Linux-Advocacy Digest #62, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 21:13:30 EDT
Contents:
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: InstallShield coming to Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Rumors ... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (abraxas)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Chuck Swiger")
Re: BSD & Linux ("Jack Barnett")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (News-Only)
Re: BSD & Linux (Timothy Murphy)
Re: InstallShield coming to Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Jason Bowen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:02:08 GMT
Freedom of speech. He didn't break any laws. It's all over the place!!!!
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptographic_backdoor_.html
http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
It was Microsoft that broke treaties and violated the law by exporting this technology.
John Orwen wrote:
> What you are describing is as much a violation of existing communication act
> laws for the fbi, cia, irs, or ssc as it is for the average citizen.
>
> anon wrote:
>
> > I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
> > computer security at the NSA.
> >
> > According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors" into
>the
> > Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> > I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but thought that
>it might deserve
> >
> > some public scrutiny.
> > At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two "backdoor"
>protocols in the
> > TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> > The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
>surreptitiously log in
> > to
> > any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files looking
>for evidence of
> > terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> > The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of passage of
>the UCITA or
> > "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on to all
>Win 2000 servers
> >
> > on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that it
>finds.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:48:37 -0400
Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>>
>> > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
>> > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
>> > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
>> > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
>> > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>>
>> Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
>> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
>>
>> I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
>> Russian's? British? Israelis?
>> Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
>>
>> Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
>> how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
>Where in that page is MS admitting that there is a back door in Windows 2k?
>All I see is a lot of conjecture about how MS "could" be sending information
>to the NSA. This is all based on a file name _NSAKEY, which could be a 100%
>arbitrary file name. Do you even read these things? Or do you just jump to a
>conclusion based on the document title?
If you had followed the news last FAll, you would know better then to make
statements like this.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
supporters.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:26:19 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 03:43:07 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft SomeOne Else <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Where have you been. Something under Windows will avctually work? I
>: think not.
>
>That's about it. I'd rather carefully shop for hardware and have it work
>on Linux.
Either way, I would still rather shop for hardware ensuring that
it would not only 'just work' under Windows but actually work
well. Compatibility with Linux, BSD or BeOS could be just a side
effect (and often is).
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:29:24 GMT
On 10 Apr 2000 01:05:59 -0400, Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <XT5I4.9651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Keith T. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What a load of Horse Pucky. If I express an IDEA and you take the IDEA and
>>do something with it, more power to you. BUT if I take that Idea and
>>produce something of value with it , whether it is a book or a computer
>>program, a song or an algorithm, then that something is mine...
What makes you think you own that IDEA lock-stock-and-barrel?
In all likelihood you used someone elses property or some
common property to come up with that IDEA. So, the end result
is that you are essentially stealing/borrowing from others and
then claiming the end result as your exclusive property.
>
>You express an idea. I can take the idea and do something with it. The
>more power to me. No problem for you. But if you take the idea to
>produce another idea "of value" then I can't do something with it,
>even though (presumably) you also express the 2nd idea to me.
>Didn't you just contradict yourself?
[deletia]
You own (or don't own) those corporeal things you create because
you also owned the associated raw materials. Remove that, and your
'conventional' property rights also become disputable.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: InstallShield coming to Linux
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:33:12 GMT
On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 22:16:21 -0400, Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>>
>> "Through this joint effort between InstallShield and IBM, end users of
>> IBM software and ISV applications running on AIX, AS/400, Linux, OS/2,
>> Project Monterey and Solaris platforms will receive the same consistent,
>> easy-to-use installation experience InstallShield currently provides for
>>
>> Windows users".
>
>And us poor *BSD users are once again left out.
>Oh well, we have the ports system, which beats hell out of any 'binary
>packaging' format.
We don't need no stinking InstallShield!
[deletia]
The like of Installshield cover up the inherent limitations
of operating systems such as Windows. They are quite redundant
for any Unix. Infact, considering the quality of InstallShield,
you should thank Sterling for doing you the favor of not
polluting *BSD with their little AntFarm....
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:33:57 GMT
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:49:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >And if you read further down the faq, you'll see that Be doesn't want to
>> >open itself up to a reverse engineering lawsuit. Remember, apple is the
>>
>> I'm certainly glad that Compaq and Phoenix didn't cop this attitude.
>
>Actually, you should be glad the IBM wasn't lawsuit happy in the early 80's.
>They would have had a very strong case.
Actually, it was.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:36:34 GMT
On 10 Apr 2000 10:29:54 -0400, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 05:56:33 GMT, Damien wrote:
>
>>You don't have the right to control what I do with knowledge in my
>>possession.
