Powerdns was vulnerable to the Kaminsky attack, but in a different way. It was actually easier to spoof the server due to its more actively dropping certain DNS packets. So while it did perform source port randomization, it was not totally immune to the attack either.

http://doc.powerdns.com/security-policy.html itself states:

All versions of PowerDNS before 2.9.21.1 do not respond to certain queries. This in itself is not a problem, but since the discovery by Dan Kaminsky of a new spoofing technique, this silence for queries PowerDNS considers invalid, within a valid domain, allows attackers more chances to feed *other* resolvers bad data.

Though it is phrased as "someone elses problem", in the DNS word of course nothing is "someone elses problem". DNS servers are chained in hierachies and one problem somewhere leads to problems elsewhere. DNS is all about protocol compliance to ensure interoperability. With the "someone elses problem" approach, we would have had no "reflection attack" and "amplification attack" problems either, it being "someone elses problem". Despite the nice phrasing, powerdns caused cache poisoning problems as a result of the Kaminsky attack that needed to be addressed.

In general, I have a problem with bug reports and changelogs writing things as "improved error handling", "made more robust" or "add security to" which are too often used to hide the real security impact of certain bugs. DJB's policy of "it is not my bug to fix, because it is an operating system bug" is also completely bogus from a system administrator point of view who still ends up with a security problem.

I wouldn't say it is snake oil. Putting versions in a page allows you to Google for it. Which makes the attack a lot easier. It also allows the attacker to do reconnaissance a lot less detectably a hold of time, and then spring it on everyone at once.

I have two setups like that.

  At home two 24" monitors on one computer, along with a second computer with a 20" monitor. They are connected with synergy and a ps/2 kvm. The kvm is good for when the main one is down. I can just hotkey over and use the second computer. I use it mainly for IM, but also sometimes for a second browser. Both computers are running Fedora I find having two computers comes in handy regularly. I also use the second computer as a iscsi server for the first. The first computer already has six drives in it. So the second computer allows me to expand to ten.

  The office setup is two 20" monitors on one computer, along with a second computer with a 20" monitor. They are connected with synergy. In this case I actually have two keyboards and nice. The main computer has no ps/2, and I have no usb kvms. I use a two port ps/2 kvm to share one keyboard between the second computer and a third computer. Then I toggle the monitor between dvi and vga. I do it this way since 99% of the time I don't need console access on the third computer. I access it via ssh for CUDA programs. The first computer runs Fedora, the second runs Vista, and the third runs Fedora. Vista is good in the office. It lets me do things like VMware Infrastructure client(currently Windows only), Internet Explorer(just today I was told to use IE on the HR site, since it works better), and other little things.

Sounds like it is either using MyISAM for tables, or you aren't using the --single-transaction option of mysql-dump for INNODB.

This sounds like a problem I have had. It isn't ever time I reboot, and has gotten better with newer kernel versions. Mine is a 4tb ext4 filesystem on linux software raid5.

I just bought a eVGA GTX260 216(core) SC at Fry's for $200+$20 tax. But it had a mail in rebate for $50. Which will bring the price down to $150+$20 tax. I bought it not as a gaming card, but as a second CUDA card. I already had a PNY GTX260(192 core).

CUDA doesn't play nice with regular graphics usage. Your machine will be really jerky every few seconds. I also didn't have room in my main computer, motherboard or power supply wise. So I put it in my second desktop that I use for iSCSI and a third monitor via synergy. The machine already had a 6600GT, which then became the secondary card. I run X off it. Which leaves the eVGA card just for CUDA. Then I can run it all day and not even notice a performance hit.

that sounds more like Guild Heighliner technology where they Fold Space.

"travel to any part of the universe, without moving".

It also avoids the acceleration/deceleration with WARP speeds :P

I was not here, I did not say this.....

I have two setups with three monitors. One at work and one at home. Both use two desktops. Home is two 24" at 1920x1200, along with a 20" at 1680x1050. Work is three 20" at 1680x1050. The third monitor is on the second machine, and is accessible via synergy. The third monitor is great for IM, especially for work related stuff. I can look at it at a glance, along with a spreadsheet on the second monitor, and four terminal windows on the first monitor.

At home the second desktop is another Linux box that I use for additional storage for the primary desktop via iSCSI. At work the second desktop is a Windows machine.

I only recently went to three monitor. I looked at doing it with a second video card in the main desktop, or using a Matrox splitter box to run two monitors off one DVI connector. A second video card in Linux just doesn't work that well, and the splitter boxes are expensive. Plus a second computer has some advantages. More segregated CPU and memory, more storage, different OS, etc.

No, they are all of the same base architecture, but aren't the same card. The 8800GT and the 9800GT are pretty close. Probably the biggest difference is some 9800GT cards are 55nm chips instead of 65nm. On the other hand there is a lot of difference between 8800GT and the GTX260. The GTX260 has 32 dedicated double precision processors that the 8800GT does not. My rough understanding is that those double precision processors are roughly equal to 1.5x a Q6600(quad core), or 6 cores. The GTX260 also comes with more streaming(single precision) processors. The 8800GT is 96/112 and the GTX260 is 192/216, depending on model.

Just look at this graphic.

http://pyrit.googlecode.com/svn/tags/opt/pyritperfaa3.png