My previous post explains, given a Debian or Ubuntu system, how to find the package that provides a command or file. This post covers the same topic but for Fedora or any modern RPM-based system.

yum provides

Suppose you want to run the mate-system-log command.

$ mate-system-log
-bash: mate-system-log: command not found

To identify the package that provides mate-system-log:

$ yum provides mate-system-log
Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit
mate-system-log-1.6.0-3.fc19.i686 : A log file viewer for the MATE desktop
Repo        : fedora
mate-system-log-1.6.1-1.fc19.i686 : A log file viewer for the MATE desktop
Repo        : updates

The yum provides command searches the yum cache which contains information about the installed package base as well as what is available in the configured repositories. It matches the input argument against meta-data in the yum cache as a command/feature (mate-system-log), or as a file path. The latter enables you to find the package that provides a file:

$ yum provides /etc/wgetrc
Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit
wget-1.14-5.fc19.i686 : A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or FTP protocols
Repo        : fedora
Matched from:
Filename    : /etc/wgetrc

wget-1.14-10.fc19.i686 : A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or FTP protocols
Repo        : updates
Matched from:
Filename    : /etc/wgetrc

wget-1.14-10.fc19.i686 : A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or FTP protocols
Repo        : @updates
Matched from:
Filename    : /etc/wgetrc

yum search

Suppose you want to find the package that provides the Apache Web Server. Unless you know the exact package name, yum provides is not helpful in this case.

$ yum provides apache
Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit
No matches found

Instead, use yum search. It matches the input keywords against both the package name as well as the package description.

$ yum search Apache Web Server
Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit
===== N/S matched: Apache, Web, Server =====
apache-commons-digester.noarch : XML to Java object mapping module
apache-rat.noarch : Apache Release Audit Tool (RAT)
httpd.i686 : Apache HTTP Server
system-config-httpd.noarch : Apache configuration tool

From the above output, we can conclude that the package providing Apache is httpd.

When an intellectual property personality whose hallmark is a quiet, reasoned effectiveness in debate chooses to raise his voice, it's time to listen.  The quiet, reasonable and effective person is Dan Bereskin, Canada's sole inductee to the IP Hall of Fame and a man to whose every word we pay close attention. It is Dan's voice that has been raised, last week at the International Trademark Association Meeting in Hong Kong, and he has kindly transcribed his words for the benefit of readers of this weblog; you can read them here:

No notice, no consultation, no discussion, no dialogue, no respect for the IP community ...

On March 28, 2014, the Canadian government proposed in Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1, the most important changes to the Canadian Trade-marks Act since 1953. Bill C-31 is an omnibus bill comprising 375 pages that, if enacted, would also amend more than 60 other unrelated laws.  The legislation was launched with virtually no notice to the IP community, and zero collaboration with people who have actual experience in clearing and enforcing trade marks both in Canada and abroad.  By burying the legislation in a finance bill, it may be that the government hoped the legislation would be unnoticed.  Instead, a firestorm of protest has resulted that shows no sign of abating despite the government’s refusal to date to change even one word of the proposed legislation.

The provisions of the Trade-marks Act in Bill C-31 replace Canada’s time-tested, use-based system with a poor imitation of Community trade mark (CTM) law.  It permits registration for an unrestricted list of goods and services with no requirement of prior use as a condition for registration.  Further, the legislation contains no proper safeguards to guarantee against over-claiming. 

Under the current Trade-marks Act, opposition proceedings account for only about 2% of applications filed annually.  The reason why this figure is as low as it is, is that no one can register a trade  mark in Canada without first having used it either in Canada or elsewhere, and any such registration is restricted to the goods or services for which such use has occurred. This tends to discourage over-claiming.

Preparing for Opposition ...

Prior use is, and always has been, the foundation of Canadian trade mark law.  The proposed legislation threatens to destroy this vital foundation by permitting for the first time in Canada, the right of anyone to register a trade mark without first having used the trade mark anywhere, and for a long shopping list of goods and services that have no rational connection with the goods or services the registrant is interested in or is capable of selling in Canada.  This puts additional pressure on owners of Canadian trade marks to oppose.  It is therefore no wonder that the opposition rate for CTMs is 18%. Oppositions are expensive, even if a settlement is reached, and divert management time better spent in more productive activities.

For decades, prior to the USA joining the Madrid Protocol, the USA permitted foreign applicants to register in the USA based on a registration in their country of origin and bona fide intention to use the trade mark in commerce in the USA.  When relying on a home registration, foreign applicants do not have to have used the trade mark prior to registration in the USA.  This stems from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision in Crocker Bank v CIBC, 223 U.S.P.Q. 909 (T.T.A.B. 1984), the correctness of which is open to doubt.  In any case, all registrants are required to prove use in commerce in the USA between the fifth and sixth years following registration otherwise the registration is expunged or amended. No such safeguard is present in the proposed Canadian legislation, nor is it in the case of CTMs.

