Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Matt
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 years ago
in Security: How Network Ports Work on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
Yur
The 'connection' between your web browser and the web server is between the port on your machine and the port on theirs. Typically connections *from* your machine will be made above port 1024, if not higher, *to* a server on a port below 1024.
So, your web server listens on port 80, and your web browser 'listens' on a higher port, for the specific task of talking to the remote web server for one session.
Hope this makes a bit of sense.. :)
The 'connection' between your web browser and the web server is between the port on your machine and the port on theirs. Typically connections *from* your machine will be made above port 1024, if not higher, *to* a server on a port below 1024.
So, your web server listens on port 80, and your web browser 'listens' on a higher port, for the specific task of talking to the remote web server for one session.
Hope this makes a bit of sense.. :)
2 years ago
in Security: How Network Ports Work on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
Yur
The 'connection' between your web browser and the web server is between the port on your machine and the port on theirs. Typically connections *from* your machine will be made above port 1024, if not higher, *to* a server on a port below 1024.
So, your web server listens on port 80, and your web browser 'listens' on a higher port, for the specific task of talking to the remote web server for one session.
Hope this makes a bit of sense.. :)
The 'connection' between your web browser and the web server is between the port on your machine and the port on theirs. Typically connections *from* your machine will be made above port 1024, if not higher, *to* a server on a port below 1024.
So, your web server listens on port 80, and your web browser 'listens' on a higher port, for the specific task of talking to the remote web server for one session.
Hope this makes a bit of sense.. :)
2 years ago
in Vista Security A Joke? : Executables Install As Administrator Because It’s More Convenient on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say 'by default' for OS X/Linux.
You can, of course, install to /home/matt/bin if you want, but that requires extra parameters to make install, right?
And with OS X, you drag/drop (ah, bless the simplicity) to /Applications/. The 'niceness' of OS X is that you can drag/drop to /Users/Matt/Applications - or anywhere really - and run from there. Apps store their settings in /Users/Matt/Library *or*, for system wide settings, /Library.
No doubt OS X is *miles* ahead of Windows in this regard. I don't think there is anyway Windows will be able to force users, or perhaps more importantly, app developers, over to a OS X/*nix style of application deployment.
You can, of course, install to /home/matt/bin if you want, but that requires extra parameters to make install, right?
And with OS X, you drag/drop (ah, bless the simplicity) to /Applications/. The 'niceness' of OS X is that you can drag/drop to /Users/Matt/Applications - or anywhere really - and run from there. Apps store their settings in /Users/Matt/Library *or*, for system wide settings, /Library.
No doubt OS X is *miles* ahead of Windows in this regard. I don't think there is anyway Windows will be able to force users, or perhaps more importantly, app developers, over to a OS X/*nix style of application deployment.
2 years ago
in Vista Security A Joke? : Executables Install As Administrator Because It’s More Convenient on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say 'by default' for OS X/Linux.
You can, of course, install to /home/matt/bin if you want, but that requires extra parameters to make install, right?
And with OS X, you drag/drop (ah, bless the simplicity) to /Applications/. The 'niceness' of OS X is that you can drag/drop to /Users/Matt/Applications - or anywhere really - and run from there. Apps store their settings in /Users/Matt/Library *or*, for system wide settings, /Library.
No doubt OS X is *miles* ahead of Windows in this regard. I don't think there is anyway Windows will be able to force users, or perhaps more importantly, app developers, over to a OS X/*nix style of application deployment.
You can, of course, install to /home/matt/bin if you want, but that requires extra parameters to make install, right?
And with OS X, you drag/drop (ah, bless the simplicity) to /Applications/. The 'niceness' of OS X is that you can drag/drop to /Users/Matt/Applications - or anywhere really - and run from there. Apps store their settings in /Users/Matt/Library *or*, for system wide settings, /Library.
No doubt OS X is *miles* ahead of Windows in this regard. I don't think there is anyway Windows will be able to force users, or perhaps more importantly, app developers, over to a OS X/*nix style of application deployment.
2 years ago
in Breaking News From Macworld: Windows Mobile Team Commits Suicide on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
Well, I've just looked through the demos on the Apple site. They are all pretty much standard fare. The new interface for voicemail requires operator co-operation. You'd have thought Nokia could've pushed this through earlier -- it won't be long until all the handset manufacturers are doing something like it.
The multitouch interface is fantastic. If the platform is suitably open, developers are going to do amazing things with it.
The other, which tells me Apple 'gets' the phone interface like noone else, was the UI for assigning a photo as the background/desktop. You can zoom/centre a photo so that it focuses on what you want.
Bingo.
Those things are going to sell like hotcakes.
The multitouch interface is fantastic. If the platform is suitably open, developers are going to do amazing things with it.
The other, which tells me Apple 'gets' the phone interface like noone else, was the UI for assigning a photo as the background/desktop. You can zoom/centre a photo so that it focuses on what you want.
Bingo.
Those things are going to sell like hotcakes.
2 years ago
in Breaking News From Macworld: Windows Mobile Team Commits Suicide on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
Well, I've just looked through the demos on the Apple site. They are all pretty much standard fare. The new interface for voicemail requires operator co-operation. You'd have thought Nokia could've pushed this through earlier -- it won't be long until all the handset manufacturers are doing something like it.
The multitouch interface is fantastic. If the platform is suitably open, developers are going to do amazing things with it.
The other, which tells me Apple 'gets' the phone interface like noone else, was the UI for assigning a photo as the background/desktop. You can zoom/centre a photo so that it focuses on what you want.
Bingo.
Those things are going to sell like hotcakes.
The multitouch interface is fantastic. If the platform is suitably open, developers are going to do amazing things with it.
The other, which tells me Apple 'gets' the phone interface like noone else, was the UI for assigning a photo as the background/desktop. You can zoom/centre a photo so that it focuses on what you want.
Bingo.
Those things are going to sell like hotcakes.
