Show HN: HVAC 2.0 – flair
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
How do you enable IT to be the best hybrid cloud provider? http://emc.im/1vZu5wK
How do you enable IT to be the best hybrid cloud provider? http://emc.im/1vZu5wK
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
IBM announces $3B research initiative
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Get Rid of Rootkit.Sirefef.Gen Virus Quickly and Completely
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
MultiMonitorTool v1.63 - Multiple Monitors on Windows
MultiMonitorTool is a small tool that allows you to do some actions related to working with multiple monitors. With MultiMonitorTool, you can disable/enable monitors, set the primary monitor, save and load the configuration of all monitors, and move windows from one monitor to another. You can do these actions from the user interface or from command-line, without displaying user interface. MultiMonitorTool also provides a preview window, which allows you to watch a preview of every monitor on your system.
Using MultiMonitorTool
MultiMonitorTool doesn't require any installation process or additional dll files. In order to start using it, simply run the executable file - MultiMonitorTool.exe
The main window of MultiMonitorTool contains 2 panes: The upper pane displays the list of all monitors detected on your system. When you select a monitor in the upper pane, the lower pane displays the details of all visible windows on the selected monitor.
You can select one or more monitors in the upper pane, and then use the following options: Disable Selected Monitors (Ctrl+F6), Enable Selected Monitors (Ctrl+F7), Disable/Enable Switch (Ctrl+F8), or Set As Primary Monitor (Ctrl+F9)
You can also select one or more Windows in the lower pane, and then use the 'Move Window To Next Monitor' and 'Move Window To Primary Monitor' options in order to easily move Windows from one monitor to the other.
Save/Load Monitors Configuration
MultiMonitorTool allows you to save the current configuration of all monitors on your system, including the screen resolution, colors depth, and monitor position of every monitor, by using the 'Save Monitors Configuration' option (Ctrl+Shift+S).You can restore back the saved monitors configuration by using the 'Load Monitors Configuration' option (Ctrl+Shift+L).
You can also save/load the monitors configuration from command-line, by using the /SaveConfig and /LoadConfig command-line options.
Preview Window
The preview window shows you a preview of the monitor you select in the upper pane. It might be useful if non-primary monitors are turned off and you want to view the windows displayed in the other monitors. In order to enable/disable the monitor preview window, simply press F2. You can also resize the preview window to any size you like.
Command-Line Options
You can use the following command-line options to change the monitor configuration or to move windows automatically without displaying any user interface.The parameter in all command-line options may contain the following values:
- Primary - Specifies that you want to do the action on the primary monitor.
- Monitor Name, as it appears in the 'Name' column, for example: \\.\DISPLAY1 , \\.\DISPLAY2, \\.\DISPLAY3
- Monitor Number - The number that appears in the monitor name. (1 for \\.\DISPLAY1, 2 for \\.\DISPLAY2, and so on...)