Canadian law at present requires that foreign applicants who wish to register based on a home registration, must have used the trade mark somewhere before they are permitted to apply validly to register the same trade mark in Canada.  In Canada and the USA all applicants, domestic and foreign alike, can register based on prior use in Canada or USA respectively, or bona fide intention to use, but any application so based cannot issue to registration unless and until use in commerce has occurred in Canada or the USA.  In Canada, foreign applicants have the ability to file both on the basis of a home registration and use abroad, and on the basis of proposed use in Canada. Canadian law provides excellent protection for the owners of famous or well-known trade marks, so defensive registrations are simply not necessary in Canada.

In encouraging deadwood, the European system has widely been criticized by many experienced practitioners, as well as The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, who as a judge of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales expressed his consternation with the European system in the following words (David Kitchin & David Llewelyn, Kerly’s Law of Trade marks and Trade Names 13^th ed. 2000, Preface, pp. viii-ix:

Even more seriously these overbroad registrations are likely to hamper trade.  And of course they may put up costs for anyone seeking registration of a mark or contemplating using it.  The problem needs resolution.  Sooner, rather than later, rules will have to be developed to stop this nonsense.  It is not good enough to say that there can be later part-cancellation of wide specifications for non-use.  Who would bother with the expense and time involved when they want to get on with their business?

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) justifies the proposed legislation by arguing that it is necessary to conform Canadian law to that of other countries in order to enable Canada to adhere to the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty and the Nice Agreement.  This assertion is false, as evidenced by a paper published in 2002 and updated in 2012 by Alan Troicuk, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice, Canada, entitled Legal and Technical Implications of Canadian Adherence to the Madrid Protocol, published on the CIPO website, here.

In his paper, Mr Troicuk states that neither the Paris Convention nor the Madrid Protocol prevent Canada from continuing to require use as a precondition for acquiring trade mark rights in Canada. In their representations to various parliamentary committees, CIPO officials have neglected to mention that their reasons for justifying the new law are contradicted by their own counsel.

Mr Troicuk has expressed concern that requiring use somewhere as a condition for filing in Canada based on the Madrid Protocol will impose an additional burden on CIPO.  CIPO is notoriously slow in examining applications, the first official letter now taking ten months after the filing date. The question is, what’s more important, helping CIPO solve its notorious administrative problems or helping Canadian businesses to avoid unnecessary cost, risk and delay?  Further, in the vast majority of new applications, Examiners raise one or more issues in the first official letter, and it would put no additional burden on them to remind Madrid applicants, that the applicant must declare that they have used the trade mark for specific goods or services prior to filing in Canada before the application can be approved for advertisement.  The same notice could be a part of the letter giving filing particulars.

Canada has considered adherence to the Madrid Protocol since at least the early 1990s, but until now has not shown much enthusiasm for adherence.  The question is why now?  The answer may be that CIPO is using adherence to the Madrid Protocol to justify overhauling the Trade-marks Act to simplify their administrative processes.  They appear to resent having to deal with Declarations of Use because that takes time.  That is hardly a wise justification for legislation that is certain to cause far-reaching harm to businesses especially Canadian businesses. 

Moreover, it is unlikely that many Canadian applicants will have much enthusiasm for obtaining International registrations.  Last year, Canadian applicants filed about 21,000 applications and that same year Canadian applicants filed only about 900 CTM applications.  Given the cost of an International registration, it is probable that the vast majority of Canadian applicants, when they file abroad, will file in the USA and CTM and will not obtain an International registration in view of the cost.  For this, we are to discard 150 years of legislation and jurisprudence?

More than 160 experienced trade mark practitioners literally from every province across Canada have endorsed a letter submitted to government officials proposing that the trade mark legislation be excised from the Bill, or at least those provisions be removed that abandon the requirement of use as a precondition for registration, pending further study.  In addition, a number of Canadian practitioners have appeared before various parliamentary committees urging reconsideration of the trade mark provisions of the new Bill.  Sadly, all entreaties to date have fallen on deaf ears.

This Kat hastens to add that he is quite content with the system currently in operation in the European Union, though he concedes that there is always room for improvement.  He adds that he is no great enthusiast for use-based registration systems.  However, he is most disappointed that his Canadian cousins are being subjected to the monumental discourtesy of a failure to consult before amending a system which, whatever you think of it, is the basis upon which investments are made, goodwill protected, bad faith traders fended off and infringers deterred.  This is not the only example of inadequate consultation in the field of intellectual property in recent times: readers may recall the travesty of consultation of the patent professions that accompanied the passage of the new European patent package.  In contrast, in the field of copyright, where there is no scheme of registration of rights, no structural complexity and no specialised and highly-trained profession dedicated to it, consultation seems to be piled on consultation, review on review, as the same issues are ploughed over with the regularity of clockwork.

...about recent developments in climate change, and the rightblogger response -- which seems to lean more heavily toward "get used to it, we're never going to do anything anyway" than I remember. Maybe I was blocking it out.

