> Google is your friend.
>
>
Thanks! :)
I have tried to do that way back and (you won't be surprised! <g>)
couldn't do so successfully. As I have original Microsoft CD's for SP1,
SP2 and SP3 I decided not to bother.
Maybe I'll have another go when my grass stops growing and it's cold and
wet outside!
I'll also have to persuade myself that I actually *want* to put Windows
on my Mac! ;-)
Aardvark
> Aardvark <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in
> news:ian372$tf1$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> And well above average intelligence. Mustn't forget that.
>
> Just for curiosity sake, how much trouble in your childhood/early adult
> life could you possibly blame for that?
None. I happen to have been particularly genetically gifted (or cursed)
by well above average intelligence. I have my parents and both sets of
forebears to thank for that.
Aardvark
> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:52:54 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> I was just a little disappointed that although this machine *can* run
>>> Windows (in what's called 'bootcamp') my original Windows XP set-up
>>> disk which I bought in 2002 cannot be used (I think the criteria said
>>> I need an XP SP2 disk).
>>
>> You could always try slipstreaming SP2 with the original XP
>> installation disc. Easy-peasy.
>>
>> Google is your friend.
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks! :)
>
> I have tried to do that way back and (you won't be surprised! <g>)
> couldn't do so successfully.
Neither shaken nor stirred by that nugget of information.
> As I have original Microsoft CD's for SP1,
> SP2 and SP3 I decided not to bother.
>
You mean that if you ever did want to install that particular copy of XP
on a box, you'd do it all sequentially? Glutton for punishment, or what?
> Maybe I'll have another go when my grass stops growing and it's cold and
> wet outside!
You could try reading 'TCP/IP For Dummies' while you're at it. Multiple
times, if necessary.
>
> I'll also have to persuade myself that I actually *want* to put Windows
> on my Mac! ;-)
I do lots of things on computers that I don't really 'want' to do. The
best way to learn something is to do it yourself. Multiple times, if
necessary.
~BD~
[....]
>
> You mean that if you ever did want to install that particular copy of XP
> on a box, you'd do it all sequentially? Glutton for punishment, or what?
There's other things to do whilst things load .... but, no, your right.
I've Acronis True Image 2009 installed on my XP machines as well! :)
>> Maybe I'll have another go when my grass stops growing and it's cold and
>> wet outside!
>
> You could try reading 'TCP/IP For Dummies' while you're at it. Multiple
> times, if necessary.
No need when I have you to advise me! I have, though, got DOS for
Dummies which, at one time, I knew more or less by heart!
>> I'll also have to persuade myself that I actually *want* to put Windows
>> on my Mac! ;-)
>
> I do lots of things on computers that I don't really 'want' to do. The
> best way to learn something is to do it yourself. Multiple times, if
> necessary.
I'm sure there a some traits we have which are not dissimilar. I too
love to experiment - just to see what happens! 8-)
D.
Aardvark
> I have, though, got DOS for
> Dummies which, at one time, I knew more or less by heart!
I have a big thick DOS 6.0 book somewhere I used to play with when I ran
Windoze. If you know DOS, it's not such a great leap to bash in the CLI
of a Linux box.
bash, though, is much more powerful than DOS.
Why not get yourself an old box and try installing some Linux distro on
it?
> I'm sure there a some traits we have which are not dissimilar. I too
> love to experiment - just to see what happens! 8-)
U like breaking OSEN just so I can fix them.
I broke my headless server's OS over the weekend (Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Server
Edition) so badly that I decided it was time I installed Ubuntu 10.04.
Flattened and rebuilt, the server is now happily humming away in its
cupboard and I've been configuring it from here using ssh.
The more you do it, the more you learn.
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:24:13 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I have, though, got DOS for
>> Dummies which, at one time, I knew more or less by heart!
>
> I have a big thick DOS 6.0 book somewhere I used to play with when I ran
> Windoze. If you know DOS, it's not such a great leap to bash in the CLI
> of a Linux box.
>
> bash, though, is much more powerful than DOS.
>
> Why not get yourself an old box and try installing some Linux distro on
> it?
I have had a play before. I've also got at least four other working
computers (last time I used them anyway!) so well I might. I do, though,
really need a new monitor if I'm to do that. This 24 inch screen on my
iMac has spoilt me! ;-)
>
>> I'm sure there a some traits we have which are not dissimilar. I too
>> love to experiment - just to see what happens! 8-)
>
> U like breaking OSEN just so I can fix them.
??? I found this http://www.osenxpsuite.net/
> I broke my headless server's OS over the weekend (Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Server
> Edition) so badly that I decided it was time I installed Ubuntu 10.04.
> Flattened and rebuilt, the server is now happily humming away in its
> cupboard and I've been configuring it from here using ssh.
Well done! :)
> The more you do it, the more you learn.
I agree - my major problem nowadays is *remembering* it!
