Linux-Advocacy Digest #664, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Bob Nelson)
Re: Setuid and Linux threads (Dima Volodin)
Re: Open Software Reliability (david parsons)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (david parsons)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Koan Kid)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Koan Kid)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Geoff Lane)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Geoff Lane)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Nico Coetzee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 17 Mar 2000 02:43:04 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:31:37 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I never refuse help to larval-stage hackers; without guidance, they'll
>>never tread upon the True Path. What bugs me (mightily!) is that many
>>WinCoders, fresh from a week-long course in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL,
>>are arrogantly sure they are masters of the craft and _do not need_
>>help. Only when $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL barfs out obscure errors do
>>they realize their mistake.
> Just a heads up - using environmental variables in news posts is Unix dweeb
> rule number three, surpassed in pure annoyance only by using "fsck" as
> a swear word, and calling "X Windows" anything besides "X Windows".
Heh, heh, heh...hits pretty close to home. Another dweeby thing we oft
do is to use regexps., eg, '((Uni)|(Linu))?x' in articles to save typing
and enhance comprehension. :-) Also #include directives -- but this is
also done by posters favoring Windows, too. The real telltale marks of
the Unix dweeb are the escaped ``>From'' lines in followups and the
stray 'i' and 'a' characters from the ``you know what'' editor. (Plus
the LaTeX style quotes and the punctuation residing within parens.)
...as well as the characteristic to admit our frailities and quirks.
> I have examined the source code of several Unix programs, including GCC,
> GIMP, and the GNU file utilities, and I found the code to be of amateur
> quality. None of these packages handled dynamic memory allocation errors
> properly. Some didn't even check the return code of malloc, and those
> which did simply exited if the condition occurred. Even the X Windows
> server does not properly handle failed allocations, and simply exits
> (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when the condition
> occurs.
I'll grant that some of the code is really weak. Even worse is that we
get merely the source code...generally there's no design documents
accompanying the code. My fear is that a large part of it is from the
``code first, design later...if there's any time leftover'' school of
development. This usually dovetails with the Bourne-ish ``...it was
hard to write, it ought to be hard to read'' philosophy.
(I'd tend to disagree with you on the bulk of the GNU stuff, though,
in terms of its handling of dynamic memory. It eventually makes its
way through the xmalloc family, which admittedly uses a termination
model.)
All that aside, the point is you *did* the opportunity to inspect,
critique, generally barbeque (and, if you choose, improve) the
aforementioned code. So, how's the code for "Windows Explorer" (not
MSIE) compare? What about the source for the "Control Panel"...how
does it look?
What do we have to look over...well, the headers shipped with MSVC
(especially the C++ stuff) would be strong contenders for the IOCCC.
PJP was evidently writing with something other than clarity paramount
when he did this for Microsoft. While certainly not the work of an
amateur, it does make the stuff in /usr/include/g++ as approachable
as a Larry McMurtry work.
...some good points, Terry. We can all benefit from thoughtful
criticism.
:wq
--
========================================================================
Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.oldradio.com/archives/nelson/open-computing.html
``Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.''
------------------------------
From: Dima Volodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.programming.threads
Subject: Re: Setuid and Linux threads
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:41:09 -0500
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> On 16 Mar 2000 01:40:43 GMT, Igor Khasilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]*> wrote:
> >Is it possible that something goes wrong if one of the threads
> >will call setuid(something different then startup uid) in
> >application linked with linuxthreads?
> >
> >I have a problem in threads syncronisation in this case (only under linux,
> >everything is ok under solaris or freebsd).
>
> In Linux, the security context is changed only for the calling lightweight
> process, I believe.
What was the rationale for this feature?
Cheers!
Dima
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 17 Mar 2000 01:21:50 -0800
In article <8a2uvc$23mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On the other hand, I imagine (?) that when a central authority pays for an
>operation system (or other) development, they can institute and enforce
>demanding quality standards.
They CAN demand quality standards.
Most often they don't, or they demand quality standards in such a
matter that the programmers can crank out really sucky code and still
get the big ISO 9001 Q award.
It comes down, in the end, to the problem that good coding is an art
that requires a lot of discipline to do properly. Most programmers,
whether they're doing it for the fun of it, for their chance to get
into a Linux IPO, or doing it for a living, don't have that
discipline and will produce horrible unmaintainable code.
____
david parsons \bi/ 99% of everything is shit.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: 17 Mar 2000 01:38:49 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>Sorry to hear you had troubles especially with a FIC which generally
>tend to be among the better motherboards.
