If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
DNS-Changer malware RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote in :
One secure method immediately suggests itself if a router exists. Set the computer to always go to the router's IP, then set the router to point to the external DNS servers. That is DNS relaying, and it's just plain stupid. Because unless you're always accessing your router's administrative settings via http (and how many people do that) - then you'll never know if some malware went in and changed the DNS settings in the router. Well, I wouldn't do it (I actually set the router only as a THIRD option in case the two external DNS servers failed. (The router is using one of the ISP's DNS servers, but I was using DirectNIC's as I'd got a domain with them till recently)). There are two ways to hide: in the shadows, or in plain sight. Using a router might suit those who prefer to use the shadows to remain out of easy reach, but the majority would likely prefer plain sight, because it's easier. Neither method is inherently stupid, unless people don't make a choice, stick with it, and be vigilant, What IS stupid is to trust the machine too much. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in : But I think I've heard that said about noise reduction software, too. Yes, theoretically that is essentially what is automatically being done by the noise reduction software or plug-ins, but still, I think the computer algorithms can often analyze and process it more effectively than me. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much use for noise reduction tools (including such plug-ins), unless you solely believe it just for amateurs, who don't want to invest the time doing it with a multiple band equalizer, which I don't believe is the only reason. :-) In the case of NR, it's a contant print made with fine detail, to remove periodic or constant noise whose variations are on extremely short time scales. That is best done automatically, but FSE (and more importantly the underlying filter process) need human input. FSE isn't just frequency domain, it is also time domain, otherwise it would be no more than a static EQ. True enough. And I really appreciate it's general effectiveness, in so many cases. In fact, if I were isolated on an island somewhere, with a choice of only a couple of audio tools, I'd have to pick at least one with FSE capability, in addition to Sound Forge (with some plug-ins!). But I agree with you that editing in Sound Forge is truly a pleasure - when compared to so many other audio editors. I haven't found any other audio editor I'd rather work with. The main reason for FSE is the removal of transients that affect only part of the spectrum, and stand some chance of clean reduction if we can isolate them. This can only be as good as the underlying filter. So long as I can get control of a filter like that I don't miind if I can't see the time/frequency plot, time is enough, with the second dimension being used to plot a simple curve or two, such as cutoff frequency and slope. Many filters set those parameters statically, but my best shot is likely to be finding one that lets me draw dynamic curves the same way that some Cakewalk and SoundForge plugins do it. A good dynamic filter will have some phase offset correction I hope. I have fixed problems in bass signals with a static EQ and found a delay that I had to correct before merging the fixed sound with the original in a cross- fade. I don't need full FSE, I just need some dynamic filter that lets me avoid some of the tedium that results from making up for static methods' deficiencies. And that's the tedium I wish to avoid. :-) (I wonder if FSE might lead to many newcomers having no awareness of filters and their methods and limits. If so, it may lead to unrealistic expectations because any audio cleaner is only as good as its filters). Probably, and not only newcomers; me too, I'd bet. Obviously, the one more works with any tool, the better one gets at it, and that includes discovering more and more of its nuances ... along the path to enlightenment. :-) |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
none wrote:
"98 Guy" wrote in message ... Lostgallifreyan wrote: For example, if I open an instance of FireFox, that instance will be using what-ever version of the hosts file that existed at the time firefox was started. If I edit or delete the hosts file while that instance is running, it has no effect on that instance. Firefox continues to operate as if the original hosts file is still present. Even if I open more tabs and browse to new sites, the pre-existing hosts file is still in effect. If I keep this instance of FF running and open a new instance, the new instance will behave according to what-ever changes I've made to the hosts file. So it seems to be that each application has it's own version of the hosts file cached for it somewhere in memory, which is loaded at the time the application is started. Been a l-o-n-g time since viewing or writing to this NG. Good to see it active and you guys writing about something worthwhile and interesting (unlike many other NG's). Indeed! |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
none wrote:
"98 Guy" wrote in message ... Lostgallifreyan wrote: For example, if I open an instance of FireFox, that instance will be using what-ever version of the hosts file that existed at the time firefox was started. If I edit or delete the hosts file while that instance is running, it has no effect on that instance. Firefox continues to operate as if the original hosts file is still present. Even if I open more tabs and browse to new sites, the pre-existing hosts file is still in effect. If I keep this instance of FF running and open a new instance, the new instance will behave according to what-ever changes I've made to the hosts file. So it seems to be that each application has it's own version of the hosts file cached for it somewhere in memory, which is loaded at the time the application is started. Been a l-o-n-g time since viewing or writing to this NG. Good to see it active and you guys writing about something worthwhile and interesting (unlike many other NG's). Regarding HOSTS and browsers; I too still use FF2 (Bon Echo v2.0.0.22) on W98 and a large HOSTS file. There is NO perceivable performance hit, I don't think I've seen a performance hit either, with a fairly decent size HOSTS file and while it's true FF opens the HOSTS file one time (then keeps it open), I've noticed Opera (v10.63) does not! I can change the HOSTS file with Opera browser open, UNblock a URL, and that UNblocked page is now accessible (simply with a refresh). So HOSTS performance/effectiveness is browser dependant. Have you come across any site compatibilities or warnings while still using FF 2.0? Or maybe that's why you're also running a newer version of Opera.