Poem forwarded by Duo Liang Lin to his couple of friends

What do you really want from us?
By Anonymous

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet
you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don’t hate you.
We don’t hate you either, But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,We have AFP, CNN and BBC’s…
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer… Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.

============= Interesting Response =============

Echoing the Voice of the Voiceless
By Ann Lau

When Empress Dowager paid indemnity to the eight nations, the U.S. used it for the first Chinese students to study abroad.
When Sun Yat Sen came to the U.S. as a fugitive, the U.S. opened her arms.
When China was invaded by Imperial Japan, the U.S. sent in the Flying Tigers.
When China put up the bamboo curtain, the Chinese risked the shark infected sea to escape to Hong Kong and then to the west.
When the Dalai Lama called Mao as his Big Brother, it was not enough; religion is the opium of the people.
With Communism, the Chinese suffered the greatest famine in the history of mankind.
Again, the west welcomed those refugees.
When China was facing economic collapse, it was those Chinese who left China who first went back to establish commerce.
When China needed investments, the IMF came to its aid.
With Capitalism, corruption went rampant and the Chinese floating migrants became second class citizens in their own cities.
With a billion people, China has great potential; why is their government afraid of them?
Tell me why blind legal expert Chen Guangcheng was sentenced to jail when he helped villagers to file class action against forced abortion and sterilization?
Tell me why Wu Lihong, a farmer who became an environmentalist, was sentenced to jail when he tried to save Lake Tai?
Tell me why farmer Jiang Jinzhu called on outside China to help when his land and mushroom farm was illegally torn down?
Tell me why Hu Jia was sentenced to three and half years in jail when he wrote an article on the internet?
Tell me why attorney Teng Biao was kidnapped when he tried to help Hu Jia?
Tell me why Baixing’s editor-in-chief, Huang Liangtian was fired when he reported too many stories on corruption and official land grabs?
Tell me why Zeng Jinyan is in house arrest with her baby when she only blogged on the environment and AIDS?
Tell me why the petitioners in Beijing crowd around the western press and beg them to listen to their stories?
With their own fellow citizens unjustly treated, where is the outrage?
Tell me what top Chinese intellectuals said in their open letter on the Olympics and why they send their letter to the west?
Tell me what top Chinese intellectuals said in their open letter on the Tibet issue and why they send their letter to the west?
Why do Chinese in China call on the west to highlight their injustice?
Why do Chinese in China want the western press to report on their grievances?
Why do Chinese in China even went in front of the U.S. embassy to bring attention to their plights?
Could it be that their own government is not listening?
The west can turn a blind eye and close their ears to those Chinese people who pleaded for their help just as their own government have done.
There is little the west can do except to merely echo the voice of the voiceless.
If we even refuse to do that, then what kind of people are we?


看资料不说话:(from LinkedIn)


  • Huawei Symantec
  • Matika srl
  • MessageLabs
  • Bravo Tecnologia


  • Relicore
  • Company-i
  • Brightmail
  • @stake
  • SwapDrive, Inc.
  • PC Tools
  • AppStream
  • ON Technology
  • Transparent Logic
  • IMlogic
  • BindView
  • Sygate Technologies
  • PowerQuest
  • Vontu
  • Altiris


  • VERITAS Software

Career path for Symantec employees


  • Sun…
  • Hewlett-Packard


  • Cisco Systems
  • Microsoft



Google an update on china

Ever since we launched Google.cn, our search engine for mainland Chinese users, we have done our best to increase access to information while abiding by Chinese law. This has not always been an easy balance to strike, especially since our January announcement that we were no longer willing to censor results on Google.cn.

We currently automatically redirect everyone using Google.cn to Google.com.hk, our Hong Kong search engine. This redirect, which offers unfiltered search in simplified Chinese, has been working well for our users and for Google. However, it’s clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government officials that they find the redirect unacceptable—and that if we continue redirecting users our Internet Content Provider license will not be renewed (it’s up for renewal on June 30). Without an ICP license, we can’t operate a commercial website like Google.cn—so Google would effectively go dark in China.

