Jump to content

David H. Lipman

Experts
  • Content Count

    14,378
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by David H. Lipman


  1. RE:  Microsoft Operating Systems BlueKeep Vulnerability

    I don't know what you mean by "...Malwarebytes is seeking GoldBrute BotNet..." but if you have samples of malware that may be exploiting the vulnerability and MBAM does not detect it, samples can be submitted in;  Newest Malware Threats  after reviewing; 

    Malware Hunters group
    Purpose of this forum

     

     


  2. Tall Kitchen garbage bags, 50 Gallon Garbage Bags or standard heavy Duty Contractor bags.

    I have thought about the concept of Insecticides. 
    One can't guarantee that it will NOT cause corrosion of electronics, circuit bridges, plastic issues and the possibility of causing an allergic or other reaction by customers when they receive back the equipment. 

    That all may be dependent on the type of agent and how it is applied.

     


  3. @exile360

    It isn't the hair per se.  It is the human detritus. Skin which flecks-off that may also contain skin and hair mites ( a microscopic arthropod ) which is a well established allergen.

    In a shop environment, I think the idea of placing customer ADPE into closed plastic bags is a very good way to "quarantine" the equipment in case they may contain something the shop doesn't want to be introduced into their environment.

    References:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodex_folliculorum
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dust-mites/symptoms-causes/syc-20352173
    https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/17/1/21/1879775

     


     

     


  4. I worked in an environment where we had roaches, mice and even stachybotrys.  Roaches love electricity and magnetism and would be found congregated in speakers and electric clocks.

    The tool of choice was a vacuum with a hepa filter incorporating a long wand.  A soft bristle paint brush would dislodge dust and roach carcasses that the vacuum would suck-up.  I used 100% isopropyl alcohol and I have continued to use it to this day for multiple purposes.  If one takes a ComptTIA A+ exam and it suggests that to clean a PC of dust is to use a can of compressed air, they are WRONG.  A can of compressed air is apropos to a notebook but not a desktop PC.  Desktop tower computers are often placed on the floor but  all collect and concentrate the dust of the environment.  Using compressed air only makes that dust airborne.  The health of the computer technician is then placed at-risk.  That dust can contain disease that can make the technician sick.  Such as the Hanta virus from mouse dropping and dried urine or mold spores like that from stachybotrysIsopropyl alcohol kills pathogens and the use of a vacuum with a hepa filter reduces the the possible impact of breathing in mold spores and allergens that were concentrated within automated data processing equipment (ADPE).

    I'll always remember the day when I placed an opened bag of corn chips in  my cubicle's above head cabinet and a mouse made his way into the bag.  In those days computer mice had "mouse balls".  When an employee had left the organization, I would collect their ADPE  for inventory, preventative maintenance and for their preparation for new personnel.  Under one person's desk I found a computer mouse ball that had been gnawed by a mouse.  The multiple parallel grooves left by rodent incisor teeth was undeniable.

    While this photo is not mine, it is indicative of the problem we faced.

    Spoiler

    mouse3.jpg.5985cd6291ce109de449954fc37ad80a.jpg

     


  5. There's really nothing wrong with Flash.  Like any code, the code can be made to be malicious which does not seem to be the case here.  Market forces are pushing it to be replaced by HTML5.

    You can have Firefox allow the Flash content to be rendered.

     


  6. FTC Announces Two Actions Enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act

    " The Federal Trade Commission has issued two administrative complaints and proposed orders enforcing the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which prohibits businesses from using form contract terms that bar consumers from writing or posting negative reviews online, or that impose financial penalties for doing so.

    In settling the Commission’s complaints, two companies, one that rented vacation properties in Florida and one that manages rental homes in Maryland, have agreed not to use these or similar provisions in the future. The companies and their owners also must notify affected consumers that the non-disparagement clauses are void.

    The CRFA prohibits non-disparagement provisions in consumer form contracts. It defines such contracts as those with standardized terms used in selling or leasing goods or services, and that are imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity for the individual to negotiate the contracts’ standardized terms. The statute became effective on March 14, 2017.

    The FTC’s Complaints

    The FTC’s administrative complaints against Shore to Please Vacations LLC and Staffordshire Property Management, LLC allege that the companies and their owners illegally used non-disparagement provisions in consumer form contracts in the course of selling their respective services, in violation of the CRFA.

    Shore to Please Vacations LLC. The FTC alleges that from June 2017 through at least August 2017, the Shore to Please respondents included a “Disclaimers” paragraph in form contracts offered to consumers for online vacation house rentals. According to the complaint, the disclaimer contained prohibited language, including, “y signing below, you agree not to defame or leave negative reviews (includes any review or comment deemed to be negative by a Shore to Please Vacations LLC officer or member, as well as any review less than a “5 star” or “absolute best” rating) about this property and/or business in any print form or on any website….” In addition, the contract stated that, “[d]ue to the difficulty in ascertaining an actual amount of damages in situations like this, breaching this clause … will immediately result in minimum liquidated damages of $25,000 paid by you to Shore to Please Vacations LLC.”

    Staffordshire Property Management, LLC. The FTC alleges that between approximately February 2016 and October 2018, the Staffordshire respondents used form contracts in the course of processing the rental applications of hundreds of consumers. Each contract contained an “Authorization, Agreement & Release Consent Form” that included prohibited language such as, “[t]he Applicant … specifically agrees not to disparage [Staffordshire], and any of its employees, managers, or agents in any way, and also agrees not to communicate, publish, characterize, publicize or disseminate, in any manner, any terms, conditions, opinions and communications related to [Staffordshire], this application, or the application process….” It further stated that prospective renters specifically agree that “[a]ny breach of such confidentiality will support a cause of action and will entitle [Staffordshire] to recover any and all damages from such a breach.” "

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.