| /disable | Disables the specified monitors. You can specify a single monitor or multiple monitors. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /disable 1 MultiMonitorTool.exe /disable \\.\DISPLAY3 MultiMonitorTool.exe /disable 1 2 3 |
| /enable | Enables the specified monitors. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /enable 3 MultiMonitorTool.exe /enable \\.\DISPLAY1 MultiMonitorTool.exe /enable 3 2 |
| /switch | Switches the specified monitors between enabled and disabled state. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /switch 3 MultiMonitorTool.exe /switch \\.\DISPLAY1 MultiMonitorTool.exe /switch \\.\DISPLAY2 \\.\DISPLAY3 |
| /setmax | Set the maximum resolution on the specified monitors. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /setmax 3 MultiMonitorTool.exe /setmax \\.\DISPLAY2 \\.\DISPLAY3 |
| /SetOrientation | Set the orientation of the specified monitor. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /SetOrientation 2 270 MultiMonitorTool.exe /SetOrientation \\.\DISPLAY2 180 \\.\DISPLAY3 90 MultiMonitorTool.exe /SetOrientation 1 0 2 0 |
| /SetPrimary | Set the primary monitor. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /SetPrimary 2 MultiMonitorTool.exe /SetPrimary \\.\DISPLAY2 |
| /SetNextPrimary | Set the next available monitor as the primary monitor. For example, if you have a system with 3 monitors and the first monitor is the primary, running this command will set the second monitor as the primary. running this command again will set the third monitor as the primary. And... running this command again will set (again) the first monitor as the primary. |
| /PreviewOnly | Allows you to run MultiMonitorTool in monitor preview only mode. In this mode, only the monitor preview window is displayed. You must specify the monitor name to display in the preview window. Optionally, you can also specify the position and size to set the preview window. Examples: MultiMonitorTool.exe /PreviewOnly \\.\DISPLAY2 MultiMonitorTool.exe /PreviewOnly \\.\DISPLAY1 10 10 300 200 |
| /SaveConfig | Saves the current configuration of all your monitors into the specified filename, including the screen resolution, colors depth, and monitor position. You can load the saved configuration back into the system by using the /LoadConfig command-line option. Example: MultiMonitorTool.exe /SaveConfig "c:\temp\monitors1.cfg" |
| /LoadConfig | Loads the monitors configuration that you previouly saved with /SaveConfig Example: MultiMonitorTool.exe /LoadConfig "c:\temp\monitors1.cfg" |
/MoveWindow /MoveWindow /MoveWindow /MoveWindow | This command-line allows you to move windows from one monitor to the other, according to the specified conditions. You can also use this command-line option with /WindowLeft, /WindowTop, /WindowWidth, and /WindowHeight, in order to set the width/size of the moved window. (See examples below) Here's some example:
|
| /MonitorPreviewWindow <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to display the monitor preview window. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. |
| /PreviewMode <1 | 2> | Specifies the preview mode. 1 = Fast and Low Quality, 2 = Slow and High Quality. |
| /DrawCursorPreview <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to draw the cursor inside the preview window. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. |
| /HideInactiveMonitors <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to hide inactive monitors. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. |
| /TrayIcon <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to put an icon on the system tray. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. |
| /StartAsHidden <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to start the main window as hidden. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. Ths command-line option works only when TrayIcon option is turned on. |
| /AutoRefresh <0 | 1> | Specifies whether to automatically refresh the monitors/windows information. 0 = No, 1 = Yes. |
| /stext | Save the monitors list into a regular text file. |
| /stab | Save the monitors list into a tab-delimited text file. |
| /scomma | Save the monitors list into a comma-delimited text file (csv). |
| /stabular | Save the monitors list into a tabular text file. |
| /shtml | Save the monitors list into HTML file (Horizontal). |
| /sverhtml | Save the monitors list into HTML file (Vertical). |
| /sxml | Save the monitors list to XML file. |
MultiMonitorTool v1.63 - Multiple Monitors on Windows
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Netsparker v3.5 - Web Application Security Scanner
Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner can find and report web application vulnerabilities such as SQL Injection and Cross-site Scripting (XSS) and security issues on all web applications and websites regardless of the platform and the technology they are built on.
Netsparker is very easy to use and its unique detection and safe exploitation techniques allow it to be dead accurate in reporting hence it is the first and only False Positive Free web vulnerability scanner, therefore users can focus on remediating reported vulnerabilities and security issues without wasting time on learning how to use the web vulnerability scanner or verify its findings.
