Re: port -1?
brunoredneck wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:37 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@acm-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
Another straw: Is it possible that the port number is
really 65535 but was stored in a short? Maybe all that's
needed is a `port & 0xFFFF' somewhere.
(Having taken a brief look at the site, though, I find
that all my mental alarm bells are clanging and every hair
on the nape of my neck is standing on end. There is NO way
I would cough up all the information these people demand,
and NO way I would allow their software to have elevated
privileges on my computer. Not until I learned a whole lot
more about them, anyhow. The site has the appearance of a
marketing dragnet, if not an outright phishing firm or worse.
If you have reason to believe they're on the up-and-up, then
fine -- but I'll just stay here in my hole and pull it in
after me.)
Thanks for your take on it, Eric. I'll keep your thoughts in mind.
So you were able to run the checker? What JRE do you have?
No, I did not try to run the checker. Which part of
"NO way" is unclear to you? *You* may choose to let this
code escape your security sandbox, but I'm a suspicious
sonuvabitch and a wearisome worrywart. "Why," I asked,
"does an `Info Check' of my machine's hardware and software
start by asking whether its principal user is a Student, a
Teacher, or a Job Applicant?" I stopped right there and
don't know what other prying and irrelevant questions might
have been asked on succeeding pages.
The intro page had already instructed me to answer "Yes"
to a security dialog, comforting me with the intelligence
that "eSylvan certifies that this program is secure." Thanks,
but no thanks -- eSylvan and I aren't that well acquainted yet.
As I wrote before, they may be an entirely legitimate and
blameless enterprise; I might grow to love them dearly if only
I knew them better. But I don't know them yet, and nothing
about their site inspires trust in me.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@acm-dot-org.invalid