ධනුෂ්කගේ තීරුව~~~ Dhanushka's Line

A third version of  Downadup  has been identified by  Symantec , which says the new variant gives infected machines more powerful instructions to disable anti-virus software and analysis tools, among other actions. W32.Downadup.C is a modular component for machines currently infected with Downadup. This variant of Downadup, also called  Conficker , is not attempting to self-replicate and appears to behave more like a Trojan than a worm, says Vincent Weafer, vice president of Symantec Security Response. “Think of it as an updated module that’s more aggressive, more robust in defending itself,” Weafer says. The W32 Downadup.C variant was discovered today in a Symantec honeypot and is still under investigation. Symantec expects to identify additional capabilities shortly, says Weafer, who adds that Symantec has not yet seen W32.Downadup.C in customer networks directly. Earlier versions of Downadup did attempt to disable anti-virus software, but the third version represented in the Downadu

History The groundwork for today’s Internet was the result of the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or DARPANET. DARPANET was born from the desire to build a network that would continue to function even if a segment was lost. In the late 1960s there was a growing interest by universities to build a network connecting their current research infrastructures. An increasing number of universities were now able to afford and use computers as part of their education and research. Computers were becoming a vital part of research. Research institutes wanted to be able to share their efforts between different parts of the universities. There was also a mounting importance for universities to work in conjunction with other universities by sharing electronic data. ARPANET was first used in 1971 and made use of IP’s predecessor, the Network Control Protocol or NCP.  IPv4 became more finalized as the official RFC’s for TCP\IPv4 were documented. RFC’s 760 and

IE8 faster than Firefox and Chrome?  Microsoft has published a  document  (video  here ) which examines the issues involved in carrying out benchmarking and performance analysis on browsers. Contained in this document is a chart which suggests that IE8 is faster at rendering many of the Internet’s top 25 website (as measured by comScore ) than either either Mozilla’s Firefox or Google’s Chrome. Out of the 25 sites listed, IE8 was the fastest at rendering twelve of the site, while Chrome won on nine while Firefox 3.0.5 was first across the finish line for only  four of the sites. So how does this fit in with all the testing which seems to suggest that both Firefox and Chrome as faster ( much faster ) than IE8? Well, while I can’t flaw the testing process (which does seem quite thorough), I do feel that the choice of test pages is pretty poor. Does Google’s landing page really give the browser much of a workout? Yahoo!? Wikipedia? Sure, these landing pages are very, very popular, but mos

  Maliyadeva College - Big match mania