>
>Sounds like pilot error [...]
*snort*
Yes, how dare I actually attempt to _install_ Windows 98 on a
computer, instead of hiring a MCSE to do the work for me.
____
david parsons \bi/ I could live without the sound, but not having
\/ a working PCMCIA slot was a little bit much.
The CL31a is not the greatest m/b either, because
you have to explicitly flush the pci tables when
you change pci cards.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:43:31 -0500
tony roth wrote:
>
> mlw as usual making blanket statements, without a lick of proof! Let me see
> I have 2k plus users maybe .005% run as power user or above!
>
That is truly fortunate, because I have never seen anyone able to use NT
efficiently as a normal user. Most applications completely ignore user
rights status and assume they may write data where ever they wish. Often
times in Microsoft's own knowledge base, they recommend giving someone
"power user" rights or "Administrator" rights to avoid this. In the past
few companies I have been in, NT users ALL had either power user, or
Administrator rights. So, lack of proof? perhaps, uninformed, no.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:47:05 +1000
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> tony roth wrote:
>
> How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one of
the
> many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
rights.
But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
> Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system - but
> forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
comes,
> power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh boot
> virus on the hard drive.
Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
> Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
A boot sector virus isn't.
> The bottom line?
>
> All end users need to educated and be made aware of the possibility of
virii -
> irrespective of the platform they are running on. Hell - I know users that
use
> PC's every day but they hit a blank when you ask them which Operating
System
> they use!
Well ideally they shouldn't need to know what the OS is or even that an
"Operating System" exists. The computer should run the apps and the OS
should be as transparent as possible.
> We in the IT field take for granted the level of knowledge we have. I
> think we should all concentrate more on Virus prevention and end user
training
> then biting each others heads of over which system is best protected.
Windows
> have anyway a very bad reputation concerning the subject.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:58:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:16:28 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh how assinine. We're not talking about just another open standard
> in this case. That is what Motif is, and what OpenStep is. THAT is
> why it is reasonable to expect a few college kids to get together
> and clone the things.
>
> Apple is shoving content down our throats that some of us can't
> decode and won't bother to provide the tools or the information
> to decode that information.
Did you read Mike's post? _he_ wrote a clone of QT for Unix with three
other programmers using information published by Apple. It took him
1.5 man weeks to write a file type decoder. That's peanuts when compared
to the effort put into Samba or LessTif.
I think it pretty much goes to show that it can be done.
> Apple is merely acting the part of monopolist and you are
> just providing weak excuses for them.
Seeing that
1) QuickTime is a published spec
2) The QuickTime file format _is_ the MPEG4 file format
3) At least one QT clone has already been written based on Apple Specs
I think you have a real week argument.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:00:13 GMT,
Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> were ISA based cards made in the late '80s and early '90s and have long
>> since been replaced with PCI cards that have tons of RAM for buffers
>> and much more IO.
>
> Could have fooled me. I was just talking to them two weeks ago, and
>they're still selling the vast majority of their voice cards on ISA, a
>shocking number of those _8_bit_ISA_. A two line card with no fax costs well
>over 500 bux, and a PCI one _starts_ at $2k minimum.
>
> Sheesh, who are they fooling? Oh wait, it's themselves.
Ouch!
I thought they had moved to PCI as of '96 or so.
> BTW, is SuperNews any good? My feed bites, what pay ones should I be
>looking at?
It sucks. When my year's account runs out I'm going to dump it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:58:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:58:29 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>QT isn't a decoder. It isn't a program for playing movies. There is
>
> Yes it is actually. There's a lot of file type abstraction
> cruft but the essential funcition of the thing, eventually,
> is to implement codecs.
And as Michael Paquette pointed out, those abstractions are documented
in a $30 book.
>>a lot more to it that that. Feel free to read Michael Paquette's post
>>for a more in depth analysis of what is needed to play QT movies on
>>Linux.
>
> When the codec is not being hoarded by two companies in each
> other's pockets, I've always just been able to use Xanim.
Huh? Apple and Sorenson are conspiring to prevent Linux users from
palying movies? I think I missed that xfiles episode.
> That fellow's quicktime project was/is redundant, especially
> without any access to the more interesting codecs.
Those CODECs do not belong to Apple. They belong to CinePak and
Sorenson.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:03:14 -0500
George Marengo wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:49:28 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> Here you go:
> >>
> >> http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> >>
> >> Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses there -
> >> cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's impossible to
> >> have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> >consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> >system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your system.
