Linux-Advocacy Digest #182, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 05:13:26 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Selious")
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ("Rob Hughes")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Gary Connors)
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ("TiMOiD")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Robert Fovell)
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! ("Christopher Smith")
Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives ("DE")
Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Craig Kelley)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (The Cat)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Selious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:46:55 +0200
But...netscape developers ARE weenies !!
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:58:52 -0500
The 5.14 drivers (the subject here) are up on STB's site? Really? And would
you mind posting a link to them? Since I just went all over both the web and
ftp sites and managed to miss them entirely. I did find some very old
drivers, but nothing WHQL certified, which would be the point that MS got
involved. Moron.
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8df4sr$2q07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Considering that MS had dick to do with these unreleased and possibly
even
> > completely untested non-whql certified drivers,
>
> Idiot, the NT 5.0 drivers exist on STB's site. They only worked
*margianally*
> better than the natural TNT chipset drivers that come with W2K
professional.
>
> Neither one of them allow directX to function in its full capacity.
>
> > where the fuck do you get a
> > comment like that? You might want to try pulling your head out of your
ass
> > before you try to read usenet messages next time.
>
> I get it from experience.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
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: 18 Apr 2000 14:52:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
> Thank you very much for this post, Drestin. Although your little game of
> reverse psychology is funny at best, it clearly shows the value of open
> source software. See, it is possible for Microsoft or another closed
> source vendor to place a backdoor into their program and there would be
> no way of knowing that until it is far too late. It would also be
> possible for Linux or another open source system to be backdoored, but
> this would be noticed *very* soon. As a matter of fact, this happened in
> real life. Someone cracked the win.tue.nl ftp site and replaced the tcp
> wrapper tarballs with trojaned versions that would send a mail with
> sensitive information to some hotmail account when used. Within hours
> this was all over Bugtraq and for all we know, nobody used the trojaned
> version unintentionally.
Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
personally know looded at the Linux Source?
Problem with the above example is that its a PRO-ACTIVE violation, that is
it creats network traffic. This, of course, can be noticed by any
standard firewall and its discovery has NOTHING to do with the fact that
Linux is OSS. The fact that it was fixed quickly has everything to do
with Linux being OSS. There is a distinction to be made. A backdoor
hidden in the THOUSANDS of lines of code in the Linux Kernel would go
unnoticed untill someone outside hacked it as long as it generated no
network traffic.
------------------------------
From: "TiMOiD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:08:52 +1000
rob try this link:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bmsmit
it came from #win2000 in efnet
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38fc789e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The 5.14 drivers (the subject here) are up on STB's site? Really? And
would
> you mind posting a link to them? Since I just went all over both the web
and
> ftp sites and managed to miss them entirely. I did find some very old
> drivers, but nothing WHQL certified, which would be the point that MS got
> involved. Moron.
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8df4sr$2q07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Considering that MS had dick to do with these unreleased and possibly
> even
> > > completely untested non-whql certified drivers,
> >
> > Idiot, the NT 5.0 drivers exist on STB's site. They only worked
> *margianally*
> > better than the natural TNT chipset drivers that come with W2K
> professional.
> >
> > Neither one of them allow directX to function in its full capacity.
> >
> > > where the fuck do you get a
> > > comment like that? You might want to try pulling your head out of your
> ass
> > > before you try to read usenet messages next time.
> >
> > I get it from experience.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----yttrx
> >
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:21:11 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > /me
wonders....
> >> Rob (happily using *backdoor free* software).
> >
> >Have you personally auditted every single line of code running on your
> >computer to ascertain this ?
>
> No, I have not, and no, I don't need to.
Why not ? What makes you trust the people you *think* (not know) have ?
> It would be impossible for any
> individual to audit every line of code that constitutes the Debian GNU /
> Linux distribution, but several Debian developers do (as do may other
> people, including security fanatics like Michal Zawenski en Theo de
> Raadt (for those applications that are available for most Unixes,
> including their own).
Then how can you claim your software is backdoor free ?
What about the (vast majority of) people who can't do their own code audits
? Why should they trust other people to ? Why should these people be
trusted any more (or less) than the engineers at Microsoft ?
> Unlike buffer overflows or race conditions, backdoors stand out in
> source code and impossible to hide (short of Ken Thompsons C compiler /
> login binary trick, which is not applicable anymore).