Changelog - 3.5.3
NEW FEATURES
* DOM based cross-site scripting vulnerability scanning* Chrome based web browser engine for DOM parsing
* URL rewrite rules configuration wizard (to scan parameters in URLs)
* "Ignore Vulnerability from Scan" option to exclude vulnerabilities from reports
NEW SECURITY TESTS
* Nginx web server Out-of-date version check* Perl possible source code disclosure
* Python possible source code disclosure
* Ruby possible source code disclosure
* Java possible source code disclosure
* Nginx Web Server identification
* Apache Web Server identification
* Java stack trace disclosure
IMPROVEMENTS
* Improved the correctness and coverage of Remote Code Execution via Local File Inclusion vulnerabilities* Improved cross-site scripting vulnerability confirmation patterns
* Added support for viewing JSON arrays in document roots in request/response viewers
* Added support for Microsoft Office ACCDB database file detection
* Improved DOM parser to exclude non-HTML files
* Improved PHP Source Code Disclosure vulnerability detection
* Improved Nginx Version Disclosure vulnerability template
* Improved IIS 8 Default Page detection
* Improved Email List knowledgebase report to include generic email addresses
* Improved Configure Form Authentication wizard by replacing embedded record browser with a Chrome based browser
* Improved the form authentication configuration wizard to handle cases where Basic/NTLM/Digest is used in conjunction with Form Authentication
* Added a cross-site scripting attack pattern which constructs a valid XHTML in order to trigger the XSS
* Added double encoded attack groups in order to reduce local file inclusion vulnerability confirmation requests
* Added status bar label which displays current VDB version and VDB version update notifications
* Added login activity indicator to Scan Summary Dashboard
* Added a new knowledgebase out-of-scope reason for links which exceed maximum depth
* Updated external references in cross-site scripting vulnerability templates
* Improved DOM parser by providing current cookies and referer to DOM/JavaScript context
* Added several new DOM events to simulate including keyboard events
* Improved the parsing of "Anti-CSRF token field names" setting by trimming each individual token name pattern
* Added support for simulating DOM events inside HTML frames/iframes
* Consolidated XSS exploitation function name (netsparker()) throughout all the areas reported
* Removed redundant semicolon followed by waitfor delay statements from time based SQLi attack patterns to bypass more blacklistings
* Changed default user-agent string to mimic a Chrome based browser
* Improved LFI extraction file list to extract files from target system according to detected OS
* Removed outdated PCI 1.2 classifications
FIXES
* Fixed indentation problem of bullets in knowledgebase reports* Fixed path disclosure reports in MooTools JavaScript file
* Fixed KeyNotFoundException occurs when a node from Sitemap tree is clicked
* Fixed NullReferenceException thrown from Boolean SQL Injection Engine
* Fixed an issue in WebDav Engine where an extra parameter is added when requesting with Options method
* Fixed a bug where LFI exploitation does not work for double encoded paths
* Fixed a bug in Export file dialog where .nss extension isn't appended if file name ends with a known file extension
* Fixed a bug in Configure Form Authentication wizard where the number of scripts loaded shows incorrectly
* Fixed a bug which occurs while retesting with CSRF engine
* Fixed a bug where retest does not work after loading a saved scan session
* Fixed a bug where Netsparker reports out of date PHP even though PHP is up to date
* Fixed a UI hang where Netsparker tries to display a binary response in Browser View tab
* Fixed an ArgumentNullException thrown when clicking Heartbleed vulnerability
* Fixed a bug where Netsparker makes requests to DTD URIs in XML documents
* Fixed a bug in Scan Policy settings dialog where list of user agents are duplicated
* Fixed a typo in ViewState MAC Not Enabled vulnerability template
* Fixed a bug in auto updater where the updater doesn't honour the AutoPilot and Silent command line switches
* Fixed XSS exploit generation code to handle cases where input name is "submit"
* Fixed a bug that prevents Netsparker.exe process from closing if you try to close Netsparker immediately after starting a new scan
* Fixed a UI hang happens when the highlighted text is huge in response source code
* Fixed issues with decoded HTML attribute values in text parser
* Fixed session cookie path issues according to how they are implemented in modern browsers
* Fixed scan stuck at re-crawling issue for imported scan sessions
* Fixed highlighting issues for possible XSS vulnerabilities
* Fixed a crash due to empty/missing URL value for form authentication macro requests
* Fixed a NullReferenceException in Open Redirect Engine which occurs if redirect response is missing Location header
* Fixed an error in authentication macro sequence player happens when the request URI is wrong or missing
Netsparker v3.5 - Web Application Security Scanner
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
EPO Bound again - more precedental than ever: Precedent 2
The IPKat was very heartened by the responses to the post on Tuesday on the concepts of "precedent" and "binding nature" at the European Patent Office. While all commenters did not agree, with him or with each other, taken together he thought the comments very constructive, particularly since he knows from previous posts and comments how emotive this subject can be. There are a number of points on which he would like to follow up, now that he is safely back from the IPKat drinks (on which subject thank you to all who made the effort to turn up - it was wonderful to see so many of you - you know who you are).
