Get Airtel Ineternet Access only 25 Rs monthly

Now a days Airtel gives New option to the Subscriber to access Mobile Office daily @ Rs.25.00/- per day. But this is too Costly.
Only 24 hours and the cost is Rs.25.00 Oh GOD!!
But I got a Trick that’s help me to Activate my Mobile Office whole 30 days only for 25.00/. Its really good.
Just follow the Trick-
1) Your account balance should be above 25.00 for the first time.
2) Activate your mobile office by dialing *444*1#. You will Activate your Mobile Office in the Morning.
3) You got an Activation msg. Your account should deducted by Rs. 25.00/-
4) After that your can enjoy mobile office for 24 hours.
5) But for unlimited access you will do this :: Just switch off your mobile from 7.00 am to 10.00am. and your account balance should be below 25.00 /
6) Just try it enjoy the whole world only by 25.00.
I am Sure you should be Benefited. JUST TRY IT!!!!!!!!!

Web Addresses Enter New.Era

The dot-com era is over. Welcome to the dot-anything age.
On Monday, the organization that regulates the world's Internet domain names—yes, there is central coordination—approved changes that could allow anyone to register any name they like in almost any language as a Web address.
The new rules affect what the industry calls top-level domain names, the familiar dot-coms and dot-nets that end every Web address. Now, instead of having to use one of those existing forms, users will be able to end their addresses with the name of their company, such as dot-Ford, or their city, like dot-Berlin.

Now, your domain name could possibly be just about .anything. WSJ's Jen Valentino-DeVries explains why on digits.

Journal Community

If successful, the change could alleviate a shortage of dot-com Web addresses and produce hundreds of millions of dollars in business for the companies whose business is managing the Internet's vast registries, as well as those selling the names, called registrars. Companies could gain new tools for highlighting their identities and networking with suppliers and distributors.
The shift, however, could also cause anxiety and disputes among governments, companies and other entities in safeguarding their brands and identities in cyberspace. Those seeking religious or political names, for example, could lead to sensitive situations.
For companies, even those that are happy with dot-com and aren't interested in adopting a new domain-name suffix will have to monitor the process to head off any potential trademark or brand-name infringement from other applicants, Internet experts said.
"Instead of having a dot-com that doesn't really mean anything, you will have an extension that means something," said Antony Van Couvering, the head of Minds + Machines LLC, a Santa Monica, Calif., company that advises clients on domain names.
The idea behind the change—which likely will need another 18 months before any of the new names become active—was to create more choice on the Internet and potentially spur innovation, according to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, the nonprofit Internet coordinating body that approved the measure.

For companies, having a Web-address suffix reflecting their own name could benefit branding as well as online security.
Online sales of counterfeit goods are on the rise, with fake domain names duping customers into thinking they are getting a good price on the real deal. Fraud is a problem, too.
To combat that activity, companies could register their brands as domain names—dot-brand—then offer authorized distributors of their products access to that domain, said Elisa Cooper, director of product marketing at MarkMonitor, a firm that helps businesses protect their brands online.
Those distributors would appear on the Web as distributor1.brand and distributor2.brand. Eventually, consumers could learn that only sites using the dot-brand domain carry authentic products.
Shiv Singh, head of digital for PepsiCo Beverages-America, says the change creates interesting opportunities for building his brand. But he worries about the cost and wonders whether the new addresses will be adopted by consumers, noting that alternatives like dot-biz failed to find an audience. If it does catch on, companies like Pepsi may feel pressure to follow suit.
"I see this as nice to have, but it's not something we're going to get cracking on tomorrow morning," Mr. Singh said. "I am keen to see how other brands adopt it, because this will only succeed if it has critical mass adoption among companies."
Many companies opposed the change, however, citing the hassles it would create. Major companies typically register their name in multiple countries under country-code domain names such as dot-uk for Great Britain, as well as under multiple top-level domain names such as dot-com and dot-net.
The new rules create infinite options, compounding the registration issues. "Trademark owners and their lawyers are watching this closely to ensure their rights," said Jeff Brown, a spokesman for videogame publisher Electronic Arts Inc. "For us, the domains seem expensive and offer negligible value."

View Full Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Peter Dengate Thrush, standing, chairman of Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, at an Icann meeting in Singapore on Monday with Rod Beckstrom, the organization's president and chief executive.

Search-engine warned that the change has the potential to create widespread user confusion.