>
>Again, I believe I do. Hell, even the GPL is based on the assumption that
>I "have the right" to control what you do. Do you ever release GPL'd
The GPL doesn't come into play until the work in question is
redistributed. If you think the GPL is relevant in this
discussion you have sorely misunderstood it.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 17:41:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man, can you show more ignorance? Telnet uses sockets to operate. Sockets
> are not a part of the actual stack, they are a set of tools that use the
> stack. The same with SNMP or ftp, or a mail program. They all operate the
> same way, by opening sockets and listening to them. The stack itself does
> not do the logging in or the management.
Wow...thats pretty good for a kid who just reads the trade rags and stares
at porn most of the time. Lemme know when you get a job.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 17:43:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <38f1d5b8$8$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 04/10/2000 at 12:08 AM,
>> Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> > Can anyone confirm this?
>>
>>> How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
>>
>>How about articles in the Wall Street Journal, PC Magazine, and the
>>Washington Post.
>>
>>Moreover, MS admitted publically that those hooks were in the Windows 2000
>>beta.
> Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
> products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
> government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
> could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
> "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2331412,00.html
Idiot.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 10 Apr 2000 17:47:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> :No, nobody should be running their domain controller on a machien that's
>> :directly connected to the internet.
>>
>> What about comapanies with large intranets? I know of one company that
>> has 500 employees between two offices. They use one Novell server at
>> each end of the intranet (a wide-area network) to do authentication.
>> They are hiring more people. They are planning to switch over to W2K.
>>
>> I guess they are in for a surprise...
> I doubt they're using more than 50 ip's on a single server.
Well theyd better not try, because theres no way to do it. Thanks
microsoft; I almost invented my own paradigm.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:52:31 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just had a thought. I've heard that BSD has a Linux compatibility
> option.
There is no current operating system called BSD Unix anymore. But yes,
several of the BSD-derived systems like OpenBSD or FreeBSD can run
Linux ELF binaries.
> If MacOS X is based on BSD, does that mean MacOS X will also have
> a BSD compatibility option?
Given Darwin is Open Source, it is certainly doable to add ELF binary
support to MacOS X and provide the hooks so that ldd looks for the
Linux shared libs.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: "Jack Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:54:54 -0500
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Tl7I4.4746$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy S Telford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : OK, you asked for it 8-)
>
> [snip posting]
>
> And little did Linus know just what kind of revolution he caused. That
> posting was the proverbial shot heard round the world. Ah, the good old
> days of Linux.
>
> What Linus did was not only create a new OS, but a new ideology, the
> ideology of GNU freeware. It's the ideology of hacking (not cracking)
> mentality put to use to benefit others.
First "new ideology, the ideology of GNU freeware?" Linus released under
the GPL but he did NOT create the GPL. GNU/GPL has been around along time
before Linus even put down his first line of code, and the "ideolgoy" of
free (as in speech) software will be around long after Linux/GNU/BSD is
replaced.
The GNU project (GNU is Not Unix (btw this is a bug in the GNU acryom(hint:
eats up a lot of needless cpu cycles))) had a ton of free (as in speech)
avaiable "Unix" like programs under the GPL license, but the one thing they
didn't have was a working/stable Unix-like kernel under the GPL, since Linux
fit nicely with the other GNU software; it can to be.
Linux was not the first GNU peice of software, it was just one of the last
peice of the GNU-OS software puzzle. With the Last peice of the puzzle
complete for the first time people could run a complete/working/stable OS
%100 free under the GPL license (there was other free (as in speech) OSs
avaiable, but not under the GPL (*cough* BSD *cough*)
Second what the hell is this doing in an OpenBSD newsgroup : )
>
> --
> CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
>
> 4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:06:52 GMT
In article <zxoI4.16641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.sys.next.advocacy Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I just had a thought. I've heard that BSD has a Linux compatibility
>> option.
>
>There is no current operating system called BSD Unix anymore. But yes,
>several of the BSD-derived systems like OpenBSD or FreeBSD can run
>Linux ELF binaries.
>
>> If MacOS X is based on BSD, does that mean MacOS X will also have
>> a BSD compatibility option?
>
>Given Darwin is Open Source, it is certainly doable to add ELF binary
>support to MacOS X and provide the hooks so that ldd looks for the
>Linux shared libs.
Well, I'd almost say that would be the best of all possible worlds!
--
"Ballpark nachos -- you don't buy them, you just rent them." -- Hank Hill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (News-Only)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:16:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
> actually, it is well worth investigation, as any such claim is, just
> because something is unlikely, doesn't make it impossible
Uh-huh. And some thing that is both unlikely and which comes from a crap
and unverifiable source is what exactly?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 10 Apr 2000 19:32:19 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
>Or UNIX, for that matter - AT&T version was not exactly free.
AT&T Unix _was_ free.
(My understanding is that they weren't allowed to sell it,
for anti-trust reasons.)
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
Subject: Re: InstallShield coming to Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Apr 2000 12:37:23 -0600
Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > "Through this joint effort between InstallShield and IBM, end users of
> > IBM software and ISV applications running on AIX, AS/400, Linux, OS/2,
> > Project Monterey and Solaris platforms will receive the same consistent,
> > easy-to-use installation experience InstallShield currently provides for
> >
> > Windows users".