That’s a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive. We have therefore been looking at possible alternatives, and instead of automatically redirecting all our users, we have started taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk—where users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, which we can provide locally without filtering. This approach ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page.

Over the next few days we’ll end the redirect entirely, taking all our Chinese users to our new landing page—and today we re-submitted our ICP license renewal application based on this approach.

As a company we aspire to make information available to users everywhere, including China. It’s why we have worked so hard to keep Google.cn alive, as well as to continue our research and development work in China. This new approach is consistent with our commitment not to self censor and, we believe, with local law. We are therefore hopeful that our license will be renewed on this basis so we can continue to offer our Chinese users services via Google.cn.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer


2010 年 6 月 28 日

David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

自从为中国大陆用户推出 Google.cn 这个 搜索引擎以来,我们一直在尽最大的努力来提高用户对信息的访问,同时遵守中国法律。做到这样的平衡并不容易,尤其是我们在今年1月份宣布不愿意继续在 Google.cn 上对搜索结果进行审查。

当前,我们把所有访问 Google.cn 的用户自动指向了我们香港的搜索引擎 Google.com.hk,通过这种方法,我们可以提供未经审查的简体中文 搜索结果。目前这种方法无论对用户还是对 Google 都运行良好。然而,在与中国有关部门的沟通中我们明确获知:自动指向的做法是不可接受的。如果我们继 续进行自动指向,我们的 ICP 牌照将无法通过年检(年检截止时间是6月30日)。没有 ICP 牌照,我们将不能在中国运营 Google.cn 这样的商业网站——这意味着 Google.cn 将不能被访问。

那是许多 Google 中国用户所担忧的结果,因为他们都清楚表明了希望 Google.cn 继续运营的愿望。为此,我们开始寻找其他可能的替代办法,我们开始为一小部分用户提供一个新的 google.cn 访问页面,该页面与 Google.com.hk 链接,在那里,用户可以进行搜索,或继续使用在 google.cn 上的音乐搜索(Music Search)和文本翻译(Translate)等不涉及内容审查的服务。这个新做法确保 Google.cn 不对搜索结果进行审查的承诺,同时让用户可以在一个页面上访问我们所有的服务。

未来几天,我们将全部停止自动指向,让所有中国用户都直接访问这个新页面——今天,基于这样一个新页面,我们重新提交了 ICP 牌照年检申请。

作为一家公司,我们的追求是让用户随时随地访问到他们所需的信息,包括中国的用户。这就是为什么我们一直在努力地保持 Google.cn 的运营,以及继续我们在中国的研发工作。这个新做法确保了 Google.cn 不对搜索结果进行审查的承诺,并且,我们相信,符合中国法律。因此我们希望能够通过 ICP 牌照年检,让我们可以继续通过 Google.cn 为中国用户提供服务。

McAfee’s Crisis PR


  1. 一定要快,隔离影响,提供解决办法;
  2. 不要在说对不起之前,做大量的解释,这人很愚蠢;
  3. 技术上没任何理由,在赛门“误杀门”之后,白名单还能漏掉系统重要文件;
  4. QA Test Matrix漏掉Windows XP SP3是足以让所有用户震怒的事情;


McAfee admits “inadequate” quality control caused PC meltdown

Update 23-Apr: Late Thursday night, McAfee posted a FAQ on this issue at their web site. The FAQ includes some of the text from the confidential document I received yesterday and is clearly a later version of that document. However, the details of why the problem occurred and the specific steps that the company plans to take to avoid similar problems in the future have been replaced with general statements. I have highlighted the differences in updates below.

As of 6AM Pacific time on 23-Apr, there is still no statement, apology, or clearly labeled link to support resources related to this issue on McAfee’s home page.

If your company uses enterprise security products from McAfee, you probably had a bad day yesterday. If you’re an IT professional at one of those companies, you’re probably still cleaning up the mess caused by a defective virus signature update that disabled systems running Windows XP with the most recent service pack (SP3). The worst part? According to a confidential document from McAfee, the cause was a fundamental breakdown in the most basic of quality-assurance processes.