Not always. And what happens if no-one's bothered to *look* at that
particular piece of source code ?
> Because of the peer review that the application in the Debian
> distribution have undergone, especiallly the network aware applications,
> I *can* state firmly that I'm running backdoor-free software.
Even though you can't back that statement up ? Why are the "peers" doing
the Debian code reviews any better than the "peers" at Microsoft, or any
other company ?
> Of course
> I cannot guarantee the same for buffer overflows or race conditions, but
> that's a whole other chapter.
You can guarantee neither until you do it yourself.
------------------------------
From: Robert Fovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:20:19 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James L.
Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With my PowerBook G3 (Lombard) I use my righthand index finger to point
> using the track pad, my righthand thumb to click, and my lefthand fingers
> to
> select, if necessary, the modifier keys.
I do the same. I like the track pad a lot. My first PB was a 145, with
the trackball; I never did get comfortable with that, and usually packed
an ADB mouse.
Every so often I borrow a PC laptop and am reminded that I do not like
or want more than one button on such a thing. Irritating. The only
thing I dislike more is the eraser-point mouse, so personally I don't
miss that not being offered on PBs (tho I know others do).
> I find this a very satisfactory
> method to effect pointing and clicking, and a major benefit is that it
> translates easily to using a single button mouse when I am using other
> than
> the laptop. At one time I did have a Kensington multibutton mouse for my
> Mac
> desktop computer, but found it to provide little value over the single
> button mouse plus keypress.
Agreed. For a long while I had a multibutton mouse on my desktop Mac,
intending to use those "hidden" right-click menus embedded in many apps
(such as Illustrator, Netscape, now MT-NewsWatcher, etc.). I found it,
at best, a very minor convenience, and mainly used the mouse's other
buttons only when I was booted into Linux. I bought a multibutton mouse
for my iMac as well, but abandoned it after a few months (except in
Linux). I'm one of the ostensible few who actually like the new round
mouse. It is very comfortable.
Anyway, James, you have missed the point. Let us now hear the mantra of
our Microsoft mouse method mavens:
YOU AREN'T RIGHT UNTIL YOU RIGHT CLICK.
Stop laughing; it's rude ;-)
> As for a "scrolling mouse" I haven't had any
> experience using one and until then am not in a position to comment.
>
> Speaking of multibutton mice, I amusingly recall that in the mid eighties
> someone attempted to market a mouse with something like twenty buttons
> arranged in something like a four by five grid. The "attraction" was that
> there could be button pushes for all of the common Excel functions. As
> you
> can imagine the thing was enormous, both physically, and as a marketing
> flop.
"Anything worth doing's worth overdoing?" ;-)
--
Robert Fovell
Parodies of Mac bashers: http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell
Desktop pictures in my iDisk:parody:Desktop Pictures
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the
evidence. It biases the judgment." -- Sherlock Holmes
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:43 +1000
<@ .> wrote in message news:xdUK4.13078$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, Who left the door to the loony bin open?
Derek the Mac advocate must have forgotten to shut it when he went home.
------------------------------
From: "DE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:40:12 -0400
I am trying to install Red Hat 6.1 onto a Thinkpad with a 6gb IDE drive. I
have successfully loaded Windows 2000 on a 4.5gb partition and have used
System Commander 2000 to setup the remaining space for the Linux partitions.
No matter what I do or how I setup these partitions, each time I try to
install Linux, it does not recognize that I have an IDE drive installed in
my machine. I have tried to use the Red Hat Support folks, but they have
been worthless. They won't even respond or acknowledge my problem.
Can anyone lend some insight as to what is going on ??
Thanks in advance,
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:37:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> I think most of the books assume some computer background -- if you
don't
> have *some* , you're not likely to be installing Linux.
Well, all of the books that I checked on were described as "all levels",
which normally mean inordinate amount of text going over the basics. I'd
be happier with something that explicitly assumed a good computer
background.
> I like "Redhat premium edition", ( or something ) from Sybex
publishing
> ( if you're using Mandrake or Redhat ). I'm not sure if that'd be too
> verbose for your tastes. The OReilly and associates titles tend to
> be more concise.
The Sybex books on RH look a bit dated. OTOH, I might spring for "Linux
Complete", especially if they do a new edition. I've already got some
O'Reilly books, and there are more on my shopping list. In general I
don't mind verbose material if it is new to me, but 20 pages explaining
what a shell is or ten pages explaining binary numbers would drive me up
the wall.
