 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
Geiss is probably "the best" program of its kind to exist. It was really
the first plugin that did more than just some monochrome osciliscope
lines. Back when it came out, just running it would melt CPUs... Today
we're more fortunate! ;-) Others have tried to do the same thing, and
indeed some of them have more options and features and buttons. But few
achieve the same style and simplicity as Geiss. It's just really well
thought out!)
I noticed one of the user comments. It basically says
"I was spoiled when I first tried this all those years ago. You will
be spoiled too. And, after tweaking the options while listening to your
favorite tunes, you'll notice it's THE NEXT FREAKIN' DAY!!1!!!!"
Made my literally LOL... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote :
> [stuff]
Hey, where have versions 4 through 6 of you gone ?
Yeah, I know, off-topic, sorry ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to download. I
>found my old favourite, Geiss.
>
> Geiss is probably "the best" program of its kind to exist. It was really
> the first plugin that did more than just some monochrome osciliscope
> lines. Back when it came out, just running it would melt CPUs... Today
> we're more fortunate! ;-) Others have tried to do the same thing, and
> indeed some of them have more options and features and buttons. But few
> achieve the same style and simplicity as Geiss. It's just really well
> thought out!)
>
> I noticed one of the user comments. It basically says
>
> "I was spoiled when I first tried this all those years ago. You will be
> spoiled too. And, after tweaking the options while listening to your
> favorite tunes, you'll notice it's THE NEXT FREAKIN' DAY!!1!!!!"
>
> Made my literally LOL... ;-)
One of my favourites too, although even on the latest processors it still
struggles to achieve 60 (or even 30 sometimes) FPS at high resolutions (read
1920x1200). I wonder if they could rewrite it using the graphics card, the
routines used look like they would lend themselves very well to being
written on the graphics card.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
> download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
Ah yes, I remember Geiss. Back before I used foobar2000. Don't really
know of anything remotely as spiffy that works with fb2k tho. :(
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouth net> wrote in message
news:4709f097@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
> > download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
>
> Ah yes, I remember Geiss. Back before I used foobar2000. Don't really
> know of anything remotely as spiffy that works with fb2k tho. :(
>
> --
> Tim Cook
I was always partial to http://www.afn.org/~cthugha/ which may have been one
of the very first. It's from the BBS of my online adventures anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> One of my favourites too, although even on the latest processors it
> still struggles to achieve 60 (or even 30 sometimes) FPS at high
> resolutions (read 1920x1200). I wonder if they could rewrite it using
> the graphics card, the routines used look like they would lend
> themselves very well to being written on the graphics card.
I find this post shocking on a number of levels...
When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz
thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would
stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last
night, I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could
use, it was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a
blur. It was *way* too fast.
I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also
confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine
won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you
would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Orchid XP v7
Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
(Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of the
number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7
>
> Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
>
> (Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of the
> number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
Actually, nearer 8 reinstalls, but hey...
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:53:27 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v7
>>
>> Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
>>
>> (Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of
>> the number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
>
> Actually, nearer 8 reinstalls, but hey...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
A partial reinstall? ;-)
(fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:16:37 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS.
In animations that do not contain motion blur, such as video game movies,
the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is actually easily observable.
For example, compare these two movies:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/torrents/supermariobros2-timeattack-peachonly-genisto.avi.torrent
(31.9 MB)
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/torrents/supermariobros2-tas-princessonly-adelikat.avi.torrent
(15.4 MB)
It is clearly seen that the 60 fps movie (the latter) is
smoother than the other, which is jittery in movement.
In motion blurred video such as television shows, the shortcoming
of a low FPS such as 24 or 25 is not as easily seen, but a trained
eye can still notice it.
--
Joel Yliluoma - http://bisqwit.iki.fi/
: comprehension = 1 / (2 ^ precision)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
>
> A partial reinstall? ;-)
More like endless multiply reinstalls...
> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:05:37 +0200, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
>
> Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
'fixmbr' does much the same, and is available in the recovery console.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:05:37 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
>>
>> A partial reinstall? ;-)
>
> More like endless multiply reinstalls...
Ah, I see. :-)
>> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
>
> Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
Doesn't XP include it any more? No matter, though, OpenDOS is still
available. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz
> thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would
> stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last night,
> I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could use, it
> was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a blur. It was
> *way* too fast.
>
> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also
> confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine
> won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you
> would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
If you assume roughly linear "processing time" based on the number of
pixels, then 75 fps at 1280x1024 equals 42 fps at 1920x1200.
I guess your monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, I have 3 display devices
here that are 1600x1200 (desktop), 1920x1200 (laptop) and 1920x1080 (TV).
25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG. I wish I still had
the demo that split the screen into 4 and ran each quarter at 15,30,60 and
120 fps. This was on my CRT that would do 120 HZ refresh. You could easily
tell the difference between each of them, the 120 Hz looking so silky
smooth. Nowadays with LCD we're kinda stuck with 60. IIRC some research
report I read said that the eye can process information up to about 70-80
Hz...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
Well, *that* would lead to widespread adoption, wouldn't it?
> Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
> to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
> someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
People who don't know the security holes in Linux shouldn't forget their
root password? >8)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
> Well, *that* would lead to widespread adoption, wouldn't it?
I remember reading somewhere a list of common misconceptions about linux.
IIRC one of them went something like "linux developers and advocates are
trying very hard to get linux into mainstream, to make it widely adopted".
Yes, while *some* really have that mentality, it's still a misconception.
Linux developers and advocates couldn't care less if someone else uses
linux. They are making linux for *themselves*, not for everybody. They are
not competing for market share. They just want to make a good alternative
to commercial OSes. One which they like to use (not one which appeals to
the masses).
I tend to agree with that.
> > Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
> > to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
> > someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
> People who don't know the security holes in Linux shouldn't forget their
> root password? >8)
Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
computer. It doesn't matter which OS you are using. Heck, you can take
a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm
>> also confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200.
>> (Mine won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to
>> why you would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
>
> If you assume roughly linear "processing time" based on the number of
> pixels, then 75 fps at 1280x1024 equals 42 fps at 1920x1200.
OK. Well 42 FPS is still faster than you need.
> I guess your monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, I have 3 display devices
> here that are 1600x1200 (desktop), 1920x1200 (laptop) and 1920x1080 (TV).
Well, it's a 21 inch CRT. I'm not sure why it would stop at 1280x1024,
but it is of course possible...
> 25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG.
Really? I observed virtually no visible difference at all (except the
speed of the motion).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
> It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
Possibly, depending on how you think about it. It certainly makes for
insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for
example.
> There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
> computer.
Sure there is. Otherwise, why would anyone build encrypting disk
drivers, mandatory access control, etc?
> It doesn't matter which OS you are using.
This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
> Heck, you can take
> a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
... counts as "insecure."
> The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
I think you're overgeneralizing. I think it's because security isn't a
binary property of a system.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
> > It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
> Possibly, depending on how you think about it. It certainly makes for
> insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for
> example.
I was mainly talking from the point of view of the owner of the
computer, which is naturally also its administrator.
There are certain things you just *must* be able to do to the computer
as an administrator. The most typical example would be booting it (which,
if it was possible to do remotely by anyone without permission, would be
considered a huge security hole).
It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
to the computer). It's just common sense.
You could, of course, make a computer somewhat "secure" by disabling
a bunch of things (such as being able to boot in single user mode and
booting from a CD) and setting a bios password. However, it wouldn't make
too much sense to do this to your own computer because if you ever forget
that root password, it would be quite bothersome to get your computer back.
> > There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
> > computer.
> Sure there is. Otherwise, why would anyone build encrypting disk
> drivers, mandatory access control, etc?
Security of the data is not the same as security of the system.