> >In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any piece
> >of code will infect NT as well.
>
> Most people run as (at least) a power user when running NT?
> Hmm... I normally log in as a regular user. Where did you get
> the stats that most NT users log in as power user or better?
>
The stats are personal observation backed up by MS knowledge based
articles like:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vbasic/vb98/vbmsgwcadminprivileges.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q243/3/47.ASP
> >In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> >task.
>
> It _should_ be unusual. I think you'll find that as Linux becomes
> more and more mainstream, more users will log in as root.
I doubt that very much. I have some friends for whom I've installed
Linux, and they are more than happy with the notion that they can't
really break their machine by accident and still be able to use it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 01:35:27 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:17:14 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>Nope -- I feel the same way. The Lesstif project is a great example; rather
>>than bitch and moan that Motif was proprietary (or *in addition to* bitching
>>and moaning that Motif was proprietary), these guys went off and knocked off
>>a great clone of the system. Now Lesstif is probably installed on more
> Oh how assinine. We're not talking about just another open standard
> in this case. That is what Motif is, and what OpenStep is. THAT is
> why it is reasonable to expect a few college kids to get together
> and clone the things.
> Apple is shoving content down our throats that some of us can't
> decode and won't bother to provide the tools or the information
> to decode that information.
The point you're missing is that it may not be Apple's to provide. (I'm
assuming we're talking about QuickTime here.) As has been pointed out
elsewhere, some of the codecs used do not belong to Apple. If someone
wants to use those codecs, they'll have to talk to the owners. That's
how intellectual property works. Either that, or would-be cloner can do
the research and grunt-work to reverse-engineer it. Or ignore it
completely and come up with something better. If you invent something
useful, I have no right to tell you how you can or cannot use it.
>>systems than Motif itself! Samba is another example -- the Samba team
>>reverse-engineered a lot of the tech because they couldn't get the time
>>of day from M$.
>>
>>Open Source software can't just be about the easy stuff -- we have to buckle
>>down and tackle the really hard projects to make it work.
> Ultimately, the most sensible course of action is to
> move the market away from vendorlock that forces those
> of us that would like to have reasonable free will in
> our buying choices to essentially 'steal' someone else's
> patented work without their permission.
I agree that moving away from "vendorlock," as you put it, is probably a
good thing and I think that the free software and open source movements
a doing a pretty goo job of demonstrating the advantages of that model.
Where we seem to disagree, however, is in the notion that freedom of
choice is dependent on "freedom of source." Even if the protocol or
"standard" in question is proprietary, you still have the freedom not to
purchase or use it. In fact, if you feel strongly about it, you have
the freedom to try and convince others to follow your lead. And they
have the freedom to ignore you.
> Apple is merely acting the part of monopolist and you are
> just providing weak excuses for them.
Of course they have a monopoly on their property. Why shouldn't they?
If they spent the time and money to create it, they should have the
final say in how they dispose of it. Wouldn't you want the same
consideration?
KK
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:14:24 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > tony roth wrote:
> >
> > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one of
> the
> > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> rights.
>
> But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as much
damage as it wishes.
>
> > Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system - but
> > forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
> comes,
> > power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh boot
> > virus on the hard drive.
>
> Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
Yea, I've seen this exact scenario, you are right, it does not infect
Windows NT, it renders it non-bootable.
>
> > Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
>
> A boot sector virus isn't.
>
> > The bottom line?
> >
> > All end users need to educated and be made aware of the possibility of
> virii -
> > irrespective of the platform they are running on. Hell - I know users that
> use
> > PC's every day but they hit a blank when you ask them which Operating
> System
> > they use!
>
> Well ideally they shouldn't need to know what the OS is or even that an
> "Operating System" exists. The computer should run the apps and the OS
> should be as transparent as possible.
This is subjective, and I am not sure I agree. many usability studies
are underway regarding this. Many are focusing on the OS and how it is
an active enabler for apps. There is one where the GUI presents the user
with a 3D room which he may traverse. I would never want to use
something like that because it is too much work, but a non-computer
literate person may like it because their spatial thinking is used in
understanding the layout of the machine. So no, the OS and GUI should
not be transparent, it should be right up front making apps easier to
use.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 06:24:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
> On the subject of Michael Paquette's commentary,
> Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
> : world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
> : Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware advocates--you
> : know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching about
> : when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
> : every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a CD-R
> : for their "archives".
> : *sigh*
> : Pardon my rant.