> Perl:
> "The Perl Cookbook" ( ORA )
> "Perl 5 Interactive Course" ( Author : Orwant. Publisher: Waite
Group )
>
> Other good perl books:
> "Programming Perl" and "Advanced Perl Programming", ORA
I notice that you don't list "Learning Pearl". Is there a reason to
avoid it?
> Python:
> Python is a very clean looking OO scripting language.
> The online docs
Thanx.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:41:15 GMT
http://securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/topnews/os20000417.html
'nuff said.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: http://www.securityfocus.com/commentary/19
> Wide Open Source
> Is Open Source really more secure than closed? Elias Levy says there's
a
> little security in obscurity.
> By Elias Levy April 16, 2000 11:59 PM PST
>
> One of the great rallying cries from the Open Source community is the
> assertion that Open Source Software (OSS) is, by its very nature, less
> likely to contain security vulnerabilities, including back doors, than
> closed source software. The reality is far more complex and nuanced.
>
> Advocates derive their dogmatic faith in the implicit security of Open
> Source code from the concept of "peer review," a cornerstone of the
> scientific process in which published papers and theories are
scrutinized by
> experts other than the authors. The more peers that review the work,
the
> less likely it is that it will contains errors, and the more likely it
is to
> become accepted.
>
> Open Source apostles believe that releasing the source code for a
piece of
> software subjects it to the same kind of peer review as a quantum
physics
> theory published in a scientific journal. Other programmers, the
theory
> goes, will review the code for security vulnerabilities, reveal and
fix
> them, and thus the number of new vulnerabilities introduced and
discovered
> in the software will decrease over time when compared to similar
closed
> source software.
>
> It's a nice theory, and in the ideal Open Source world, it would even
be
> true. But in the real world, there are a variety of factors that
effect how
> secure Open Source Software really is.
>
> Sure, the source code is available. But is anyone reading it?
>
> If Open Source were the panacea some think it is, then every security
hole
> described, fixed and announced to the public would come from people
> analyzing the source code for security vulnerabilities, such as the
folks at
> OpenBSD, the Linux Auditing Project, or the developers or users of the
> application.
> There have been plenty of security vulnerabilities in Open Source
Software
> that were discovered, not by peer review, but by black hats.
>
> But there have been plenty of security vulnerabilities in Open Source
> Software that were discovered, not by peer review, but by black hats.
Some
> security holes aren't discovered by the good guys until an attacker's
tools
> are found on a compromised site, network traffic captured during an
> intrusion turns up signs of the exploit, or knowledge of the bug
finally
> bubbles up from the underground.
>
> Why is this? When the security company Trusted Information Systems
(TIS)
> began making the source code of their Gauntlet firewall available to
their
> customers many years ago, they believed that their clients would check
for
> themselves how secure the product was. What they found instead was
that very
> few people outside of TIS ever sent in feedback, bug reports or
> vulnerabilities. Nobody, it seems, is reading the source.
>
> The fact is, most open source users run the software, but don't
personally
> read the code. They just assume that someone else will do the auditing
for
> them, and too often, it's the bad guys.
>
> Even if people are reviewing the code, that doesn't mean they're
qualified
> to do so.
>
> In the scientific world, peer review works because the people doing
the
> reviewing possess a comparable, or higher, technical caliber and level
of
> authority on the subject matter than the author.
>
> It is generally true that the more people reviewing a piece of code,
the
> less likely it is the code will have a security flaw. But a single
> well-trained reviewer who understands security and what the code is
trying
> to accomplish will be more effective than a hundred people who just
recently
> learned how to program.
>
> It is easy to hide vulnerabilities in complex, little understood and
> undocumented source code.
>
> Old versions of the Sendmail mail transport agent implemented a DEBUG
SMTP
> command that allowed the connecting user to specify a set of commands
> instead of an email address to receive the message. This was one of
the
> vulnerabilities exploited by the notorious Morris Internet worm.
>
> Sendmail is one of the oldest examples of open source software, yet
this
> vulnerability, and many others, lay unfixed a long time. For years
Sendmail
> was plagued by security problems, because this monolithic programs was
very
> large, complicated, and little understood but for a few.