From an IT perspective, this is a nightmare scenario: an automatic update that wipes out a crucial system file and that can only be repaired manually. I’ve heard from more than a dozen IT pros and consultants over the past 24 hours who shared their experiences. They are, to put it mildly, unhappy.

What went wrong?

That was the question I asked in my post yesterday, and I formally asked a McAfee spokesperson for an explanation this morning. I was told that an answer will be posted on McAfee’s blog later today. As of this writing, that blog post has not been published.

But I found the answer, straight from the source, in a document forwarded to me by an anonymous source. According to my source, the document was “a confidential communication to enterprise customers” sent via e-mail. In it, the anonymous author acknowledges that the screw-up was thoroughly preventable. The document, titled “McAfee FAQ on bad DAT issue,” is written in Q&A format and includes the following exchange:

8. How did this DAT file get through McAfee’s Quality Assurance process?

There are two primary causes for why this DAT file got through our quality processes:

1) Process – Some specific steps of the existing Quality Assurance processes were not followed: Standard Peer Review of the driver was not done, and the Risk Assessment of the driver in question was inadequate. Had it been adequate it would have triggered additional Quality Assurance steps.

2) Product Testing – there was inadequate coverage of Product and Operating System combinations in the test systems used. Specifically, XP SP3 with VSE 8.7 was not included in the test configuration at the time of release.

Update 23-Apr: The details I quoted above have been scrubbed from the FAQ posted at McAfee’s website. The corresponding section of the FAQ now reads as follows: “The DAT release was designed to target the W32/Wecorl.a threat that attacks system executables and memory. The problem arose during the testing process for this solution. We had recently made a change to our QA environment. Unfortunately, this change resulted in a faulty DAT making its way out of our test environment.”

McAfee has also sanitized the portion of the FAQ that describes its plans to adapt its quality control procedures. Here’s the original text of the confidential document sent to enterprise customers:

9. What is McAfee going to do to ensure this does not repeat?

McAfee is currently conducting an exhaustive audit of internal processes associated with DAT creation and Quality Assurance. In the immediate term McAfee will do the following to provide mitigation from false detections:

1) Strict enforcement of rules and processes regarding DAT creation and Quality Assurance.
2) Addition of the missing Operating Systems and Product configurations.
3) Leveraging of cloud based technologies for false remediation.
4) A revision of Risk Assessment criteria is underway.

And here is the corresponding text as it appears in the final FAQ, published overnight:

What is McAfee going to do to prevent this from happening again?

Nearly all of our 7,000 employees have been working around the clock to help customers like you get back to business as usual and to make sure this never happens again. The vast majority of our customers are now back up and running and we remain focused on those that remain affected.

We are implementing additional QA protocols for any releases that directly impact critical system files. We are also rolling out additional capabilities in Artemis that will provide another level of protection against false positives by leveraging an expansive whitelist of critical system files and their associated cryptographic hashes.

That is mind-boggling. For enterprise customers, Windows XP SP3 is probably the most widely used desktop PC configuration. Leaving it out of a test matrix is about as close as one can get to IT malpractice. Any enterprise customer who received this document has every right to be furious.

Meanwhile, McAfee’s website is almost completely silent on the issue. Customers who have been affected by the issue who visit the McAfee U.S. home page see business as usual, with a rotation of large ads trumpeting McAfee’s latest products. More than 24 hours after the problem occurred, only a single front-page link is available, and it’s blandly headlined, “McAfee Response on Current False Positive Issue.” If you go to McAfee’s Enterprise home page, there is no mention of the problem and no link to any support resources. An overseas correspondent sent me a screen shot of McAfee’s UK home page, which also has no mention of the issue.

That link leads to a blog post by McAfee’s Barry McPherson, published yesterday at 4:29PM. McPherson seems more intent on praising McAfee’s researchers and minimizing the problem than helping users. He writes: “We believe that this incident has impacted less than one half of one percent of our enterprise accounts globally…” I find it difficult to believe that the company could come up with an accurate estimate at all, much less do so within hours after the problem was identified. It certainly doesn’t match up with the reports I’m hearing from the field.