In 10 years time you'll have forgotten that I've said this! ;-)
Aardvark
>> U like breaking OSEN just so I can fix them.
>
> ??? I found this http://www.osenxpsuite.net/
OSen- plural of OS (German suffix, for some reason).
Dustin
news:iap58e$mpo$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:53:01 +0000, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Aardvark <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in
>> news:ian372$tf1$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> And well above average intelligence. Mustn't forget that.
>>
>> Just for curiosity sake, how much trouble in your childhood/early
>> adult life could you possibly blame for that?
>
> None. I happen to have been particularly genetically gifted (or
> cursed) by well above average intelligence. I have my parents and
> both sets of forebears to thank for that.
Hehe. No, I meant- How much more trouble would you say (if you were being
totally honest) did you get in because you do have a higher than your
average joe intelligence?
Dustin
news:O7ednWW1utHrQlLR...@bt.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:sMydnbmKAJ4wHlPR...@bt.com:
>
> [....]
>
>>> Like you, I had no idea that Apple machines also had a Hosts file;
>>> the fact had never come to my attention before.
>>
>> Slight correction is due here. I confused your imac thing with a
>> vintage mac that didn't run a unix like OS; and didn't natively
>> support tcpip... That was a fuckup on my part for not paying closer
>> attention to what you actually wrote.
>
> Thanks for being magnanimous. I completely accept your explanation.
> :)
>
>> You have to understand that I'm primarily a PC guy and didn't
>> realize how PC wannabe your macs have become in the last few years.
>
> I was just a little disappointed that although this machine *can*
> run Windows (in what's called 'bootcamp') my original Windows XP
> set-up disk which I bought in 2002 cannot be used (I think the
> criteria said I need an XP SP2 disk).
You can always slipstream the disc you have and make a new disc
containing SP3 if you wanted. Legally too I might add.
> As a 'professional' one needs to keep abreast of changes (not
> getting at you, btw!) so you might like to have a quick look here
> and watch the very short video clip included:
As I said, my speciality has always been PC.. Not mac. :)
>> I'm into computer forensics myself.<G> Ever used Encase?
>
> No. I'd never heard of it, but *have* now watched this video clip.
> Very interesting, but it would need a lot of time, I suspect, to
> become a competent user. Thanks for mentioning, though! :)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ce74q2zqM
It's great software. Many law enforcement agencies around the country
make extensive use of it. It should be said tho, what you can do with
encase can be done with a small pile of completely free programs as
well; It's not working magic, it just makes things easier.
Aardvark
> Hehe. No, I meant- How much more trouble would you say (if you were
> being totally honest) did you get in because you do have a higher than
> your average joe intelligence?
How does one quantify 'shitloads'?
Dustin
news:iap45k$mpo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:52:54 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> I was just a little disappointed that although this machine *can*
>> run Windows (in what's called 'bootcamp') my original Windows XP
>> set-up disk which I bought in 2002 cannot be used (I think the
>> criteria said I need an XP SP2 disk).
>
> You could always try slipstreaming SP2 with the original XP
> installation disc. Easy-peasy.
>
> Google is your friend.
I think I'd just do SP3 instead.. You should be using that service pack
if your running windows anyway. However, if he goes to load it on an ATI
video card powered box; it might have issues... Workable issues, but
issues non the less.
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:06:06 +0000, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Hehe. No, I meant- How much more trouble would you say (if you were
>> being totally honest) did you get in because you do have a higher than
>> your average joe intelligence?
>
> How does one quantify 'shitloads'?
>
>
>
That expression is sufficient! :)
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:12:17 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>>> U like breaking OSEN just so I can fix them.
>>
>> ??? I found this http://www.osenxpsuite.net/
>
> OSen- plural of OS (German suffix, for some reason).
You've lost me! :)
~BD~
It's good to have a conversation with you, Dustin! :)
Aardvark
> It's good to have a conversation with you, Dustin!
Just because you and Dustin are best bosom buddies now, I don't think
that means he'll be your pet hacker anytime soon.
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:38:16 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> It's good to have a conversation with you, Dustin!
>
> Just because you and Dustin are best bosom buddies now, I don't think
> that means he'll be your pet hacker anytime soon.
If he wouldn't do it for money, he surely wouldn't do it for love!
It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to investigate. :(
Aardvark
> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:38:16 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> It's good to have a conversation with you, Dustin!
>>
>> Just because you and Dustin are best bosom buddies now, I don't think
>> that means he'll be your pet hacker anytime soon.
>
> If he wouldn't do it for money, he surely wouldn't do it for love!
>
It'll be quite some time before the other kids taunt you with 'BD an'
Dustin sittin' in a tree...', believe me.
> It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to investigate. :(
It's a great shame that I'm immune to your cheap psychological ploys, and
also that I lack the urge to tilt at someone else's windmills.
~BD~
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:24:56 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
[....]