1. Divided by language - is there a "gulf of understanding"?
What concerns the IPKat is this. Presumably practitioners at the EPO know how the system works. We use it on a daily basis. The problem is that in this respect we don't have a common language to describe it. Practitioners such as this Kat in the UK use terms such as "precedent", not necessarily intending it to carry the full weight of its common law heritage; others soemtimes attack the term, but not necessarily the underlying intended meaning. It seems to this moggy that we agree on a lot (as of course we must because we are all in fact describing the same EPO systems) but are struggling to find a common vocabulary to express it. So what the IPKat is trying to do is get behind the jurisprudential theory to describe meaningfully and accurately how things work in practice.
MaxDrei asked "Does not this thread (thus far) reveal a gulf of misunderstanding, between the English patent law world and everybody else?" This Kat does not think so, but rather that there is lack of agreed language to express an understanding that this Kat remains convinced is largely shared even if not fully acknowledged.
2. Legal certainty
The previous post was primarily concerned with practice - how does a practitioner argue a case and how does a tribunal decide it. It only briefly alluded to the other reason why the topic matters, which is legal certainty. It also was primarily about attempting to describe the situation as it exists rather than opine as to how it should be. Delving now into these two areas:
Consider two extreme situations (without necessarily suggesting that either of these corresponds to a real legal system that exists in any real jurisdiction).
In a system with a strong system of precedent and large body of caselaw, a practitioner will be able to advise a client of the likely outcome of a case with a strong degree of confidence, because the decision of a tribunal will be highly predictable.
In a system with no precedent, where the tribunal is free to decide the case before it on the basis of the statutory text alone, then, even if there is a substantial body of decided cases, there will be a higher degree of uncertainty as to how any particular case will be decided.
A rational client will only pursue a case with a reasonable chance of success. The more predictable the system is, the less unnecessary litigation there will be; if the system is highly unpredictable, then there is a reasonable chance of success in more cases that are borderline. Such cases be less borderline in a highly predictable system and so some would therefore not be pursued.
Therefore, an understanding of how prior decisions affect outcome of later decisions, and ideally a shared vocabulary to articulate this, is important to allow practitioners to properly advise their clients, and this should have the result of reducing unnecessary litigation.
This form of legal certainty is important for legislators too. When there is a strong system of precedent, it is easier to discern how the law is working, and if necessary legislate to change it. If decisions are more capricious, it is harder to see any underlying trends, and act to prevent undesirable ones.
3. An Answer to MaxDrei - the limitations of binding precedent
In the third comment, MaxDrei asked whether concepts such as "technical" are better defined in a precedentally binding manner, or whether a degree of fuzziness at the margin of patent eligibility is preferable. For complex matters, this Kat thinks that a degree of fuzziness is much preferred: bright line rules for complex matters tend not to work well in all situations.
Moreover, precedent can become very unhelpful if the precedent itself frequently shifts. In the USA, the highest court seems to be changing the boundary of patent eligibility every few years, and this does not seem to help anyone. It is not just about the system, it is also about how you use it.