If someone can hack into your computer and delete all your encrypted
files (or worse, replace them with something else without you noticing
for a long time, perhaps messing up your backups), I wouldn't call that
security.
Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
If someone has direct access to your computer, they serve only as a
deterrent for the novice and a slowdown for the expert. There's little
stopping the user from eg. booting from a linux installation disk and
wiping out the contents of the HDs.
(That doesn't mean that accounts couldn't be handy even if the computer
is used by more than one person. They can be very handy eg. for a computer
used by the entire family, with each member having their own accounts. It
makes maintenance easier and accidents less catastrophical.)
> > It doesn't matter which OS you are using.
> This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
the HDs, for example?
> > Heck, you can take
> > a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
> ... counts as "insecure."
Well, it is. I count a system which can be brought down by anyone
without permission as being insecure. You can only try to stop that
being done remotely, but if someone has physical access to your
computer, no such luck.
> > The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
> I think you're overgeneralizing. I think it's because security isn't a
> binary property of a system.
I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration:
If someone has direct physical access to the computer, it is insecure.
Remote access can be made much more secure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
>>> It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
>
>> Possibly, depending on how you think about it. It certainly makes for
>> insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for
>> example.
>
> I was mainly talking from the point of view of the owner of the
> computer, which is naturally also its administrator.
Right. And I was pointing out that resetting the root password from the
local console is indeed a security hole if the owner of the computer
isn't the one sitting at the console. Makes sense?
> It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
> the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
> become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
> resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
> to the computer). It's just common sense.
Sure. But preserve all the data of everyone on the machine when
resetting the password is less secure than resetting the password by
wiping out all data on the machine.
> Security of the data is not the same as security of the system.
> If someone can hack into your computer and delete all your encrypted
> files (or worse, replace them with something else without you noticing
> for a long time, perhaps messing up your backups), I wouldn't call that
> security.
Right.
> Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
I disagree. If they're only good for remote access, why is there advice
that you shouldn't log in as root for everyday use?
> If someone has direct access to your computer, they serve only as a
> deterrent for the novice and a slowdown for the expert. There's little
> stopping the user from eg. booting from a linux installation disk and
> wiping out the contents of the HDs.
Again, you're making a boolean description of security. The fact that
you can destroy the computer doesn't mean it's "insecure".
>> This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
>
> You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
> the HDs, for example?
No, but that's *more* secure than someone booting from a CD and reading
all your files. That's why they invented paper shredders.
I'd rather have my backup disks, when stolen by a thief, get wiped out
and sold as blank media than to have all my personal information
accessible to the thief. There's not too much you can do to keep the
disk from getting stolen, but you can keep the data from getting stolen.
> If someone has direct physical access to the computer, it is insecure.
Well, in some senses of the word, it's insecure. In other senses, it
isn't. If I boot Vista and I need to put a USB frob in to decrypt the
boot partition, the machine is significantly more secure than if I'm
running Win98, even if neither machine is plugged into a network at all.
> Remote access can be made much more secure.
No question there. Remote access prevents a number of attacks. But that
doesn't mean local access must or even should allow all attacks.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK. Well 42 FPS is still faster than you need.
Need for what?
>> 25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG.
>
> Really? I observed virtually no visible difference at all (except the
> speed of the motion).
Well of course everybody has different perception of flicker/motion
blur/smoothness, look at the attached that I made in POV a while back (I
think it is xVid format, can't remember). The balls are bouncing at 60, 30
and 15 fps. If you can't see the difference between the "smoothness" of the
red and green balls then I guess you're lucky as you can tolerate lower
framerates in games (==cheaper hardware) :-)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'out.avi.dat' (601 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
> If someone has direct access to your computer, they serve only as a
> deterrent for the novice and a slowdown for the expert. There's little
> stopping the user from eg. booting from a linux installation disk and
> wiping out the contents of the HDs.
