similar to: Million linux virtual machines

On 02/04/2015 07:55 PM, Always Learning wrote: > Rent ? That costs money. Just crack open some Windoze machines and do > it for free. That is what many hackers do. Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who rent out botnet time to people who just was to get the work done. There is a large market in botnet time. > > Is this safe enough ? > >

Fred Smith wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:22:06AM +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > >> >>> This is just the first screen of it, there are many more. The data >>> compiled here is for the last month (rsyslog is keeping the current log >>> plus four older logs). I find it disturbing that there were 12251 >>> attempts at telnet during that time, 2154 on

On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:51 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 02/04/2015 07:55 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > Rent ? That costs money. Just crack open some Windoze machines and do > > it for free. That is what many hackers do. > > Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who rent out botnet > time to people who just was to get the work done. There is a large

On 07/28/2015 03:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> said: >> Much of the evil on the Internet today ? DDoS armies, spam spewers, phishing botnets ? is done on pnwed hardware, much of which was compromised by previous botnets banging on weak SSH passwords. > Since most of that crap comes from Windows hosts, the security of Linux >

Hi, Since upgrading our mail servers to Postfix/Dovecot, we've seen a rather large increase in botnet brute force password attacks. I guess our old servers were too slow to suit their needs. Now, when they hit upon a valid user, it's easy to see what passwords they are trying (we've enabled auth_debug_passwords and set auth_verbose_passwords = plain). We can easily have log

On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:22:06AM +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > This is just the first screen of it, there are many more. The data > > compiled here is for the last month (rsyslog is keeping the current > > log plus four older logs). I find it disturbing that there were 12251 > > attempts at telnet during that time, 2154 on 8080, and so forth. either > > I'm

On Jul 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Nathan Duehr <denverpilot at me.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:27, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: >> >> So no, your local password quality policy is not purely your own concern. > > Other than DDoS which is a problem of engineering design of how the network operates (untrusted anything can talk to untrusted

On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:28:23AM -0400, mark wrote: > Fred Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:22:06AM +0100, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > >> > >>> This is just the first screen of it, there are many more. The data > >>> compiled here is for the last month (rsyslog is keeping the current log > >>> plus four older logs). I find it

On 02/05/2015 10:34 AM, Always Learning wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:51 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > >> Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who rent out >> botnet time to people who just was to get the work done. There is a >> large market in botnet time. > Surely its time for the Feds to arrest and change them ? The Feds in which country? >

Hi Chris, > There's a couple of headless systems on the LAN where login security > is important to me and I've been thinking about the relative merits of > password and public-key authentication. > <snip> At home, I have a smaller LAN than you, but at $DAYJOB I work with much bigger fleets. Whether at home or work, everything is Linux-based, and OpenSSH is the primary

On Thu, February 5, 2015 9:34 am, Always Learning wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:51 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > >> On 02/04/2015 07:55 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> > Rent ? That costs money. Just crack open some Windoze machines and do >> > it for free. That is what many hackers do. >> >> Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who

On Tue, July 28, 2015 19:46, Warren Young wrote: > > iPads can???t be coopted into a botnet. The rules for iPad passwords > must necessarily be different than for CentOS. > http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ios-botnet-hacking,news-19253.html -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail James B. Byrne

So, I''ve been following the recommendations for controller specs here: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/09/tutorial-rspec-stubs-and-mocks Most notably: a single expectation per specify block; the setup block contains only stubs; mock expectations each get their own specify block. (I''m still using 0.8, so I haven''t gotten the describe/it goodness yet.) I

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > Much of the evil on the Internet today ? DDoS armies, spam spewers, phishing botnets ? is done on pnwed hardware, much of which was compromised by previous botnets banging on weak SSH passwords. > > Your freedom to use any password you like stops at the point where exercising that freedom creates a risk

> On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:27, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Bob Marcan wrote: >> >> 1FuckingPrettyRose >> "Sorry, you must use no fewer than 20 total characters." >> 1FuckingPrettyRoseShovedUpYourAssIfYouDon'tGiveMeAccessRightFuckingNow! >> "Sorry, you cannot use punctuation."

Hello, Is anyone else having trouble with the and_raise method on mocks, with respect to shared behaviors? If I do the following instead: foo.should_receive(:bar).and_return { raise } everything seems to work. I have been supplying no arguments to and_raise, by the way. Also, you may want to make the background in the code examples on the home page a little lighter. I am hardly able to

Hello, Has anyone already come up with a set of shared behaviours that someone could leverage when adhering to a CRUD concept, with respect to controllers? Relatedly, it would be nice if there were a way to share generalized behaviour specs. -Chris

Hello, After moving into the HEAD of rspec, I am greeted with a mountain of errors, which I expected, due to my specs not being migrated. I use hpricot for a lot of my view tests, as it is extremely simple to traverse the DOM with it. I used to include HpricotSpecHelper in spec_helper.rb, like so: require ''hpricot_spec_helper'' module Spec module Rails module Runner

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> wrote: > Once upon a time, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> said: >> Much of the evil on the Internet today ? DDoS armies, spam spewers, phishing botnets ? is done on pnwed hardware, much of which was compromised by previous botnets banging on weak SSH passwords. > > Since most of that crap comes from

Why am I now getting these errors? expected redirect to {:action=>"index"}, got redirect to "http://test.host/authenticated_users" I know in the AuthenticatedUsersController, the redirect call is redirect_to :action => ''index'' So why should I have to convert this to a url in my specs?