Microsoft Crippling VISTA,2008 and 7

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

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

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

^{DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS}
_{DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS DONGSDONGSDONGSDONGSDONGS}

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

>>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

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.

Please learn to quote.

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

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

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

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

>>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

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

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

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

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

>>142

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

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

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

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

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

>>146
ILFNRAA

>>148
NYJMUA.

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

　　 _,,....,,_　 ＿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´

okay guys, enough with the markov chains

This thread is now about calculating the value of π.

3.14

>>153
BBP algorithm. End of thread.

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

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

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

>>153
335/113

22/7 man