Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions
Geoff Wicks wrote: - Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions Yes and no. Windows is insecure. IE is insecure. Outlook [express or otherwise] is insecure. All are set up with defaults that allow your PC to be taken over without you knowing and used for nefarious purposes. To add oil to the fire I did my virus scan tonight. As I suspected the cookie that Paypal installs on your machine is a tracking cookie, Best Wishes, Geoff IF you are using Firefox, (and I suspect this also holds true for IE) you can set the options so that when you close your browser it will DELETE Cookies, and history files, AND the Cache folder content. USE IT, It can be Your Friend!! -- Paul Holmgren Mine: 2 57 300-C's in Indy Hers: 05 PT GT R/T HO Hoosier Corps L#6 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions Yes and no. Windows is insecure. IE is insecure. Outlook [express or otherwise] is insecure. All are set up with defaults that allow your PC to be taken over without you knowing and used for nefarious purposes. To add oil to the fire I did my virus scan tonight. As I suspected the cookie that Paypal installs on your machine is a tracking cookie, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions
Evening Dilwyn, > OK, British-Rail style "wrong type of security" then. :-) We had the wrong snow today! > Ah, so NOT the fault of IE itself then! Yes and no. Windows is insecure. IE is insecure. Outlook [express or otherwise] is insecure. All are set up with defaults that allow your PC to be taken over without you knowing and used for nefarious purposes. Outlook defaults to HTML emails. These can introduce trojans etc from an email you haven't even read! Windows is insecure because anyone can, just about, do almost anything with all the files on the system. So if some virus or trojan gets in, your system is basically stuffed. Roy Wood wrote a long time ago about his "hatred" of the Linux/Unix system whereby there was a root user and a separate 'you' user and root was only ever used to maintain the system. A Linux virus cannot destroy a system (unless you manage to run everything as root!) only your own personal user account. (Contrary to Roy's blast that Linux doesn't have viruses because it isn't common. It doesn't have them (or many) because it is inherently secure.) > Back to square one, round and round the infinite loop. Hmmm. Infinite loop tends to imply that there is no get out! Make sure you are firewalled to buggery, everything closed down unless absolutely necessary, run a decent anti-virus (AVG or Komodo), get rid of IE and Outlook (Opera, Firefox and Thunderbird) and pay a visit to www.grc.com and check out all the things you can do to protect yourself and also, use "Shields Up!" to find out exactly how secure your Windows system is when on the Internet. Alternatively, OpenSuse 11.1 is excellent! (I know you don't have leanings in that direction just yet though!) Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions
Evening Malcolm, > Is it really "not secure" to have no password entrance to use a computer > that is for personal use ? Possibly not, however, are you in total control of your computer at all times? If "yes" are you 100% sure? > It is only with the advance of networked systems that password entrance > have become the norm. And what is the biggest network currently around? The Internet. And you are on it. Hopefully not on the computer that has no password and hopefully not on XP or Vista where you have not secured the system by setting a secure password on the admin user. There have been many documented accounts of exactly how long it takes a brand new Windows PC to be "zombied" or worse when connected unprotected (ie in default state) to the Internet. Most magazines I have read which carried out their own "honey pot" trap reported less than 15 minutes. So, your unprotected PC attached to the Internet will (possibly) have it's admin user compromised within 15 minutes of you dialing up. Now think about what could be done with that PC : - a denial of service attack on some company or other? - Mail spam - no doubt there will be porn of some sort! - and so on. > Yet, it is not necessary for a single user home computer - even though I > have configured Win XP on my personal PC with a password entrance. Even > though no one else ever uses it ! Ok, your 'malcolm' user is secure (or is the password weak?) but is the administrator user secure or still defaulting to a non-password to get access? Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Online Quanta Subscriptions
In message <08288672-59e3-469a-ad80-e6f0babb5...@jdh-stech.com>, James Hunkins writes Hi Jim, Yes ... but only after you have logged yourself in, if connected to the internet in some way or other. Nice to hear from you again though ... :-) Any work taking place on QDT recently ? PS - I guess that Norman has fell asleep after the New Year festivities and forgotten his password ... :-) If your home computer is on the network, a password on your account can help decrease the possibility of a remote user/virus program from changing critical parts of your system. It all depends on the OS and how it is set up of coarse. In other words, the password doesn't only protect you from other nefarious people in your own house :) but more importantly from remote unauthorized users who can hack into your system by various methods. jim On 4-Jan-09, at 12:16 PM, Malcolm Cadman wrote: In message <4960c5ed.3020...