Re: false portscan alarm
- From: ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin)
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:15:43 -0600
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<4545d085.26071084@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GEO" Me@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
(Moe Trin) wrote:
Oh, my! How old is _that_ stuff?
'Copyright 1993,1994 by Peter R. Tattam'
Old? May be a little. :) Does 'aged' sound better?
I never got a chance to play with it, as I'd dumped windoze entirely by
that time. I had very limited exposure to a package called Chameleon,
mainly because a neighbor worked for them.
I am still impressed by the good design of the version I am using. I
also have used to send and receive faxes. But I was left with the
impression that faxes went faster when sent using a DOS program.
That's entirely possible. The "image" of an 8 x 11 page is something like
2 megapixels, and this is normally compressed by software before being
sent over the wire (remember, few fax machines did better than 14.4 BPS
which is why the original fax transmission speed was measured in minutes).
The compression algorithms seem to be quite efficient (I see figures as high
as 20:1 compression), but that's going to take CPU cycles. If your CPU is
already busy drawing pictures on the screen, something has to be slow.
Old guy
.
- References:
- false portscan alarm
- From: mikahan
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: Bit Twister
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: Spack
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: GEO
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: Spack
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: GEO
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: GEO
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: false portscan alarm
- From: GEO
- false portscan alarm
- Prev by Date: R60 SecuRemote Client Changing Behaviour
- Next by Date: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Previous by thread: Re: false portscan alarm
- Next by thread: Re: false portscan alarm
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|