Yeah I agree, it's just too basic, luckily with SylphyHorn that's not a problem anymore.

Looking at what it offers, that's nothing like enough and lots of it just waffle. The problem is, from the ground up all VD implementations under Windows are just crap, whether that's Microsoft's own or third party ones. Tried them all years ago and just gave up. And third/fourth party add-ons aren't really the answer anyway.

Yeah thats not working for that

Ah well, a "Restart <my application>" IC shouldn't be that difficult to implement anyway.

Added "Restart Nexus", "Restart Ultimate", "Restart WorkShelf", "Restart NextSTART" and "Restart Xtreme" internal commands to the next release.

Hello, Aplogies if this is considered spam. Just wanted to say the "Treat offset area as an active dock zone" feature works exactly as advertised and Thank you for implemeting it : )

@JORGE - Just a general question.

You intend to make the gallery public as part of the next processes.

So if I post the current link in the Themes section, it can be viewed by non-members but it cannot be downloaded. Nexter deleted it once before I think to protect the site. If nobody other than a forum member can download it, is that a bad thing?


If you would prefer me not to post the Gallery link after uploading the redone themes, that is fine.

I think it's ok if you do it here, but I don't want the URL to escape into the "wild" until the gallery is actually working as originally intended with all protections in place, and the more you post a link to the gallery the more the chances of that happening increase.

For instance, it would have been CATASTROPHIC if that link had been live when the server was flooded by Chinese users downloading Nexus. That alone was bad enough, now imagine if they had all decided to download a few themes as well while they were at it.

All in all, especially also with the many deletions etc., wouldn't it be better to take time to re-upload, and also keep the url out of it for now, as sooner or later it's almost bound to escape into the "wild" out there?

To both of you, thanks for the logic and now I know the backstory which I did not, absolutely. No links to anything that is not freely available already to the public

@Nexter- You read my mind after finding out what sounds quite scary and also explains why Jorge was looking at nexus free version in a different light. Scary stuff and 100% sensible.

I will post screen captures only of the uploads to the gallery with no visible links in the screenshots. That satisfies all parties I think? People will know there is a Gallery but the onus on release location is completely up to Jorge.

Sounds sensible to me.

Believe me, it was *very* scary and bad. And the site is still vulnerable inherently, in that I don't think the host co. is very secure, plus the server runs on Windows. Much of the site is pretty old - about 20 years! - and could have significant security holes. At the moment there are a couple of "band aid" fixes to prevent being over-run again, but how long that will work goodness knows. Right now we have 800+ guest users online again already, and that worries me! Anything much above 80 just isn't quite normal these days - the rest are definitely not ordinary users.

Talking about the Chinese... Most of the IP's belong to BytePlus Pte. Ltd.

BytePlus is a cloud infrastructure provider. in Singapore spun out of ByteDance, a major Chinese tech company best known as the owner of TikTok and other global platforms, so this is almost certainly a data-center / server range, not home users, which means blocking a whole subnet at the server firewall level makes sense.

101.47.44.0/22
Mask: 255.255.252.0

Fortunately the safeguards I implemented some time ago to limit Guest access to the forums are working well, otherwise the forum would by now be suffering from severe slow downs.

Unfortunately they also seem to be brute force attacking the server.

Oh sh.. sugar! Let's hope things hold up. Barstewards!

Blocked at the firewall level... number of guests are slowly dropping but there is still a ton of them from other IPs.

EDIT: Also blocked 101.47.52.0/22

Makes sense to do it at gateway level. The 255.255.252 with that I.P looks like a CIDR address. That would also explain the large drop in number of users when you blocked the main I.P because you'll never know exactly how many more have been allocated connections or how many. Potentially up to 1,024 subnets.

EDIT: Yeah I did a test on the I.P - CIDR.
Plenty of CIDR checkers online.