4. A further view
The IPKat was delighted to receive this email comment from Mr. P.E. (Paul) Mazel of TRIP Advocaten en Notarissen in the Netherlands, which gives a view from the perspective of the motivation of a person deciding a case. With permission, the comment is reproduced here:
This comment, as well as some of the comments on the original post, illustrate how a judge is motivated to decide a particular case in a non-precedental system. Returning to expressing an opinion rather than being simply descriptive, this Kat likes the dictum "if you feel a precedent leads to a unjust decision, do not follow it", and dislikes the situations (which nevertheless seem not to be that common) where a tribunal is forced to an outcome that it does not wish for under the weight of a binding precedent that it does not agree with.
1. Divided by language - is there a "gulf of understanding"?
![]() |
| IPKat explores the gulf of understanding |
MaxDrei asked "Does not this thread (thus far) reveal a gulf of misunderstanding, between the English patent law world and everybody else?" This Kat does not think so, but rather that there is lack of agreed language to express an understanding that this Kat remains convinced is largely shared even if not fully acknowledged.
2. Legal certainty
The previous post was primarily concerned with practice - how does a practitioner argue a case and how does a tribunal decide it. It only briefly alluded to the other reason why the topic matters, which is legal certainty. It also was primarily about attempting to describe the situation as it exists rather than opine as to how it should be. Delving now into these two areas:
Consider two extreme situations (without necessarily suggesting that either of these corresponds to a real legal system that exists in any real jurisdiction).
In a system with a strong system of precedent and large body of caselaw, a practitioner will be able to advise a client of the likely outcome of a case with a strong degree of confidence, because the decision of a tribunal will be highly predictable.
In a system with no precedent, where the tribunal is free to decide the case before it on the basis of the statutory text alone, then, even if there is a substantial body of decided cases, there will be a higher degree of uncertainty as to how any particular case will be decided.
A rational client will only pursue a case with a reasonable chance of success. The more predictable the system is, the less unnecessary litigation there will be; if the system is highly unpredictable, then there is a reasonable chance of success in more cases that are borderline. Such cases be less borderline in a highly predictable system and so some would therefore not be pursued.
Therefore, an understanding of how prior decisions affect outcome of later decisions, and ideally a shared vocabulary to articulate this, is important to allow practitioners to properly advise their clients, and this should have the result of reducing unnecessary litigation.
This form of legal certainty is important for legislators too. When there is a strong system of precedent, it is easier to discern how the law is working, and if necessary legislate to change it. If decisions are more capricious, it is harder to see any underlying trends, and act to prevent undesirable ones.
3. An Answer to MaxDrei - the limitations of binding precedent
![]() |
| This is not what Merpel meant by "bound by precedent" |
Moreover, precedent can become very unhelpful if the precedent itself frequently shifts. In the USA, the highest court seems to be changing the boundary of patent eligibility every few years, and this does not seem to help anyone. It is not just about the system, it is also about how you use it.
4. A further view
The IPKat was delighted to receive this email comment from Mr. P.E. (Paul) Mazel of TRIP Advocaten en Notarissen in the Netherlands, which gives a view from the perspective of the motivation of a person deciding a case. With permission, the comment is reproduced here:
Thanks for your interesting blog on precedents and EPO. Being not only a practitioner but a honorary judge in an appellate court (and sometimes arbitrator) as well I would like to comment on the use of the word mentioned above. Often a decision of – say the Dutch Supreme Court – is not persuasive at all (let alone binding) and ‘I’ would like to decide otherwise in a case at hand. However, one should realize that ‘my’ decision might be appealed and thus the question arises: will the Supreme Court (or the ECJ) changes its mind if there is a (non-binding) precedent. One of the issues to be considered in that respect is how old the precedent is. If it is old enough – say 5+ years – and met some criticism it is easier to diverge than when it is young and met universal acclaim. Is there a cue, for example from an opinion of an Advocate-General, that the Supreme Court might change its course?