Update 23-Apr: Yesterday afternoon, the McAfee blog post was edited to remove this reference. The sentence now reads, ” We believe that this incident has impacted a small percentage of our enterprise accounts globally and a fraction of our consumer base…”

From a crisis management perspective, McAfee’s response has been disastrous. If the company truly cared about its customers, the home page would contain an apology from the CEO and links to detailed support information. Instead, it appears that the company is hoping its customers will just forget about it.

Based on the 100+ comments to McPherson’s post, customers who were hit by this error aren’t likely to forget about it soon. And when they figure out that a lapse in the most basic of quality control steps caused them to spend thousands of dollars in IT manpower and lost productivity, they’re likely to be angrier still.


McAfee DAT 5958 False Positive Error – FAQ

Please note that investigation of this issue is ongoing, and these FAQs will be updated appropriately as we learn more.

What threat was McAfee trying to detect that resulted in a false positive error?
McAfee added detection for variants of the W32/Wecorl.a threat in DAT file 5958. This detection caused a false positive on the svchost.exe Windows system file. The threat parasitically patches the svchost.exe file by modifying data at the entry point or the entry point itself of the original file, to maintain control on the system. In some instances the patch has been found to be polymorphic in nature. McAfee had observed prior infected versions of svchost.exe files and had detection for this threat. This specific detection was added to target a cluster of infected svchost.exe files gathered through our malware collections, directly associated with samples from the W32/Wecorl.a families.

The false positive occurred as a result of new signatures targeting new variants of the Wecorl family of malware when invoked on the file svchost.exe as a part of the memory scanning process. Details of this threat family can be found here: http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_153184.htm. Enhanced drivers in the 5958 DAT were authored to detect some low prevalence variants seen recently.

Why did detection for this threat require an invasive approach for detection and remediation?
To remediate this type of threat, detection is customarily written to kill the infected process, in some instances causing a reboot (a standard Microsoft safety action), and allowing for full remediation of the infected system. This type of remediation is standard implementation to gain access to the file objects that may be locked by the running processes.

Unfortunately this caused removal or attempted removal of legitimate svchost.exe file causing issues from network connectivity loss to rendering systems unstable due to the false positive.

Doesn’t McAfee white list known Windows system files?
Complex and sophisticated malware frequently target Windows system executables and attack their memory space (e.g. via DLL injection). McAfee DATs use Whitelisting techniques to avoid scanning and preventing false positives on Microsoft files in the majority of situations, for example, if this was a simple scan of the file as it was accessed on the file system, a false positive would have been prevented. But because this was a memory scan of the running process that then caused a subsequent scan of the file on disk these mitigation techniques were unfortunately not invoked.

Exactly which versions of Windows operating system and the svchost.exe file were affected?
A subset of systems running Windows XP Service Pack 3 and having specific versions of the svchost.exe file were affected. Svchost.exe files found on Windows 2000, Windows 2003, Windows XP Service Pack 1, Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and older versions of Windows were not affected.

Details of svchost.exe files affected are:

File Size OS File Version Md5
14,336 XPPRO_SP3_x86_v1 5.1.2600.5512 E4 10 EC 73 E2 BE 2A 41 D9 23 B0 06 F5 1C 84 27
14,336 XPPRO_SP3_x86_v2 5.1.2600.5512 27 C6 D0 3B CD B8 CF EB 96 B7 16 F3 D8 BE 3E 18
14,336 XPPRO_SP3_x86_v3 5.1.2600.5512 A7 81 24 26 8A 77 F4 19 02 DB 18 F6 22 AF E6 13

How exactly were user systems impacted?
McAfee corporate customers who have the McAfee VirusScan Enterprise product have reported a variety of symptoms, ranging from a system “blue screen” (not to be confused with BSOD, but due to the issues with Explorer and svchost.exe), loss of network connectivity, inability to use USB, and experiencing a perpetual state of reboot. Users have reported these symptoms when both the file is present on the system (in quarantine), or has been deleted entirely.