@dunbar-it.co.uk>, Norman Dunbar writes Dilwyn Jones wrote: pretty sure it wasn't any fault of Jochen's site, althouth the site did want to place a cookie on my computer that IE was blocking because I had opted for strict security settings at the time. Sorry, IE wouldn't know strict security if it leapt up and bit it on the backside! ;-) IE is 'part of' Windows (or so we are led to think by Bill) and as such, suffers from Windows own security problems. There is no security on a system which, since XP at least, has defaulted the one user with full admin rights to have no password and doesn't actually mention this fact in the user 'manual'. I have no experience of Vista, but my boss does and he says that it is still passwordless. Duh! Hi Norman, Happy New Year everyone. Happy New Year too ... Is it really "not secure" to have no password entrance to use a computer that is for personal use ? It is only with the advance of networked systems that password entrance have become the norm. Yet, it is not necessary for a single user home computer - even though I have configured Win XP on my personal PC with a password entrance. Even though no one else ever uses it ! -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Qlib's window and pointer handling
On 5 Jan 2009, at 14:40, Marcel Kilgus wrote: So nothing really special here, the routines are really just a thin wrapper around PTR_GEN, the only exception being FWIND which is used to speed up hit testing but in itself is very very simple and could be implemented in BASIC if it wasn't for speed concerns back then. You can do the same with any PE toolkit, like QPTR, EasyPtr and I'm sure TurboPtr, too. Yes. Some examples in TurboPTR use IOP_RPTR instead of WM_RPTR. One example shows dragging a box inside a window. More recently, my resize by outline does the same. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Qlib's window and pointer handling
Ralf Reköndt wrote: > Yes, the loose menu item select was done in Basic of course (ok, therefor > CURSEN/CURDIS, if no PE is present), but how did they manage the "outline" > of the loose item, when the pointer is above? It's a simple WINDOW followed by a BORDER call. > How have you investigated that all? Just a quick look into the binary. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Qlib's window and pointer handling
Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I always thought, that it was in fact just the pointer i/f, which was used. Yes, the loose menu item select was done in Basic of course (ok, therefor CURSEN/CURDIS, if no PE is present), but how did they manage the "outline" of the loose item, when the pointer is above? Must be done in MC as it was drawn as fast as in QRam those days on a QL. If done in Basic, this is drawn a lot slower (on a QL!). Maybe one of the other keywords there. How have you investigated that all? Cheers...Ralf - Original Message - From: "Marcel Kilgus" Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Qlib's window and pointer handling Ralf Reköndt wrote: many years ago, I was thinking about the way, QLib handles it's own "Applikation Window" under PE. I do not really think, it heavily uses WMAN, but I always wanted to know, how it does, what it does. Actually it doesn't use WMAN at all. They've implemented their own little WMAN (in BASIC, nonetheless). Long story short: the loose item highlight is drawn in BASIC and if no PE is present changed according to the cursor keys as any other none-PE program could do. If the PE ist present WM_RPTR is called (the Basic routine mentioned, not the WMAN vector WM.RPTR! Remember, WMAN is not used. The routine uses IOP.RPTR internally), which (among others) returns when the mouse is moved. If it is, FWIND is called which apparently looks through an array of coordinates of the loose items to find whether one of them is under the mouse pointer. If yes and it's a different one, the highlight is changed and it's back to WM_RPTR. So nothing really special here, the routines are really just a thin wrapper around PTR_GEN, the only exception being FWIND which is used to speed up hit testing but in itself is very very simple and could be implemented in BASIC if it wasn't for speed concerns back then. You can do the same with any PE toolkit, like QPTR, EasyPtr and I'm sure TurboPtr, too. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Qlib's window and pointer handling
Ralf Reköndt wrote: > many years ago, I was thinking about the way, QLib handles it's own > "Applikation Window" under PE. I do not really think, it heavily uses WMAN, > but I always wanted to know, how it does, what it does. Actually it doesn't use WMAN at all. They've implemented their own little WMAN (in BASIC, nonetheless). Long story short: the loose item highlight is drawn in BASIC and if no PE is present changed according to the cursor keys as any other none-PE program could do. If the PE ist present WM_RPTR is called (the Basic routine mentioned, not the WMAN vector WM.RPTR! Remember, WMAN is not used. The routine uses IOP.RPTR internally), which (among others) returns when the mouse is moved. If it is, FWIND is called which apparently looks through an array of coordinates of the loose items to find whether one of them is under the mouse pointer. If yes and it's a different one, the highlight is changed and it's back to WM_RPTR. So nothing really special here, the routines are really just a thin wrapper around PTR_GEN, the only exception being FWIND which is used to speed up hit testing but in itself is very very simple and could be implemented in BASIC if it wasn't for speed concerns back then. You can do the same with any PE toolkit, like QPTR, EasyPtr and I'm sure TurboPtr, too. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