>
> And us poor *BSD users are once again left out.
You actually *want* InstallShield? ;-)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:46:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
>
> > actually, it is well worth investigation, as any such claim is, just
> > because something is unlikely, doesn't make it impossible
>
> Uh-huh. And some thing that is both unlikely and which comes from a crap
> and unverifiable source is what exactly?
>
A Microsoft press release?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Apr 2000 12:47:49 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Man, can you show more ignorance? Telnet uses sockets to operate. Sockets
> > are not a part of the actual stack, they are a set of tools that use the
> > stack. The same with SNMP or ftp, or a mail program. They all operate the
> > same way, by opening sockets and listening to them. The stack itself does
> > not do the logging in or the management.
>
> Wow...thats pretty good for a kid who just reads the trade rags and stares
> at porn most of the time. Lemme know when you get a job.
Ugh. Go bother some other .advocacy group.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:43:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Bowen wrote:
>
>> Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
>> products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
>> government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
>> could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
>> "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>
>Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
>http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
Actually you're the ignorant fuck, did you read the article? There is no
admission, backdoors for the government is what is being discussed here,
and the presence of the keys means nothing. I am not a MS
supporter so don't take that path. Bob said MS admitted to placing keys
for the government. You didn't provide proof either.
>
>I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
>Russian's? British? Israelis?
>Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
>
>Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
>how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:48:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I read it. I also read the articles in Networking,
>and the Wall Street Journal. This is common knowledge for the literate.
>The lab that actually found the key notified the NSA first! Maybe you
>don't have access to well known publications by CMP. I understand that
>ZD is more your level so that is why you never heard it before now.
Well apparently you find Windows Mag to be more your style then???? You
haven't proven the claim by the way. Unable to prove your claim so you
try to insult.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:51:23 GMT
Just shut your fucking piehole and provide proof for the statement that
was made. You can't prove anything, you can have a suspicion but good ole
Bob claimed that MS admitted to it and doesn't have the balls to admit
that he was wrong, as usual.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears.
>
>http://homepage.tinet.ie/~muintc/hackal.htm
>http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Microsoft_Windows_contains_a_cryptographic_backdoor_.html
>http://www.collectonyourjudgment.com/privacy/infoga.htm
>http://rc.sdnp.undp.org/rc/forums/mgr/sdnpmgrs/msg01238.html
>http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9533.html
>http://smart.online.fr/privacy/Part2
>http://amug.org/~glguerin/opinion/win-nsa-key.html
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:54:02 GMT
In article <38f205e5$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
>
>>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>> > Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their
>>> > products. Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the
>>> > government? I didn't think you could. I believe that the government
>>> > could put them under enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of
>>> > "national security", but they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>>>
>>> Read this if you can Jason! You are so damn stupid and ignorant!
>>> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Content/7182_01.html
>>>
>>> I wonder if they actually exported this stuff and did it go to allies. Did they
>export this to the
>>> Russian's? British? Israelis?
>>> Man what if the Massad was being spied on?
>>>
>>> Isn't it amazing that Bill (theAntiChrist) Gates wanted to dominate the browser
>market? Just think
>>> how this may have given him the advantage when it came to market place strategy!
>
>>Where in that page is MS admitting that there is a back door in Windows 2k?
>>All I see is a lot of conjecture about how MS "could" be sending information
>>to the NSA. This is all based on a file name _NSAKEY, which could be a 100%
>>arbitrary file name. Do you even read these things? Or do you just jump to a
>>conclusion based on the document title?
>
>
>If you had followed the news last FAll, you would know better then to make
>statements like this.
I've yet to see Bob provide proof for his claim, in fact nobody here has.
Can you provide me info on every key and api call available in the OS/2
security API and what it does? Do you just implicitly trust a large
multi-national corporation? I don't trust MS but I haven't seen one shred
of proof for Bob's claim.
>
>
>_____________
>Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 18:54:55 GMT
In article <38f1f75c$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>>In article <38f1d5b8$8$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 04/10/2000 at 12:08 AM,
>>> Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Can anyone confirm this?
>>>
>>>> How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
>>>
>>>How about articles in the Wall Street Journal, PC Magazine, and the
>>>Washington Post.
>>>
>>>Moreover, MS admitted publically that those hooks were in the Windows 2000
>>>beta.
>
>>Another Germer lie. MS admitted nothing about backdoors in their products.
>>Can you find where they admitted to leaving backdoors for the government? I
>>didn't think you could. I believe that the government could put them under
>>enough pressure to do it, all in the interest of "national security", but
>>they have not publically admitted any such thing.
>
>Wrong: M$ tried not to admit it, but they left in evidence in a service pack
>for NT4 and they did admit it.
Provide a link to them admitting to providing a backdoor for the
government.
>
>
>_____________
>Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