You also consider the capacities of the parties: can they “easily” afford the costs and time involved with an action before the highest court? How important – financially, principally - is the matter raised? Were the proceedings initiated by both parties to get a landmark decision or is it just an ordinary case which happened to be blessed with some more interesting aspects?
But finally it is your gut feeling which alone is imperative for your decision: if you feel a precedent leads to a unjust decision, do not follow it. It has been said of the Dutch Supreme Court that it shoots first and then draws the target. This might apply to many more instances – including the BoA of the EPO. But perhaps not to the Courts of England and Wales.
This comment, as well as some of the comments on the original post, illustrate how a judge is motivated to decide a particular case in a non-precedental system. Returning to expressing an opinion rather than being simply descriptive, this Kat likes the dictum "if you feel a precedent leads to a unjust decision, do not follow it", and dislikes the situations (which nevertheless seem not to be that common) where a tribunal is forced to an outcome that it does not wish for under the weight of a binding precedent that it does not agree with.
EPO Bound again - more precedental than ever: Precedent 2
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
How Puppet Recovering Overwritten Files ? [#Tutorial]
Puppet Recovering Overwritten Files/ We all know the benefit of using Puppet in managing huge IT infrastructures. Puppet Master will be used to send configuration or desired state of puppet agents or clients or servers we wish to manage using manifests.
The alarming thing is that puppet default behavior is to overwrite the files, if the file already exists on the puppet agent machine. Which is sometimes good, sometimes bad (if we had deleted or overwritten a right file, wrongly).
This can be real disastrous, in any production environment.
There must be a way in puppet recovering overwritten files.
YES there is !!
Puppet creates a backup copy of any file it changes, and stores it on the machine in a place called the clientbucket – /var/lib/puppet/clientbucket – to be precise. This can be handy if you ever accidentally overwrite an important file, and want to retrieve its original contents.
Now check these steps to see puppet recovering overwritten files:
1.
I created a puppet manifest. A file resource which will be creating a file /tmp/bucket.txt with some sample text. Consider this text as very important for your production server. So here I am applying the manifest for the first time. Which will create the original and right file at the right place. The original contents here are – “This is backed up under clientbucket, if overwritten”.
Original File created by puppet
2.
Now, I am intentionally, editing (consider it by accident) the original file /tmp/bucket.txt using puppet manifest. Creating a scenario that the original file is overwritten, by mistake.
Editing the original file, using puppet
3.
Now after applying the new puppet manifest using puppet apply testbucket.pp, the original file /tmp/bucket.txt is overwritten by our fake or wrong contents, leading to non desired results on our Linux servers. You can see the new line – “Overwriting now” appended in the file.
Overwritten file by puppet
4.
Now comes the challenge. We want our original file back. We already learned that puppet, by default, make a backup of all overwritten files under a location – clientbucket – /var/lib/puppet/clientbucket. So if I go under – /var/lib/puppet/clientbucket and do a grep for the word “bucket” (which was there in the original file). I should be able to get the original contents.
Recovering overwritten file from /var/lib/puppet/clientbucket
5.
Now GEEKS !! Once you know the exact location, you can go in the path displayed and recover the original file and simply use the cp command to copy it in the original location.
Copy the contents from client bucket to original location
6.
This is indeed a good Puppet hack to know. But in case you don’t want, think twice that you really don’t want. You don’t want puppet to create a backup copy of the file under – /var/lib/puppet/clientbucket. That simply means you cannot recover it in case of accidental modification.
You can still tell puppet not to create backup of any overwritten file by using – backup => false – argument within the file resource.
Configuring puppet not to create backup
About The Author:
This tutorial has written by Alok Srivastava. He is the founder of Network Nuts, India's most loved Linux training company.
How Puppet Recovering Overwritten Files ? [#Tutorial]
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5
Reviewed by 0x000216
on
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Rating: 5










