RSS feed reader

98 Guy wrote in :

But even beyond that, the HOSTS file seems to get read only once per
client application.


Ok. I know that the difference is large, but I was considering a need for
repeat readings at speed given that the file is supposed to be freely
writable by a user or other processes. I was balancing that unknown against
knowing that Prox is sole user of its lists, and loads to RAM. 1MB isn't a
lot but it scales fast if there is much repeating.

98 Guy wrote in :

It's been known that malware will mess with the hosts file. But that
takes us back into the realm of Win-98 vs Win-NT in terms of malware
exposure and vulnerability - a realm where win-98 has always been
inherently superior (if only because of simplicity - or because of dumb
luck and not by design).



The best locks (and hinges) were always simple. The more complex they are,
the easier it is, not harder, to exploit them. W98 being simpler than newer
systems, gives it advantages. WXP is touted as more secure, but that's mainly
because it uses code from OpenBSD! But this is like putting good Chubb locks
on a fibreboard door, makes no sense at all to me. Given that Android phones
have just been turned into a botnet, I think people might soon wish they'd
backed OpenBSD instead of Linux to make Android. Most 'security' is like
building on a flood plain instead of on steel pilings. I think that W98 is
better than WXP precisely because it DOES let coders get at the pilings,
direct access to hardware. M$ keep telling us that's a disadvantage. It
isn't. People broke it often enough, but at least it was there. The
difference between a little access to a secure core, and nothing, is
infinite. If they want users to be responsible and keep machines out of
botnets, the last thing they should be doing is denying users direct control
of their own machines.

Franc Zabkar wrote in
:

OTOH, if the hosts file contains
only numeric IP addresses, then a DNS lookup would be necessary to
resolve the domain name.


No, other way round.. Computers always paint by numbers. It's the names
that make data readable and meaningful to US that makes their work harder.
Same reason interpreted languages run slower than compiled ones.

What DOES slow stuff down is when the number's don't match when they should,
but even then we usually know quickly that something went wrong.

98 Guy wrote in :

If I know that www.google.com resolves to 123.45.67.89

For whatever it's worth, I get this:


C:\WINDOWS\Desktopping google.com
Pinging google.com [173.194.34.101] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.34.101: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=51
..
..

Which may relate to my observations last week that Google might treat same
calls very differently depending on who and where they come from, but I won't
say any more about that here.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

WXP is touted as more secure,

XP was the most efficient exploit platform ever invented for mass
distribution when it started to replace win-95/98/2K systems back in
early 2002 and remained that way through about the end of 2006 when it
became marginally less exploitable.

The word "secure" and security was (and still is) thrown around alot,
but back then it meant "desktop" or "system" security - in terms of
locking down physical system access with a user-name and password.

A pain in the ass for the home or soho user, but absolutely required in
corporate, gov't and institutional settings.

When people **** on win-98 in terms of security - that's what they're
really talking about (even if they don't know it). It's a red herring
and largely unrelated to system exploitability through network access
and web browsing, e-mail reading, etc.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

OTOH, if the hosts file contains only numeric IP addresses,
then a DNS lookup would be necessary to resolve the domain name.


No, other way round.. Computers always paint by numbers.

I've been running an FTP server recently on this win-98 machine (War FTP
Daemon).

Naturally, I have this in my hosts file:

127.0.0.1 localhost

My system has a hard-coded LAN IP address: 192.168.2.12

In order to get this FTP server accessible from the outside world, I had
to add this to the hosts file:

192.168.2.12 A.B.C.D

Where A.B.C.D is my WAN IP address (the address handed out to my modem
by my ISP).

When ever my WAN IP address changes, I have to make the corresponding
change to that HOSTS file line.

If I do an nslookup on 192.168.2.12, I get 192.168.2.12 as the answer,
but I also get A.B.C.D as the FQDN. That seems to be important for FTP
server to work correctly when accessed from the internet at large.

I figured out this solution by trial and error - I didn't see it
mentioned anywhere in any help files or discussion forums.

98 Guy wrote in :

When people **** on win-98 in terms of security - that's what they're
really talking about (even if they don't know it). It's a red herring
and largely unrelated to system exploitability through network access
and web browsing, e-mail reading, etc.


That's why I use the hinge metaphor a lot. People worry too much about their
locks, and it's well known that DIY isn't a widely held skill, especially in
computing. WXP=locks-hinges. W98 had better hinges, but no locks, but the
mainboard (BIOS) has one, people could have used that. I guess they were too
worried about 'uptimes', never mind the waste of energy that implies.
Everyone seemed to think they were running a fast server on a T3 line. The
illusion of 'connectivity' is just weird. We're all beginning to get a sharp
lesson in that from the postal services.

As for me, all I am concerned is that my machine doesn't become someone
else's bitch. I knew a guy who so often urged me to go to WXP, but he often
lost data, or saw his machine compromised, especially involving email
accounts and trojans. Neither of those things ever happened to me, except for
a bit of data loss due to an error in managing local disks and 48 bit LBA
addressing before I learned about that.

98 Guy wrote in :

Naturally, I have this in my hosts file:

127.0.0.1 localhost


That's all I have in mine.

My system has a hard-coded LAN IP address: 192.168.2.12

In order to get this FTP server accessible from the outside world, I had
to add this to the hosts file:

192.168.2.12 A.B.C.D


Neat idea. I ended up using FTP server as passive as per OpenBSD
recommendations (I think others recommend that too). I can't remember how I
solved it, but it wasn't a hosts file, but port forwarding in the router,
maybe. I also use a static LAN IP. And a small netmask hole too, no point
making that gap any wider than it has to be. Broadcast, network, a handful of
static IP's and a handful remaining for a DHCP pool. 16 in all works here.

My own FTP server took a bit of trial and error, but I don't have to update a
hosts file. My main problem was testing it with only one person using a
client, it took a while before we figured our whose problem was whose..

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
98 Guy wrote in :

When people **** on win-98 in terms of security - that's what they're
really talking about (even if they don't know it). It's a red herring
and largely unrelated to system exploitability through network access
and web browsing, e-mail reading, etc.


That's why I use the hinge metaphor a lot. People worry too much about
their
locks, and it's well known that DIY isn't a widely held skill, especially
in
computing. WXP=locks-hinges. W98 had better hinges, but no locks, but the
mainboard (BIOS) has one, people could have used that. I guess they were
too
worried about 'uptimes', never mind the waste of energy that implies.
Everyone seemed to think they were running a fast server on a T3 line. The
illusion of 'connectivity' is just weird. We're all beginning to get a
sharp
lesson in that from the postal services.

As for me, all I am concerned is that my machine doesn't become someone
else's bitch. I knew a guy who so often urged me to go to WXP, but he
often
lost data, or saw his machine compromised, especially involving email
accounts and trojans. Neither of those things ever happened to me, except
for
a bit of data loss due to an error in managing local disks and 48 bit LBA
addressing before I learned about that.

But that doesn't prove your point, though.
I'd bet the real reason was the difference between your computer use and
his, and the respective environments.

"Bill in Co" wrote in news:u-
:

But that doesn't prove your point, though.
I'd bet the real reason was the difference between your computer use and
his, and the respective environments.



I wasn't trying to prove a point, there are way too many imponderables for
that. About the only conclusion I can draw is that my situation was working
for me, and his wasn't for him, so he needed to change something that I
didn't. He never argued against this either, he asked me for advice. But as I
was using W98 there wasn't much I could give other than some strategy and
program recommendations, so I'm very aware of the limits in my scope. It
maybe proves I run a tight ship, but that's it, it's hardly a fleet...