That may be so, but they wouldn't be able to read my data, or modify it
without me noticing (eg that the HD has been wiped, or certain files give an
error when trying to load). They need my password and my USB security key
to be able to do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Right. And I was pointing out that resetting the root password from the
> local console is indeed a security hole if the owner of the computer
> isn't the one sitting at the console. Makes sense?
Well, if you can reinstall linux in the computer, then that's basically
the same level of insecurity as being able to reset the root password.
> > It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
> > the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
> > become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
> > resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
> > to the computer). It's just common sense.
> Sure. But preserve all the data of everyone on the machine when
> resetting the password is less secure than resetting the password by
> wiping out all data on the machine.
How is the OS going to stop someone from booting from a specially created
CD which allows you to read the contents of the HDs regardless of what
the ownership flags of the files are?
The only way to reduce that risk is to encrypt the files, but in that
case then even being able to reset the root password is not going to help
in decrypting them.
> > Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
> I disagree. If they're only good for remote access, why is there advice
> that you shouldn't log in as root for everyday use?
If you are referring to protection against fumbling things (eg.
accidentally writing "rm /"), then of course it's a good thing to not
to be always logged as root. However, I was talking from the point of
view of a malicious user who wants to do some mayhem to the system.
Accounts are of no use if the malicious person has direct access to
the computer.
> Again, you're making a boolean description of security. The fact that
> you can destroy the computer doesn't mean it's "insecure".
Then we disagree.
> > You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
> > the HDs, for example?
> No, but that's *more* secure than someone booting from a CD and reading
> all your files. That's why they invented paper shredders.
If your files are encrypted then the root password is of no use to
decrypt them. You can only do the same thing as you could do with the
boot CD: Destroy or modify the files.
> I'd rather have my backup disks, when stolen by a thief, get wiped out
> and sold as blank media than to have all my personal information
> accessible to the thief. There's not too much you can do to keep the
> disk from getting stolen, but you can keep the data from getting stolen.
What does this have to do with you being able to reset the root password?
> > Remote access can be made much more secure.
> No question there. Remote access prevents a number of attacks. But that
> doesn't mean local access must or even should allow all attacks.
Being able to reset the root password and being able to boot from a CD
are basically the same thing. The only way you can "protect" anything is
by encryption, in which case neither thing is too helpful in decrypting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> That may be so, but they wouldn't be able to read my data, or modify it
> without me noticing (eg that the HD has been wiped, or certain files give an
> error when trying to load). They need my password and my USB security key
> to be able to do that.
The only way to achieve that is encrypting the files, in which case being
able to reset the root password is of no additional help (compared to being
able to boot from a CD).
Being able to reset the root password and being able to boot from a CD
are basically the same thing, when you have direct access to the computer.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The only way to achieve that is encrypting the files, in which case being
> able to reset the root password is of no additional help (compared to
> being
> able to boot from a CD).
How are you going to reset the root password if the harddrive is encrypted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > The only way to achieve that is encrypting the files, in which case being
> > able to reset the root password is of no additional help (compared to
> > being
> > able to boot from a CD).
> How are you going to reset the root password if the harddrive is encrypted?
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said?
Let me rephrase: Not being able to reset the root password does not add
any security compared to being able to boot from a CD.
Conversely, being able to reset the root password is no more insecure
than being able to boot from a CD.
Neither thing is going to help you decrypting those files. However,
both things can be used to abuse the system in other ways.
I'm certain you can set up linux in a way that it's not possible to
reset the root password. However, that's somewhat moot if you are still
able to boot from a CD. Just boot from a CD and you have root access to
the HD. The only way to try to protect from that is to disable booting
from CD from bios and put a bios password. Of course this is only a slight
slowdown, not a working security measure (because that doesn't stop the
malicious person from physically removing the HD from the computer and
putting it in another), but it introduces a maintenance disadvantage:
You'd better not forget the bios password.