(?) |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m: Probably, and not only newcomers; me too, I'd bet. Obviously, the one more works with any tool, the better one gets at it, and that includes discovering more and more of its nuances ... along the path to enlightenment. :-) I was kind of hoping you might have some dynamic filters to suggest. I never did look into that thoroughly enough. (Got to run as DX plugins on W98, but at a pinch I can adapt a VST..) Incidentally, I guess a noise reduction system is a group of very narrowband filters, grouped to match the print. But again, such a tool, with a simple dynamic curve control, will get very close to FSE, while saving a great deal of coding and CPU usage because it won't have to do the time/frequency domain display. I'm sure such tools exist, I just never hunted specifically for dynamic filters aimed at audio cleaning. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in m: Probably, and not only newcomers; me too, I'd bet. Obviously, the one more works with any tool, the better one gets at it, and that includes discovering more and more of its nuances ... along the path to enlightenment. :-) I was kind of hoping you might have some dynamic filters to suggest. I never did look into that thoroughly enough. (Got to run as DX plugins on W98, but at a pinch I can adapt a VST..) I haven't been using any (of the types I think you're thinking of), so I don't know of any. Incidentally, I guess a noise reduction system is a group of very narrowband filters, grouped to match the print. Sounds about right to me. :-) And it's done with the computer algorithms smartly analyzing it, and with a bunch of narrowband filters at its disposal, from what I gather. In some of these noise reduction plug-ins, you can change the FFT window size, the FFT window overlap, the attack speed, release speed, and all that stuff. (When using the Sony Noise Reduction plug-in, I've left my FFT window size set at 2048, and there is indeed a real tradeoff in selecting that value. Using too many narrowband bandpass filters will degrade the result, due to what I'd sloppily call time domain smearing - and you can hear it). So Less Is More (down to a point). (Using too few filters isn't great, either, and you can hear those artifacts too). But again, such a tool, with a simple dynamic curve control, will get very close to FSE, while saving a great deal of coding and CPU usage because it won't have to do the time/frequency domain display. I'm sure such tools exist, I just never hunted specifically for dynamic filters aimed at audio cleaning. Fortunately I haven't run into any problems with CPU usage so far. Even on the Win98SE computer, although granted, it doesn't have as much of the later audio restoration stuff. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
: In some of these noise reduction plug-ins, you can change the FFT window size, the FFT window overlap, the attack speed, release speed, and all that stuff. (When using the Sony Noise Reduction plug-in, I've left my FFT window size set at 2048, and there is indeed a real tradeoff in selecting that value. I found that varying it seemed to make interesting differences rather than useful ones. Long windows work on long tonal structures, but short ones do less harm to short atonal sounds like percussion and consonants. I ended up with 1024 samples as my default. 2048 is good but I wanted the extra edge in HF for a lot of things. A shorter window processes faster too. A much more useful copntrol to vary was the amount of cut along with the new control added to SF's v2 NR. I can't remember its name right now, but if you shift it toward the lighter end of its effect, you can increase the main cut with less damage to transients, and it's easy to adjust the two for a compromise that works on a specific case. The new version had a switch for three different types of NR, two of which matched settings in the original. I think I ehter chose the new one, or the second form of the old. Yet another useful trick is to slightly shift the entire noiseprint graph. That helped with the original, but the new controls in v2 meant I didn't have to do that anymore. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in
: Fortunately I haven't run into any problems with CPU usage so far. Even on the Win98SE computer, although granted, it doesn't have as much of the later audio restoration stuff. It's relative... Less CPU is always good, I hate waiting for NR to finish before I can do HR. It's ok if I know what HR I'll do already, I can just chain them and do something else, but on any new material I never know the HR choice until NR is done. About lots of filters, I think if the calculations get too complex, phase shifts might get confusing. I never grasped the business of filtering very well. I find that a few simple ones usually do ok. Also, I think that while digital methods can do things analog stuff can't, it often makes sense to stay with methods that analog means can do, because otherwise we can end up with un-natural stuff our brains won't interpolate for. (Think of some of those REALLY weird mobile phone artifacts heard on some news reports, and you get the idea..) |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
"Bill in Co" wrote in news:AZ-dnV3B-
: I haven't been using any (of the types I think you're thinking of), so I don't know of any. Ok. If anyone else is following this, and knows of dynamic filter plugins for DirectX, running on W98 and aimed at accurate control rather than special effects or VCO simulation, please post, any useful leads welcome.. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in news:AZ-dnV3B- : I haven't been using any (of the types I think you're thinking of), so I don't know of any. Ok. If anyone else is following this, and knows of dynamic filter plugins for DirectX, running on W98 and aimed at accurate control rather than special effects or VCO simulation, please post, any useful leads welcome.. Maybe you could give an example of one (or one that might run on some other windows version), so one might get a better idea. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Data Feed inn Excel Form | S1L1Y1 | General | 10 | March 28th 08 08:45 PM |
Data Feed in Excel form | S1L1Y1 | General | 0 | March 27th 08 08:19 PM |
PDF Reader | Dapper Dan | General | 19 | April 11th 07 02:18 PM |
RSS Reader | Stan | General | 1 | August 27th 06 10:19 PM |
adding rss feed | Bob | General | 0 | June 20th 06 11:14 PM |