Minimal impact has been observed to McAfee’s consumer customers because McAfee rolled back the faulty DAT before the update hit the majority of consumer user systems.

Why was VirusScan Enterprise 8.7 primarily affected as compared to VirusScan Enterprise 8.5?
Because of the different implementation of memory scanning within the products, VirusScan Enterprise 8.7 customers were more broadly affected by the false positive.

How do affected customers restore their systems?
McAfee has enumerated instructions to restore systems to their normal functional state with the right critical Windows files in place. McAfee has also developed a SuperDAT remediation tool to restore the svchost.exe file on affected systems.

Specific instructions are available in the McAfee KnowledgeBase in KB68780.

How did this DAT file get through McAfee’s Quality Assurance process?
The DAT release was designed to target the W32/Wecorl.a threat that attacks system executables and memory. The problem arose during the testing process for this solution. We had recently made a change to our QA environment. Unfortunately, this change resulted in a faulty DAT making its way out of our test environment.

What is McAfee going to do to prevent this from happening again?
Nearly all of our 7,000 employees have been working around the clock to help customers like you get back to business as usual and to make sure this never happens again. The vast majority of our customers are now back up and running and we remain focused on those that remain affected.

We are implementing additional QA protocols for any releases that directly impact critical system files. We are also rolling out additional capabilities in Artemis that will provide another level of protection against false positives by leveraging an expansive whitelist of critical system files and their associated cryptographic hashes.

McAfee recommends customers sign up for our Support Notification Service to get real critical product information via e-mail. Go to the SNS Subscription Preference Center to subscribe. For more information, view the SNS KnowledgeBase article and FAQ: KB67828.




“潲水油”作坊被查处 13家进货火锅店挨处罚

早报讯(记者 吴楚瞳)昨日,成都市食安办发出了关于政府相关部门采取坚决措施,查处违法加工销售和使用劣质食用油行为,大力整顿食用油市场的情况通报。经联合调查组确认,谷丰香油坊非法经营、加工、销售“大丰香油”构成“无证无照生产经营”、“以假充真”和“伪造、冒用他人厂名”和“伪造、冒用他人生产许可证”的违法行为。成都市质监局、工商局依据《产品质量法》第五十条相关规定,给予谷丰香油坊行政处罚;成都卫生部门将依据《食品安全法》对13家火锅店违规购买、使用“大丰香油”的行为,依法进行行政处罚。

近日,成都市食安办组织相关职能部门对所有取得食品生产许可证的食用植物油生产加工企业、食用油加工小作坊,粮油经营(批发)店,农贸市场、粮油批发市场,餐饮服务企业,单位(工地)集体食堂展开为期1个月的食用油专项整治。成都市质监局、市工商局、市卫生局等部门响应,截至目前,已完成了全市3000多户中餐店、878 户火锅店食用油来源和五块石粮油批发市场及40家芝麻油生产企业进货、销售情况的检查。




  • 味道江湖
  • 百姓人家
  • 三只耳
  • 蓉城老妈
  • 奇火锅
  • 小天鹅
  • 皇城老妈
  • 蜀九香
  • 胖妈烂火锅
  • 秦妈火锅
  • 川王府火锅
  • 刘一手
  • 孔亮



成都公布13违规火锅店 澄清其所用并非潲水油













  • 老码头餐饮娱乐有限公司;
  • 邓毛肚火锅店;
  • 高新区忆香缘火锅店;
  • 川江号子餐饮发展有限公司玉林、长顺店;
  • 香天下餐饮有限公司;
  • 蓉鼎香餐饮有限公司;
  • 老庄火锅店;
  • 辣元素餐饮管理公司;
  • 成都张老山火锅店;
  • 巴蜀大宅门火锅店;
  • 蜀九香SM店;
  • 新蜀九香餐饮有限公司紫荆店;
  • 成都市圆满香餐饮管理有限公司