Check this out.
Microsoft Firefox 2007 Professional Edition web site. Seriously cool.

http://www.msfirefox.com/

 

There is always a other side of the story. See the article "Novell/Microsoft deal: good for Novell, good for Linux?" at  http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9843352777.html

The last line of this article from the author


I love it 
 

Saw this article today. Hope this will have some value for US members.  Nothing beats experience.

Another Nail in the IT Certification Coffin
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2051272,00.asp

As IT Certifications Devalue, Vendors Up the Ante
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2051272,00.asp

Hi ChrisG

If CEH claims the copyright for the questions and if AT created questions almost identical ( sometimes matching word to word) and they claim the rights to the questions and if a potential exam taker reproduce the AT questions in a forum like this in search of correct answers who is breaking the law? who can sue who?

I am layman to law and my opinion of who is breaking the law is not worth two cents for anybody. So that’s why I would not rather think about it.  I would let somebody who knows the system analyze the problem.

I am a IT guy, if somebody pose a question on my field I will try to help to my ability. If somebody ask a legal question, I will not put a legal hat and try to find (probably incorrect) answers.

I am sure that some guys who have written in this thread have a law background. So I will accept their analysis and stay in the background. 

But I standby the comment that I  agree with Don, Kev and Negrita that the practice test questions should be allowed to discuss (provided that there are no legal implications). I have also seen these questions create interesting discussions (not just “a” is the answer) which go way beyond the question.


Cheers

I have to thank Negrita for standing up for the Racist comments. I am a too a  Asian (not from any of the countried specified and a not a Muslim (Islamist) either). But racisim is not required here.



newbie is what you see under the screen name. Doesnt mean that we are new to IT or IT security. Please dont judge the member by the little text appearing under the screen name.

Regards

Skel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBA (IT), B.Sc.Eng (Hons), MBCS, CCSE (2000), CEH

Hi

I feel inclined to respond to this discussion as I have posted some questions from TK in search of answers and I was a primary contributor for the thread in question.

My primary feeling is most new users are attacted to this site are potetial CEH exam takers (I know I was). Therefore the group should help the members to get through the exams.

I know that the TK helped me alot to focus on the areas I should concentrate.

IMHO Dons approach is correct. We should allow (and encourage) people to discuss the exap prep questions.

About legality  of the content - I wouldnt know. The TOS of TK ,AT and such is actually BS IMO. Most questions are reproductions of the real exam. So who is actually violating the copyright ? The poster ? the Exam Prep site ? -- I event dont want to think about it.

Regards

IMHO MS has never been a poineering company. MS has always had the philosopy of copy first and do better than the original.

So in this case too ZERT is pushing MS. I think more companies should be doing this. Eventually some of these unoffical patches may make windows more vulnerable and bring a bad name for MS products ( as if they dont have a bad name now  he he he....)

Once MS feels threatned it will push their upgrades/ patches faster and better and ZERT will be no more.   

Thanks for the link.

Very interesting situation. MS wants to validate ur windows before downloading the tool. Does this mean MS will push the ie7 update to pirated windows PCs too?. If MS is going to give IE7 only to genuine windows users, why do they need to validate widows to download the tool ?
 

Botnet masters in the camp ? Very intersting !!!!
 

Hacking other devices other than PCs and IT systems is a great subject to discuss.

But will it dialute the core focus of the ehnet ?

This beats all

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2034680,00.asp

I have been a Firefox user for the last 1-1 1/2 years. Before that my primary browser was opera. I still love it more than firefox but unfortunately lot of sites still dont work properly with Opera  . Firefox too have the this issue but number of sites I have encounted is much less than opera. This the primary reason I had to make the switch.

I havent tried Firefox 2 yet. I will give it some time untill all the extensions I use are upgraded. 

Looking at some comments I doubt whether the ver 2.0 is realy worth the upgrade. I currently use forefox ver 1.5.0.3


Well I already have this feature with "Tab Mix Plus" Extension.


Well I have this feature too with  "Tab Mix Plus" Extension.


I dont have this feature. May be there is a extension for this. But I use the "McAfee Site Advisor Plugin" extension which works pretty well for me.

Since I am still a Opera fan  I use the extensions "ImgLikeOpera" and "Paste and go" to get features I dealy love in Opera.

I also see that some feature are now discontinued and changed on ver 2.0
(see Firefox 2.0 RC2 Is a Step … Backward? - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2026597,00.asp) I love the way firefox handles the "Find in this file" feature. The small bar at the bottom the page is really neat. It seems that some changes have been done to this option.

One feature I hate in firefox is that once upgrades/updates are downloaded it gives u no option to stop installing. At the next firefox restart it will upgade ur browser without giving any option and suddenlty u find that some extensions which u are hooked on are not compatible and extension updates are are not yet available. It seems that this has not been changed (atleast I havent seen anybody talking about it).

So is firefox 2.0 realy a major version upgrade  ? I think not. Looks lot like some features in extensions are now built in to the core. So whats the big deal ?

Any firefox 2.0 tester?  please give your openions

 

http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/eweek/archive/2006/10/19/14079.aspx

The cat mouse game has already begun .................

I cannot see the logic of how denying alerts from web server can help unicode attacks 



I dont know much about pop before smtp, but this method seems to work only in caseses designated users are allowed to relay mail though a specific mail server. But if I want to send a mail to dareth@xyz.com, u cannot enforce pop before smtp to me. U need to open the port smtp of xyz mail server.

If the port is open, u can telnet and grab the banner. But  there are probably methods to restrict manual telnet. ( eg implienting a quick timeouts )
 
So IMO E is the answer

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2032661,00.asp

Microsoft's twice-yearly BlueHat summit will kick off with a demo of a virtualization-based rootkit that can be used to defeat the company's PatchGuard technology.

I have abosolutely no idea how a rootkit running on the hypervisor level can be detected by a software running on a less priviladged kernel level.  Such a rootkit is sure to be a killer.