The thing is, no matter what you try to do, if the malicious person has
direct access to the computer, it will be insecure. The only thing you can
do is to encrypt your data, in which case it doesn't matter if the root
password can be reset (because the root password doesn't help you decrypting
the files). This is completely equivalent to being able to boot from a CD,
and also to be able to remove the HD from the computer and putting it in
another.
The initial claim was that being able to reset the root password (when
you are using the computer directly, not remotely) is somehow a security
hole. This is nonsense. It's not more of a security hole than being able
to boot from a CD or being able to physically transfer the HD to another
computer.
You can, of course, disable this. However, it would be mostly useless
from a security point of view.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The thing is, no matter what you try to do, if the malicious person has
> direct access to the computer, it will be insecure. The only thing you can
> do is to encrypt your data, in which case it doesn't matter if the root
> password can be reset (because the root password doesn't help you
> decrypting
> the files).
Unless your particular encryption system works transparently to the user for
each account automatically (like it does in Win XP). If that was the case,
being able to gain access as root would allow you to access all the files
encrypted by root. Is it impossible that there is some software for Linux
that works in a similar manner? (ie you can only "decrypt" by logging in
with a particular account, not from examining HD contents).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
>
> The thing is, no matter what you try to do, if the malicious person has
> direct access to the computer, it will be insecure. The only thing you can
> do is to encrypt your data, in which case it doesn't matter if the root
> password can be reset (because the root password doesn't help you decrypting
> the files). This is completely equivalent to being able to boot from a CD,
> and also to be able to remove the HD from the computer and putting it in
> another.
Not 100% equivalent.
Changing a password is something you can do in a few seconds, and is barely
noticeable.
Rebooting on a CD is a slightly more noticeable operation.
And, if a password-locked BIOS is configured to prevent boot from CD,
removing the hard drive is very very noticeable.
See, there's still some levels in-between...
> The initial claim was that being able to reset the root password (when
> you are using the computer directly, not remotely) is somehow a security
> hole. This is nonsense. It's not more of a security hole than being able
> to boot from a CD or being able to physically transfer the HD to another
> computer.
It's a higher risk, since it can be done so quietly compared to the other
options you cite.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> Changing a password is something you can do in a few seconds, and is barely
> noticeable.
Not if you have to boot into single-user mode to do it.
> Rebooting on a CD is a slightly more noticeable operation.
As well as rebooting into single-user mode.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, if you can reinstall linux in the computer, then that's basically
> the same level of insecurity as being able to reset the root password.
Um, no. That's what I'm saying.
> How is the OS going to stop someone from booting from a specially created
> CD which allows you to read the contents of the HDs regardless of what
> the ownership flags of the files are?
Encryption techniques.
> The only way to reduce that risk is to encrypt the files, but in that
> case then even being able to reset the root password is not going to help
> in decrypting them.
Ding ding ding! Yes, that's what I'm saying.
> Accounts are of no use if the malicious person has direct access to
> the computer.
Depends what maliciousness they intend.
>> Again, you're making a boolean description of security. The fact that
>> you can destroy the computer doesn't mean it's "insecure".
>
> Then we disagree.
More specifically, there are levels of security above the level of being
able to destroy the computer.
> If your files are encrypted then the root password is of no use to
> decrypt them. You can only do the same thing as you could do with the
> boot CD: Destroy or modify the files.
Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar.
> What does this have to do with you being able to reset the root password?
That there are systems more secure than those which can have their root
password reset without losing any data. That security isn't a boolean
property.
> Being able to reset the root password and being able to boot from a CD
> are basically the same thing.
I disagree. If I can reset the root password on the machine on my
desktop, then I can change the password on your account, log in as you,
and access the remote resources that are supposed to be protected by
that account.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Unless your particular encryption system works transparently to the user
> for each account automatically (like it does in Win XP).
First, you can't force a reset of a password on XP without already
having the root password. I.e., an admin can reset someone else's
password, but you have to already be logged in as admin. You can't do it
from a regular boot CD.
