Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Not even close (Score 2) 181

by cbiltcliffe (#48951103) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Is Back Online, Properly

Original submitter, here.
Are you talking about ads on TPB site, or within the /. story page?
TPB is actually one of the big reasons I first started blocking ad servers at my router. If I was searching for something with the HTPC that the kids HAD TO WATCH NOW, to see if it was available, I didn't want them seeing the various dating and sex site ads that were pretty much all you'd see on TPB.
So, I blocked some of the most notorious ad networks at the DNS level on my router, which solved that problem, and a whole lot of ads on other sites, too. Those overly loud auto play video ads for various pointless crap that show up in forums and such, I never see. Those were done in my second round of blocking after TPB stuff. Every once in a while I go through my squid proxy logs and see what other ad and tracking networks are showing up, and disable them. Best thing is, if I buy a new computer, it's automatically protected, without AdBlock/FlashBlock/CrapBlock/etc being installed.

I guess what I'm trying to say it is, if there are ads on TPB, then I didn't see them before submitting. And if there are ads on the /. story page, well.....I don't see them, either.
Sorry if the story caused you any trouble that was my fault.

+ - The Pirate Bay is back online, properly

Submitted by cbiltcliffe
cbiltcliffe (186293) writes "About a month ago, a story was submitted that the Pirate Bay domain name was back online. This story mentioned a timer, which supposedly showed the time since the police raid. I didn't notice at the time, but a more recent check showed this counter was counting down, not up, with a time to reach zero at the end of January. Sometime around a week ago, the waving pirate flag video changed to a graphic of an orange phoenix, and a disabled search box showed up. I've been watching the site since, and now, about 12 hours before the timer was to reach zero, the site is back up, complete with searches."

Comment: Re:trendy (Score 1) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890723) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

Security essentials is ok and doesn't spam you, but it's just ok.

HTH,

Security Essentials used to be just ok. Over the past year or so, it's turned into the most useless piece of crap I've ever seen. I used to recommend it as a free option for some people, but lately I've been ripping it out of every machine I see it on, in the same way I used to do with Norton a few years back.

Comment: Re:In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 2) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890687) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

You don't need no brakes on your car to study what happens to some other guy when they crash their car.

Similarly, I don't need antivirus on my computer to reverse engineer the infected files I pulled from a client machine; which, incidentally, their antivirus said was clean, and I found them manually. (But wait! How did you find them without the antivirus telling you that they were infected?! That's unpossible!!! <head explodes>)

Comment: Re:In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 1) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890659) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

Hardy har har. I'm pretty sure you were trying to be funny.

But, just in case you, or any of the other similar comments were actually being serious:
  Maybe that actually meant "don't run anything resembling antivirus software," since, you know, that's what the thread and the article are all about.....

Comment: Re: In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 1) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890645) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

Well, once I sorted out your bizarre punctuation and capitalization, I realized I agree with you.

Every one of my computers has Sandboxie installed. It's one of the tools I used when analyzing malware, when I want to see exactly what it does to the machine.

Comment: Re:In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 4, Interesting) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890593) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

I don't execute virus files on my work computer. That would be stupid. I decompile/reverse engineer/etc them.

I have a separate computer that I use if I need to actively infect one. It's not a VM (for the exact reason that some posters have already given) but I do have a Clonezilla image of it, so I can quickly wipe/reinstall after analyzing the infection.

Comment: Re:In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 0, Flamebait) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48890575) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

AC: "I'm a fucking idiot, and have no idea how to tell if a computer's infected without big scary warnings from my antivirus software, therefore everybody else is exactly the same."

Never mind the fact that if nobody could detect an infection without a/v software, then it would be impossible to ever add new viruses to the definitions of any antivirus software; meaning, of course, that all antivirus software would have a precisely zero detection rate, and therefore would be completely useless. So, even if you're right, then you're still wrong.

Comment: Re:In after somebody says don't run Windows. (Score 5, Informative) 467

by cbiltcliffe (#48889515) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Anti-Virus Software In 2015? Free Or Paid?

That would be "in before somebody says 'don't run Windows'".

Having said that, I've run Windows (among other things) for years, and haven't run anti-virus in over a decade for two reasons:
- it's more trouble than it's worth when you know what you're doing,
- it's hard to do any kind of virus research at all when you've got antivirus trying to delete every infected file you're examining.

In the time I've not run a/v, I've never had an infection. (I never had an infection before that, either, but that's beside the point.)
I use Comodo Endpoint Security on the kids' computer, and the HTPC, but my main Windows desktop hasn't had it for years, and won't have it for the foreseeable future, either.

All my Linux machines, of course, don't run anything, except for my mail server, which has ClamAV on it, just to scan attachments.

Comment: Re: noooo (Score 1) 560

by cbiltcliffe (#48724609) Attached to: 2014: Hottest Year On Record

Bullshit. Most (all?) of the Northern hemisphere had the most brutal winter we've had in decades. We broke cold temperature records that were 100 years old or more. Then, on top of that, summer basically never happened. We didn't actually get to normal summer temperatures until September, and there were reports of similarly cool June, July and August temperatures from far afield.
So for 2014 to be a record hot year, I have to ask: where the fuck was it actually hot? Unless all the land in the southern hemisphere was actually on fire, this claim seems to be a flat out lie.

Comment: Re:Brought it on ourselves (Score 1) 229

by cbiltcliffe (#48653613) Attached to: GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

Times are changing, nowadays you can commit crimes without even going out of your house, real-time encrypted communication with your whole gang.

When has this not been true? Invite a bunch of neighbours over with some balloons tied to the front porch, and a sign up that says "Happy Birthday Son!"
Then, sit in the kitchen talking about your plans to blow up some local municipal building, while some co-conspirator dresses as a clown and entertains the kiddies in the front room that you can see through the window from the street. (Ok, so you probably had to leave the house to buy the balloons, but still.)

Police methods and laws need to keep up with the technology and their use by criminals.

Provide evidence to a judge, receive a warrant. That's the process. Period. As technology progresses, the types of evidence you can present to a judge also progress. That right there is now they keep up with the technology.

Comment: Re:Just arrest them then? (Score 2) 229

by cbiltcliffe (#48653495) Attached to: GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

Evidence != Conviction.

1. You suspect someone of a crime based on some evidence you obtained legally, either by accident,by witnessing something in a public place, by a witness statement, by a confession, or some other method, but regardless, it's without a warrant, but using a method that's legal to obtain evidence without a warrant.
2. Based on this evidence, you obtain one or more warrants and use them to gather more evidence.
3. If the totality of evidence points to a crime being committed, you arrest and charge the target with a crime.

The problem with the NSA/GCHQ, etc, is that they're not following this pattern. Instead, they're doing this:

1. Perform surveillance on everybody without warrants.
2. If you find anything pointing to a crime committed by an individual, then, well, repeat step 1.

"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky

Working...