DDOS attack Microsoft - Windows NT

This is a discussion on DDOS attack Microsoft - Windows NT ; On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote: > >> What if >> they're using a text-only browser like Lynx? > >Then pray tell how would they SEE the images? The use of a text-based browser doesn't necessarily ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 181 to 191 of 191

Thread: DDOS attack Microsoft

  1. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote:
    >
    >> What if
    >> they're using a text-only browser like Lynx?

    >
    >Then pray tell how would they SEE the images?


    The use of a text-based browser doesn't necessarily mean a lack of
    graphics ability. Plenty of people use lynx/w3m/links in an xterm on an
    X display for various reasons, and these are quite capable of displaying
    the graphics in a separate window with something like xv (at least w3m
    can). I think the latest versions of some of these can display the
    graphics inline.

    Frink

    --
    Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
    See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
    Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
    "No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

  2. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article , emurphy42
    @socal.rr.com says...
    [snip]
    > Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    > recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    > you get paid to design.


    Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    to build.

    We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    information more presentable and user friendly.

    You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    target with "some" consideration for the rest.

    I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  3. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    On 2003-09-17, Leythos wrote:

    > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > to build.


    [...]

    > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > target with "some" consideration for the rest.


    Over the years people seem to have forgotten that HTML was not intended to
    be a page layout language; if fact quite the contrary. It was intended to
    provide access to information while allowing the client to determine how
    best to display or otherwise use it.

    --

    -John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

  4. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    [...]

    > Except that they may not *be* clicking. (Even if they're using an
    > ordinary graphic browser, they may be using the keyboard.)
    >
    > "View Images" as link text would avoid the ugly 'click here' phrase. As
    > an extra bonuses, it's shorter.


    Of course, they may not actually be "viewing" the images... maybe we should
    just write "Download Images for the possibility of viewing for clients with
    appropriate abilities"?

    Not that I disagree with Ed though... even if it's only a home site, it's
    always
    good to follow web conventions



  5. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Maxime Ducharme
    Administrateur reseau, Programmeur


    "Manoj Paul Joseph" wrote in message
    news:jIE6b.1$l24.163@news.oracle.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    > (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    > It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    > Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Manoj
    >
    >




  6. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article , emurphy42
    > @socal.rr.com says...
    > [snip]
    >
    >>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    >>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    >>you get paid to design.

    >
    >
    > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > to build.
    >
    > We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    > 800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    > information more presentable and user friendly.
    >
    > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    >
    > I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    > and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    > mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    > Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    >
    >


    http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

    --
    Bob Marcan mailto:bob.marcan@hermes-plus.si
    Aster^H^H...HermesPlus^H^H^H...S&T
    Slandrova ul. 2 tel: +386 (1) 5895-000
    1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.hermes-plus.si


  7. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article , bob.marcan@aster.si
    says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > In article , emurphy42
    > > @socal.rr.com says...
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > >>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    > >>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    > >>you get paid to design.

    > >
    > >
    > > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > > to build.
    > >
    > > We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    > > 800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    > > information more presentable and user friendly.
    > >
    > > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > > target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    > >
    > > I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    > > and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    > > mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    > > Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html


    Your posting of their OPINION shows how much you DON'T know about
    converting client server apps to web applications. There is more to the
    design of a web interface than the idea that it's designed for the
    entire world. If you design your site for your target audience then you
    have built a site that meets the requirements and provides the most
    features for your audience - it does not have to work with all browsers,
    be compatible with the blind, have easy to view colors, etc... It HAS TO
    BE WHAT THE USERS REQUIRE and PROVIDE THE TARGET WHAT THEY WANT.

    You design the site for the audience it's intended for, which does not
    mean that one set of guidelines fit all development projects.

    No matter how many times you say that all sites have to comply with a
    universal compatibility guideline you will be wrong.

    In the early days web interfaces were best designed for use with all
    browsers, then came the ability (as the technology improved) to convert
    green screen, client server apps, vb/c/c++ apps to web interfaces, and
    all the guidelines for PUBLIC users didn't mean anything. Imagine if you
    were doing a call center application for Verizon, to replace their old
    CS application, and you told them that they had to make the interface
    compatible with Opera, Mozilla, IE3,4,5,6, and that it had to run at
    640x480 and only use about 32 colors! They would throw you out the door,
    it's about more than just public brochure sites, people are using web
    interfaces for entire business systems now.