UPDATE. In comments, I think hellslittlestangel speaks for us all when he says "the only thing that will stop climate change is a good guy with a gun."

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, I joined the SmoothSec project and modified it to adopt to Intrusion Detection and Prevention System by using Suricata with AF_PACKET. Since SmoothSec 3.4 is developed on Debian 7 (Wheezy), the Linux kernel 3.2.x is too old for Suricata with AF_PACKET. I used the backport kernel to complete the task. However, it makes the system not so easy to maintain.

Meanwhile, the SmoothSec project seems to be dead. The core developer does not active in the project and IRC channel. Therefore, I make up my mind to create a new project namely "Croissants" based on the SmoothSec. Croissants is designed for Ubuntu Server LTS or higher (Long Team Support only) and targeted to work with Suricata on AF_PACKET only. It is an Open Source Project under GPLv3 License by Samiux.

Croissants is a bash script instead of a Linux distribution likes SmoothSec. It downloads and compiles as well as setup the applications almost automatically. It combines with Suricata (IDPS Engine), Snorby (Event Manager & Web Interface), Pigsty (Event Spooler) and Pulledpork (Rules Manager). It will use the latest verion of the software on every installation but the only drawback is requiring internet.

WHY UBUNTU AND AF_PACKET?

I am a long term user of Ubuntu since 2006 (Ubuntu 6.06). I find that Ubuntu uses newer packages and kernel. Ubuntu can be set to update the system automatically, although you can do it with cron job. It makes the system almost up-to-date in order to avoid some known vulnerabilities attack. Therefore, you can focus on your business and network security monitoring (NSM). Furthermore, Ubuntu is free forever according to the founder, Mark Richard Shuttleworth.

AF_PACKET can be running on a very low-end computer, such as Intel ATOM D2550. The performance of the AF_PACKET is very good under this CPU on my home network. I can watch 720p Youtube video without lagging on my network (10Mbit internet and Gigabit internal network with Untangle UTM and Croissants). The amount of RAM is 8GB on this default setup. However, home router will be lagged while watching 720p Youtube video. This poor performance should be caused by the home router.

WHY CROISSANTS?

Croissants (food) is delicious and common as well as cheap in price. I would like Intrusion Detection and Prevention System is common and cheap in price that everyone can affort.

Croissants can run on a low-end computer such as Intel ATOM D2550 with 3 network interface cards and 4GB RAM. This configuration is ideal for home network and home office. For business, I recommended to have a more high-end multi-core computer and more than 32GB RAM for Croissants with some tuning on Suricata engine.

INSTALLATION

Make sure your computer can access to the internet when installing. Meanwhile, the "automatically update" should also be selected when installing Ubuntu Server. Set the Ubuntu Server LTS to UTC time zone at the end of the setup; otherwise, the time stamp of Snorby (event manager web application) will be incorrect. You are required to install OpenSSH only during the installation of Ubuntu Server.

Download the Croissants from here. Extracts it and runs the script namely "nsm_install" with "sudo". After that, re-cabling the computer when necessary and then reboot. That's all! However, the installation may take hours which is depending on the power of your hardware and the internet speed.

You can even reinstall the Snorby database by running "nsm_snorby_db_reinstall" after the trial run.

When you write some local rules, you can update them to the system by running the script "nsm_rules_update". When you want to update the Ubuntu Server, you can run "update_ubuntu". When updating the Croissants, you can run "update_nsm" which will update the system by compiling from source code that download from the internet. Make sure to run those scripts with "sudo".

In addition, Croissants will update the rules file on every 4 hours automatically.

That's all! See you.

Google Chrome has an extension that allows remote desktop connectivity.  The first step is the install the Remote Desktop extension for Chrome.  The current URL for the Chrome store is https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps.  Perform a search for Remote Desktop.  During the installation, you will be asked to log into your Google account.

Once installed, the feature should appear as a separate icon.  The link of chrome://apps/ should display any local installed applications for Chrome.

The computer in question must be authorized initially.

The various security parameters must be set for your Google account.

Once all of the parameters are in place, two main options should be available:  remote assistance or accessing another computer.

If you access the Remote Computer option, the feature to allow remote connections must first be enabled.

A PIN value must be entered to control access.

An error may be returned if the portable version of Chrome is being used (currently a local update service must be running for the extension to work) or if the user account in question does not have local administrative authority in Windows.

The PIN number will need to be entered again.

Once all components are in place and working, the primary or first machine should appear on a secondary computer.

The PIN value will need to be entered that was configured on the host machine.

On the remote machine, a small dialog box should be present near the bottom of the screen once connected.

The Remote Assistance feature can be used to request access to a particular individual.  Select the Share button.

An access code will automatically be generated and displayed.

On the remote machine, access the Access button.

Enter the access code that was generated.

At this point, the primary desktop should be displayed with the same dialog box at the bottom of the page as described above.