"For example, if someone wants to find Citibank, would that be at citibank.com, www.citibank, citi.bank, or somewhere else?" a Google spokeswoman asked hypothetically.
Icann will accept applications for addresses under the new rules from Jan. 12 to April 12. The first of the new domains could be online by late 2012.
There are currently about 20 generic top-level domain names, like dot-org, and more than 200 country-code domain names, like dot-de for Germany. As of April, there were more than 211 million Web addresses in use around the world, with nearly half of those using the dot-com suffix, according to Matthew Zook, the head of ZookNIC Internet Intelligence, an Internet research firm.
Companies now will need to determine if they want to register their name under the plethora of potential new addresses. Ford Motor Co., for example, might eventually need to consider whether to register its name under a new dot-Texas suffix—ford.texas—to associate with customers there, or get a suffix using its own name, dot-ford.
"We need time to investigate but it sounds interesting," Said Deep, a spokesman for Ford, said Monday. "In the end, we will do what makes the most sense for our customers."
Since so many names are already taken on the popular dot-com suffix, the change could produce attractive alternatives like dot-web for entities that missed out.
Not everyone will jump in, primarily because entry isn't cheap.
A company or government or individual that wants a domain-name suffix must pay Icann $185,000 just to apply. The application itself is several hundred pages long.
The fee could keep smaller businesses from registering a unique extension, even as the change opens up opportunities to build Web addresses on industry keywords like dot-pets, said Warren Adelman, president of domain-name registration firm GoDaddy.com.
Jason Levin, an online florist in Vista, Calif., who paid $2,500 on the secondary market for SunFlowerGuy.com, said he's unlikely to change his domain name under the new rules. "If we saw an opportunity that made sense, we'd consider it," Mr. Levin said. "But I'm not in the business of buying and selling domain-name extensions. I sell flowers."
For those who secure domain names, there is a yearly fee to Icann of around $25,000. That comes on top of the costs of running the domain-name suffix, likely outsourced to a company already in the business, which can run anywhere from $15,000 to millions of dollars, depending on the number of users, according to Ms. Cooper of MarkMonitor.

More

In Charge: Will Small Businesses Buy New Domains?

Icann said the hefty fee is based on the estimated cost of processing the applications, including possible litigation involving name disputes and other contingencies.
Applicants that look like cyber-squatters taking advantage of brand names or trademarks that clearly don't belong to them will be rejected, Icann said. An applicant seeking to register, for example, dot-cocacola, would have to be the well-known beverage company.
Winners otherwise will be determined by a panel that will consider factors like financial and technical capability, as well as how the applicant plans to use the domain. Some contests for a single name could be resolved by an auction, potentially generating sizeable revenue for Icann.
Once an appealing domain-name suffix is secured, selling the secondary names—meaning the words to the left of the dot—could be a profitable business. Dot-doctor could be an attractive offering to the medical profession, said Adrian Kinderis, chief executive of Melbourne-based AusRegistry International, which sells names under country code domain names like dot-au for Australia and dot-om for Oman.
Dot-doctor, for example, could be made available to only licensed doctors, who would get Web addresses appearing as yourname.doctor.

Windows 8 and Lion: Different Takes on Computing's Next Steps

It's kind of hard to compare Mac OS X Lion to Windows 8, mainly because, well, while we now know a fair amount about Lion, we essentially know only two things about Windows 8: that it exists and that it has a tablet-friendly overlay as its main interface. But what I think we can say is that they're two very different approaches to bringing tablet-like features to PC operating systems.
Both Apple and Microsoft seem to be trying to bring the PC and the tablet closer together. Apple's stated as much in its "Back to the Mac" event late last year--that they were taking some of the features and concepts from the iPad and folding them back into Mac OS X. With Windows 8, Microsoft is trying something similar--yet completely unlike what Apple's attempting.

n a recent post, John Gruber states the following: "What Microsoft revealed this week is that they do not believe there is a post-PC era. They’re banking that the PC era will never end". I think Gruber is onto something: Apple seems to see tablets as something completely new, as a clean break from the past. Meanwhile, Microsoft seems to perceive tablets as a continuation of the PC, not a replacement for it. And this difference in philosophy shows in Windows 8 and Lion.
 