Second, resetting the password loses the encryption key, so it doesn't
get you encrypted files either.
However, you might be able to change the password on someone's account
and then use that account to get remote access to drive shares. I'm
pretty sure they closed this hole in XP, but I think it was there in 2000.
Certainly on Linux, as root, you can do things with NFS mounts that get
you bypassing security there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
>
> Well, *that* would lead to widespread adoption, wouldn't it?
Yes, if that statement were taken literally there'd be nobody using
Linux anywhere within about 40 years. I've recently installed a linux
flavour on one of my computers because I'd quite like to learn more
about it. Are you recommending that I give up? ;-)
>> Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
>> to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
>> someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
>
> People who don't know the security holes in Linux shouldn't forget their
> root password? >8)
I quite agree. Somebody absent-minded enough to forget their root
password would probably have even more difficulty with the solution. I
myself wouldn't know what to do, but I can't imagine how I'd forget my
password. Unless a piano fell on me or something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > The only way to reduce that risk is to encrypt the files, but in that
> > case then even being able to reset the root password is not going to help
> > in decrypting them.
> Ding ding ding! Yes, that's what I'm saying.
No, it isn't. You hinted in your first post that being able to reset
the root password is a security hole.
What I'm saying is that it's no more of a security hole than being able
to boot from a CD. The only protection against these two things is to
encrypt the files (or not to let anyone access your computer directly,
only remotely).
Besides, linux can probably be configured to disallow booting in
single-user mode (which is the only way to reset the root password
without having to resort to more drastical measures), if you really
want that.
> > Being able to reset the root password and being able to boot from a CD
> > are basically the same thing.
> I disagree. If I can reset the root password on the machine on my
> desktop, then I can change the password on your account, log in as you,
> and access the remote resources that are supposed to be protected by
> that account.
You can do that with a proper boot CD too. So there's no difference.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> First, you can't force a reset of a password on XP without already
> having the root password.
Of course you can. You just need the proper boot CD.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> First, you can't force a reset of a password on XP without already
>> having the root password.
>
> Of course you can. You just need the proper boot CD.
Where do you get this "proper boot CD" form btw? Or do you mean write one
yourself to modify certain bytes on the harddrive so that the password is
reset to something you know? Is that even possible in practise?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Where do you get this "proper boot CD" form btw?
Almost any linux installer CD will do.
> Or do you mean write one
> yourself to modify certain bytes on the harddrive so that the password is
> reset to something you know? Is that even possible in practise?
What do you think Windows does if there's no root password (because it
has been removed using the boot CD)?
Speaking of disk encryption, I just saw this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=873&num=1
Not that it's really relevant to the discussion, but I found it fitting. :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Where do you get this "proper boot CD" form btw?
>
> Almost any linux installer CD will do.
What, to remove the admin password of a WinXP installation? Would be useful
to know how to do that occasionally.
> Speaking of disk encryption, I just saw this:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=873&num=1
>
> Not that it's really relevant to the discussion, but I found it fitting.
> :)
Interesting. I also always wondered what would happen if you were involved
with some illegal activity (even just piracy) and got your PC taken away by
the police. If it was encrypted then presumably they would try to force you
to tell them how to decrypt it - what if you refused? I guess it depends on
the country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Where do you get this "proper boot CD" form btw?
>>
>> Almost any linux installer CD will do.
>
> What, to remove the admin password of a WinXP installation? Would be
> useful to know how to do that occasionally.
>
Something like BartPE would let you do the same with a Windows Live CD.
If you like Linux, Knoppix STD comes with password tools.
>> Speaking of disk encryption, I just saw this:
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=873&num=1
>>
>> Not that it's really relevant to the discussion, but I found it
>> fitting. :)
>
> Interesting. I also always wondered what would happen if you were
> involved with some illegal activity (even just piracy) and got your PC
> taken away by the police. If it was encrypted then presumably they
> would try to force you to tell them how to decrypt it - what if you
> refused? I guess it depends on the country.