> Of course you are pardoned, when you rant politely. (I've said "pardon me
> while I go off", and some people still had the poor taste to complain ;-)
Thanks! :)
> I think I read the Paquette post on two levels. On the surface it is an
> obvious statement, that begging or demanding anything is silly-at-best and
> demeaning-at-worst, and that the most straightforward thing to do is write
> some code.
That's certainly the way I read it. Given the nature of intellectual
property law in the US, I feel that Apple's position WRT QuickTime is
a reasonably prudent course of action to protect what they obviously
consider to be a strategic technology. The point others have raise
regarding Apple's "monopoly" on QuickTime technology is non-sensical in
that the owner of a given property--intellectual or otherwise--always
has a monopoly position over the disposition of that property. I don't
see how the rights of a property holder could be interpreted differently.
> I couldn't help think though, that there was another level below the
> surface of that essay. The strong feeling Paquette feels towards some who
> might share QuickTime code might be overdone. Especially in light of the
> open source software being consumed in the creation of MacOS X.
> If you'll pardon my rant, it is as if "We've got our BSD, we've got our
> Mach, we've got our GNU tools ... but don't come around with your hat in
> your hand asking what we can do for you. We're Apple and we don't go for
> all that commie stuff."
Your interpretation of the subtext may well be correct. It should be
noted, however, that Apple has made an effort to "give back" to the open
source community. They have made the source code for their implementation
of BSD as a Mach service freely available, as well as that of the Mach
port itself and the QuickTime Streaming Server. That seems like a fair
trade to me, considering the average returned to the community by most of
the people and companies out there who benefit from the software. :)
To expect any company to give away the source, without restriction, to
what they consider--rightly or wrongly--to be a strategic technology
simply because someone would like to implement it himself is, IMHO,
nonsensical.
KK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:59:05 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Use a standard library where time_t is a 64 bit signed integer (the new
> C standard requires such an integer type) and keep using C. No need to
> change languages.
There are many reasons to keep C out of inexpert hands ( and there's only
about 5 experts - three of whom devised the language!)
--
Geoff. Lane. | Linux has shown the world that Microsoft is only a local
Manchester | maximum; there are many, much higher mountains to be
Computing | climbed in this particular space.
If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:07:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ready or not, Linux viruses are coming, and no one is inoculated.
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/commentary/2
>
> How to get infected using Linux...
> by ralmeida
>
> calvin:~$ wget http://somesite/happy99.tar.gz
> calvin:~$ tar zxf happy9.tar.gz
> calvin:~$ cd happy99
> calvin:~$ ./configure
> calvin:~$ make
> calvin:~$ su
> calvin:~$ make install
> calvin:~$ exit
> calvin:~$ happy99
> You must be root to run this program
> calvin:~$ su
> calvin:~$ happy99
> (ops!)
This has been the standard installation from source of a app that requires
privileges on Linux almost from the day it was created. So why haven't many
been seen in the wild over the past 10 years or so? The tcp wrappers
incident is famous but seems to have not caused much trouble at all and the
Morris worm was a long time ago now.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Linux has shown the world that Microsoft is only a local
Manchester | maximum; there are many, much higher mountains to be
Computing | climbed in this particular space.
If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:30:48 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > tony roth wrote:
> >
> > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one of
> the
> > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> rights.
>
> But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
>
> > Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system - but
> > forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
> comes,
> > power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh boot
> > virus on the hard drive.
>
> Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
>
> > Of course this is also a threat to Linux users.
>
> A boot sector virus isn't.
>
> > The bottom line?
> >
> > All end users need to educated and be made aware of the possibility of
> virii -
> > irrespective of the platform they are running on. Hell - I know users that
> use
> > PC's every day but they hit a blank when you ask them which Operating
> System
> > they use!
>
> Well ideally they shouldn't need to know what the OS is or even that an
> "Operating System" exists. The computer should run the apps and the OS
> should be as transparent as possible.
>
> > We in the IT field take for granted the level of knowledge we have. I
> > think we should all concentrate more on Virus prevention and end user
> training
> > then biting each others heads of over which system is best protected.
> Windows
> > have anyway a very bad reputation concerning the subject.
I wish you could be there when my NT box fell over because of a boot virus!
(Disk in drive A: scenario).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:32:41 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> >
> > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> there -
> > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's
> impossible to
> > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
>
> I got a better virus than that, if you're gonna use "su".
>
> $ su
> Password:
> # rm -rf /
>
> It may be somewhat subtle, but it works....
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I hope there's no beginner reading this that wants to try it
out! lol !!!
Cheers
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