              "Windows 8's Start screen."
The goal with Windows 8 seems to be to build an OS that can play nice with everything. Windows 8 will be designed to run on tablets...and traditional desktops, laptops, and all-in-one touchscreen PCs. It's meant to be a one-stop-shop of an OS that can cover all your bases. There are advantages to this approach: You don't have to learn a new OS if you jump from a laptop to a tablet, for example, and your software will work on both devices.
But while having one OS for PCs and tablets is a nice idea in theory, it's hard to say if Microsoft will be able to pull it off. Using a touchscreen to interact with an app is a totally different experience from using a keyboard and mouse. Some things that work well on a touchscreen don't work well on a traditional PC, and vice-versa. And while tablets and PCs do most of the same sort of things, there are certain tasks that tablets excel at, and other tasks that PCs excel at. And I think history has shown that taking apps designed for keyboards and mice and cramming them onto a tablet just doesn't work.
So while there's a lot to like about where Windows 8 is going, we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out (you know, like when we actually find out more about how it'll work).
Instead of taking a one-size-fits-all approach to its operating systems, Apple is retaining the division between tablets (with iOS) and PCs (with Mac OS X), but back-porting some tablet-like features to OS X. This approach seems more reasonable to me--after all, a touch-based interface is going to be different from a mouse-based one, as I said above. Just the same, how well it works remains to be seen. Will the iPad-like features added to Lion improve using Mac OS X as a mouse-driven OS? Or will the additions feel forced, and be a poor fit?
Trying to strike the right balance is going to be key for Microsoft and Apple. For now we can only speculate, but we'll soon know which company has the better approach.

Dangers of IE 'Cookiejacking': What You Need to Know

A security researcher has discovered a means of hijacking sensitive information from cookies in Internet Explorer. The 'cookiejacking' technique could expose credentials from Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, or other online services, but Microsoft doesn't consider it a serious threat. So, is the sky falling, is the security researcher crying wolf, or is the real risk somewhere in between.
Security researcher Rosario Valotta recently demonstrated the 'cookiejacking' technique, and has details of the attack on his blog. The 'cookiejacking' threat, and underlying zero-day flaw affect all versions of Internet Explorer running on any version of Windows, so the pool of potential victims is significant.
'Cookiejacking' could let an attacker capture your Facebook credentials.What Is a Cookie?
A cookie is a small text file used by a Web browser or application to store information like site preferences, or user account credentials for site authentication.
What Is 'Cookiejacking'?
The technique exploits a flaw that bypasses the Security Zone protection in Internet Explorer to enable the attacker to capture the contents of cookies that should not be exposed.
What Is at Risk?
Most text files contain text that would of little value. But, if you are logged in to a site like Facebook, Twitter, or Gmail, cookies are used to store user account information needed to authenticate so you don't have to log in repeatedly. If an attacker can hijack these cookies, they could impersonate you or access sensitive data within the affected site or service.
Is It a Serious Threat?The attack is not trivial to pull off. The actual 'cookiejacking' is just one piece of a larger puzzle that requires different attack techniques, and duping the user into becoming a willing participant.
Microsoft's Jerry Bryant downplayed the threat based on the complexity of the attack and the level of user interaction required for it to work. "In order to possibly be impacted a user must visit a malicious website, be convinced to click and drag items around the page and the attacker would need to target a cookie from the website that the user was already logged into."
While all of that is true, though, many users click the little checkbox that says "keep me logged in" so they don't have to enter user credentials every time they visit a site like Facebook, and it is actually fairly simple to lure users into clicking. Valotta created a Facebook game where users undress a naked woman by clicking on her clothing to remove it. Voila! A game like that would definitely get users clicking.
What Should You Do?
So, the sky is not falling. Successfully executing a 'cookiejacking' attack to extract sensitive credentials does take a fair amount of user interaction, and hopefully informed users know enough not to chase that rabbit down the hole.
At the same time, Valotta is not crying wolf. The 'cookiejacking' technique does work with a little cooperation from the user, and with more than 500 million users on Facebook playing all sorts of silly games, it is not a stretch to think that a significant number of users could be socially engineered to fall for the attack.
Microsoft does not consider the 'cookiejacking' issue to be a big enough threat to warrant an urgent, out-of-band security update for Internet Explorer, but it is allegedly working on a fix that will be available over the next few months. In the meantime, exercise some caution with a little extra common sense, and don't go clicking on things just because someone asks you to.

Microsoft fixes serious Internet Explorer, SMB flaws in record Patch Tuesday

Microsoft unleashed a massive update across its product line for Patch Tuesday this month, leading to what security experts say will be a long patching cycle for security professionals everywhere.

The company fixed a record-breaking 64 vulnerabilities with a 17 security bulletins. The last time Microsoft produced such an extensive list was back in December, which also had 17 bulletins, but contained patches for fewer vulnerabilities.

New Attack using Adobe Flash

Adobe Systems Inc. has issued a security advisory notifying users of a serious Flash Player zero-day exploit that could be used by attackers to gain complete control of a system. The software maker warns that ongoing attacks are spreading using a malicious Microsoft Word document.

The flaw affects Adobe Flash Player for Windows, Macintosh, Linux and Solaris as well as Flash Player for Android and Chrome users. In the security advisory issued Monday, Adobe said the vulnerability could cause a crash, setting up a condition that could potentially allow an attacker to execute malicious code on an affected system