    Mark

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  8. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article , bob.marcan@aster.si
    > says...
    >
    >>Leythos wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article , emurphy42
    >>>@socal.rr.com says...
    >>>[snip]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    >>>>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    >>>>you get paid to design.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    >>>with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    >>>use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    >>>to build.
    >>>
    >>>We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    >>>800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    >>>information more presentable and user friendly.
    >>>
    >>>You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    >>>target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    >>>
    >>>I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    >>>and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    >>>mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    >>>Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

    >
    >
    > Your posting of their OPINION shows how much you DON'T know about
    > converting client server apps to web applications. There is more to the
    > design of a web interface than the idea that it's designed for the
    > entire world. If you design your site for your target audience then you
    > have built a site that meets the requirements and provides the most
    > features for your audience - it does not have to work with all browsers,
    > be compatible with the blind, have easy to view colors, etc... It HAS TO
    > BE WHAT THE USERS REQUIRE and PROVIDE THE TARGET WHAT THEY WANT.
    >
    > You design the site for the audience it's intended for, which does not
    > mean that one set of guidelines fit all development projects.
    >
    > No matter how many times you say that all sites have to comply with a
    > universal compatibility guideline you will be wrong.
    >
    > In the early days web interfaces were best designed for use with all
    > browsers, then came the ability (as the technology improved) to convert
    > green screen, client server apps, vb/c/c++ apps to web interfaces, and
    > all the guidelines for PUBLIC users didn't mean anything. Imagine if you
    > were doing a call center application for Verizon, to replace their old
    > CS application, and you told them that they had to make the interface
    > compatible with Opera, Mozilla, IE3,4,5,6, and that it had to run at
    > 640x480 and only use about 32 colors! They would throw you out the door,
    > it's about more than just public brochure sites, people are using web
    > interfaces for entire business systems now.
    >
    > Mark
    >


    If it is specialized application for the closed audience, O.K.
    I just switched my bank. They used certificates and the only way to get
    it is using IE, then import to Mozilla. I said tnx and go to the other.
    Searching for the new door http://www.fbsblindate.it/ , flash only.
    Guess, will i buy something from this comany?

    Regards, Bob

    --
    Bob Marcan mailto:bob.marcan@hermes-plus.si
    Aster^H^H...HermesPlus^H^H^H...S&T
    Slandrova ul. 2 tel: +386 (1) 5895-000
    1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.hermes-plus.si


  9. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Mark Dodel" wrote in message news:...
    > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:02:56 UTC, Leythos wrote:
    >
    > -> Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    > -> less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    > ->
    >
    > That is simply not true. Windows is setup from the get go for little
    > security. Microsoft has builtin a number of backdoors so they can
    > access your system (they of course claim its not anything insidious),
    > and these are exploitable once discovered. Why are mail attachments
    > automatically opened and run. Why are file extensions not displayed
    > by default for the people who are too stupid to click on anything that
    > someone tells them to. The users are not the problem (unless you
    > consider their constant belief of Microsoft's marketing lies),
    > Microsoft is. Instead of putting out patches that are just bandaids,
    > they should fix the damn problems with their software.
    >
    > As to the security through obscurity claim, that is a great point.
    > People should have multiple platforms available so that when Windows
    > is down with the latest virus/worm/exploit they can still be running.
    > I have no problems here, as I wouldn't let a Windows machine near the
    > internet for any length of time.
    >
    > Mark


    I have none of these problems with Microsoft products, my suggestion
    is to use help files and follow instructions.

  10. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    El Mariachi wrote:

    < snip >

    > I have none of these problems with Microsoft products, my suggestion
    > is to use help files and follow instructions.


    Following instructions doesn't help those thouands of Windows users whose
    machines have been taken over by security hole exploits, without any action
    on their part whatsoever. So your suggestion is utter nonsense.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com


  11. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:27:05 -0700, Paul Lutus wrote:

    > El Mariachi wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> I have none of these problems with Microsoft products, my suggestion
    >> is to use help files and follow instructions.

    >
    > Following instructions doesn't help those thouands of Windows users whose
    > machines have been taken over by security hole exploits, without any action
    > on their part whatsoever. So your suggestion is utter nonsense.



    If they'd followed the docs, their system registry would have certain
    sections non-writable for ordinary users. Same goes for the file system.

    But then, nobody reads those docs because "windows is sooo easy".

    Maybe they should change their slogan to :

    "How do you want to be rogered today?"



+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10