>
>
Law enforcement can get a subpoena or warrant for keys to a safe. I
suspect that in many countries they would treat a password the same.
Failing to turn over the password might have worse consequences, since a
contempt of court charge would just leave someone sitting in jail until
they turned over the password.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> Law enforcement can get a subpoena or warrant for keys to a safe. I
> suspect that in many countries they would treat a password the same.
> Failing to turn over the password might have worse consequences, since a
> contempt of court charge would just leave someone sitting in jail until
> they turned over the password.
If the suspect simply claims that he forgot it, how can they prove he
didn't?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Where do you get this "proper boot CD" form btw?
>>
>> Almost any linux installer CD will do.
>
> What, to remove the admin password of a WinXP installation? Would be
> useful to know how to do that occasionally.
http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/index.html
(You can use his ready made boot CD/FD or you can
use his chntpw with Knopix.)
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Something like BartPE would let you do the same with a Windows Live CD.
Except you'd wind up changing the password on the hive that came from
the CD, not the hive on the hard drive.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:35:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
>
> People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
That doesn't really help the userbase grow, though.
> Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
> to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
> someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
And you can bet that he won't forget the solution next time around. At
least he had the sense to ask for help before wiping the system and
starting over.
That's how a lot of people learn - by making mistakes. Nothing wrong
with that - it's not the most efficient way to learn, but it tends to be
retained better than trying to learn from other people's experiences,
books, etc.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:43:55 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Linux developers and advocates couldn't care less if someone else uses
> linux. They are making linux for *themselves*, not for everybody.
Um, that's something Linus has *personally* stated in several interviews.
But that doesn't extend to even a majority of the developers - of course,
if you have some numbers to back up the statement that the majority do
feel that way, I'd love to see those numbers.
When I see major kernel developers like Greg Kroah-Hartmann offering to
write drivers for hardware for free, that tells me that he's looking to
increase adoption, and he's certainly not alone. Look at the folks over
at freedesktop.org who have been doing studies on interface development
and whatnot. You don't do that type of research because it's a hobby.
That particular statement that you're quoting may have been true 5 years
ago, but I doubt it's true today.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:19:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
> the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
> become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
> resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
> to the computer). It's just common sense.
At least the initial release of Windows Server 2003, if you lost the
admin password for the system and b0rked the domain, you couldn't get
in. You *had* to reformat and start over - had it happen to me, with
Microsoft consultants on-site helping me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:19:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> > It doesn't matter which OS you are using.
>
>> This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
>
> You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
> the HDs, for example?
My brand-new HP Pavillion has settings in the hardware that do just that,
in fact. Password protect the bios and disallow booting from any device
other than the hard drive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:01:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> If I can reset the root password on the machine on my desktop, then I
> can change the password on your account, log in as you,
Arguably, if you're talking specifically "root", you're talking POSIX
(right? *nix at least), in which case it's unnecessary to change the
password on the user's account, just su user....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:56:07 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Something like BartPE would let you do the same with a Windows Live CD.
>
> Except you'd wind up changing the password on the hive that came from
> the CD, not the hive on the hard drive.
Any half-decent registry tool lets you load a different registry hive.
Trust me, a Windows XP password can easily be reset from a boot-CD; I have
done it many times.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
> > the HDs, for example?
> My brand-new HP Pavillion has settings in the hardware that do just that,
The hardware is not the OS.
> in fact. Password protect the bios and disallow booting from any device
> other than the hard drive.
Bios settings can be reset, and hard drives can be physically transferred
to other computers.
Bios passwords are only a deterrent. They are not secure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Bios settings can be reset, and hard drives can be physically transferred
> to other computers.
Supposedly, the new Vista full-drive encryption prevents this, storing
the password somewhere on the motherboard or some such, even if you
chose not to have a USB key.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