>
>> It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to investigate. :(
>
> It's a great shame that I'm immune to your cheap psychological ploys, and
> also that I lack the urge to tilt at someone else's windmills.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, you not being in the same league!
I'm sure you can hang a ceiling far better than Dustin (or I) could. :)
Have you ever tested Dustin's 'BugHunter'?
I liked it - great fun! :)
D.
Jenn
awe he's not immune, Dave ... you got him wrapped around your little finger
just like you planned!
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
Peter Foldes
"Jenn" <m...@whocareswhathisemailisanyway.com> wrote in message
news:iapuae$9q4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jenn
Have you seen the movie Dumb and Dumber. Which one represents you and which one Dave
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Dustin
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:06:06 +0000, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Hehe. No, I meant- How much more trouble would you say (if you were
>> being totally honest) did you get in because you do have a higher than
>> your average joe intelligence?
>
> How does one quantify 'shitloads'?
>
>
>
HAHAHA... :)
FromTheRafters
news:DvqdncYkt6kV-03R...@bt.com...
Heard (or is that herd) of oxen?
~BD~
Speak up please - I'm getting *hard* of hearing.
Aardvark
> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:24:56 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
> [....]
>>
>>> It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to investigate. :(
>>
>> It's a great shame that I'm immune to your cheap psychological ploys,
>> and also that I lack the urge to tilt at someone else's windmills.
>
> It's nothing to be ashamed of, you not being in the same league!
>
I'm not ashamed to admit it. That isn't to say that the kind of
'investigation' you require is beyond my skill set.
> I'm sure you can hang a ceiling far better than Dustin (or I) could. :)
>
I should fucking hope so.
> Have you ever tested Dustin's 'BugHunter'?
>
Nope. Don't need to. I use Linux.
> I liked it - great fun! :)
>
I may take a look at it sometime.
> D.
A.
Dustin
news:p5udnSBWr-G75k3R...@bt.com:
> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:24:56 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
> [....]
>>
>>> It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to
>>> investigate. :(
>>
>> It's a great shame that I'm immune to your cheap psychological
>> ploys, and also that I lack the urge to tilt at someone else's
>> windmills.
>
> It's nothing to be ashamed of, you not being in the same league!
What? Aardvark likely has a real life, and perhaps a better view on the
world. He has nothing to be ashamed of in the slightest little bit.
> I'm sure you can hang a ceiling far better than Dustin (or I) could.
> :)
He, you, pick someone, can do all kinds of things far better than I
ever could. I've never claimed to be anything special, asshole.
> Have you ever tested Dustin's 'BugHunter'?
You can't read?
BugHunter is DISCONTINUED SOFTWARE!
No support of any kind is offered and no updates will be forthcoming.
from http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
There is *no* point in testing it now and hasn't been for sometime.
Visit the site if you want more details. Otherwise, please stop
bringing it up?
Oh, and I'm glad you enjoyed the software. Thanks.
Dustin
news:iaqf6a$pai$4...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nope. Don't need to. I use Linux.
:) You don't need to bother if you ran windows either tho; The software
is discontinued and has not been updated in two years now. BD tends to
leave out some details...Oh, and it wasn't GUI.. Not in the windows
sense. Doesn't much matter, but what the hell. The interface for
BugHunter was ripped off from the default style of the old Renegade BBS
software menu. By ripped off, I don't mean I used any rg code; I just
mean I modeled the "look and feel" of renegade.
~BD~
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:p5udnSBWr-G75k3R...@bt.com:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:24:56 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>> [....]
>>>
>>>> It's a great shame that *you* do not have the skill to
>>>> investigate. :(
>>>
>>> It's a great shame that I'm immune to your cheap psychological
>>> ploys, and also that I lack the urge to tilt at someone else's
>>> windmills.
>>
>> It's nothing to be ashamed of, you not being in the same league!
>
> What? Aardvark likely has a real life, and perhaps a better view on the
> world. He has nothing to be ashamed of in the slightest little bit.
It's just friendly banter, Dustin! :)
>> I'm sure you can hang a ceiling far better than Dustin (or I) could.
>> :)
>
> He, you, pick someone, can do all kinds of things far better than I
> ever could. I've never claimed to be anything special.
I think you *did* claim to rather special at school - others might
remember that, but it's not important. We can all help one another - but
then tinw :( <joke!>
>> Have you ever tested Dustin's 'BugHunter'?
>
> You can't read?
Of course I can! (but only with specs nowadays!)
> BugHunter is DISCONTINUED SOFTWARE!
>
> No support of any kind is offered and no updates will be forthcoming.
>
> from http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
>
> There is *no* point in testing it now and hasn't been for sometime.
>
> Visit the site if you want more details. Otherwise, please stop
> bringing it up?
You should be *proud* of what you achieved. The game was simply changing
too fast for one man to keep up. Hardly *your* fault!
>
> Oh, and I'm glad you enjoyed the software. Thanks.
:)
D.