>
> Vulnerabilities can be a lot more subtle than the Sendmail DEBUG
command.
> How many people really understand the ins and outs of a kernel based
NFS
> server? Are we sure its not leaking file handles in some instances?
Ssh
> 1.2.27 is over seventy-one thousand lines of code (client and server).
Are
> we sure a subtle flaw does not weakening its key strength to only
40-bits?
>
> There is no strong guarantee that source code and binaries of an
application
> have any real relationship.
>
> All the benefits of source code peer review are irrelevant if you can
not be
> certain that a given binary application is the result of the reviewed
source
> code.
>
> Ken Thompson made this very clear during his 1983 Turing Award lecture
to
> the ACM, in which he revealed a shocking, and subtle, software
subversion
> technique that's still illustrative seventeen years later.
>
> Thompson modified the UNIX C compiler to recognize when the login
program
> was being compiled, and to insert a back door in the resulting binary
code
> such that it would allow him to login as any user using a "magic"
password.
>
> Anyone reviewing the compiler source code could have found the back
door,
> except that Thompson then modified the compiler so that whenever it
compiled
> itself, it would insert both the code that inserts the login back
door, as
> well as code that modifies the compiler. With this new binary he
removed the
> modifications he had made and recompiled again.
>
> He now had a trojaned compiler and clean source code. Anyone using his
> compiler to compile either the login program , or the compiler, would
> propagate his back doors.
>
> The reason his attack worked is because the compiler has a
bootstrapping
> problem. You need a compiler to compile the compiler. You must obtain
a
> binary copy of the compiler before you can use it to translate the
compiler
> source code into a binary. There was no guarantee that the binary
compiler
> you were using was really related to the source code of the same.
>
> Most applications do not have this bootstrapping problem. But how many
users
> of open source software compile all of their applications from source?
>
> A great number of open source users install precompiled software
> distributions such as those from RedHat or Debian from CD-ROMs or FTP
sites
> without thinking twice whether the binary applications have any real
> relationship to their source code.
>
> While some of the binaries are cryptographically signed to verify the
> identity of the packager, they make no other guarantees. Until the day
comes
> when a trusted distributor of binary open source software can issue a
strong
> cryptographic guarantee that a particular binary is the result of a
given
> source, any security expectations one may have about the source can't
be
> transferred to the binary.
>
> Open Source makes it easy for the bad guys to find vulnerabilities.
>
> Whatever potential Open Source has to make it easy for the good guys
to
> proactively find security vulnerabilities, also goes to the bad guys.
>
> It is true that a black hat can find vulnerabilities in a binary-only
> application, and that they can attempt to steal the source code to the
> application from its closed source. But in the same amount of time
they can
> do that, they can audit ten different open source applications for
> vulnerabilities. A bad guy that can operate a hex editor can probably
manage
> to grep source code for 'strcpy'.
>
> Security through obscurity is not something you should depend on, but
it can
> be an effective deterrent if the attacker can find an easier target.
>
> So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better than closed
source
> software when it comes to security vulnerabilities? No. Open Source
Software
> certainly does have the potential to be more secure than its closed
source
> counterpart.
>
> But make no mistake, simply being open source is no guarantee of
security.
> ===============
>
> Elias Levy is CTO of SecurityFocus.com, and the long-time moderator of
> BUGTRAQ, one of the most read security mailing lists on the Internet.
He's
> served as a computer security consultant and security engineer, a UNIX
> software developer, network engineer and system administrator.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:49:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Don't wait for a new kernel. There will always be new kernels. As
for
> what system to get... get any of them. If you are a motiated hacker
> with a need for books, here's a tip.
>
> The O'Reilly Book, Learning Debian/GNU is $29.95 at Fry's. The boxed
CD
> distro of Debian/GNU Linux is $19.95 and includes O'Reilly's Learning
> Debian/GNU book. If you want reading material, and are interested in
> programming linux, read the RFC's. I also like O'Reilly's Web Client
> programming with Perl. Other good ones are the bat book and the horse
> book.
Thanks. I consider myself a professional programmer rather than a
hacker. However, if you mean someone who programs in assembly language
and who unapologetically enjoys it, that's me.
Are there RFCs that relate to Linux? Which ones? The ones that I'm
familiar with relate to TCP/IP and general Internet facilities, e.g.,
SMTP. For TCP/IP I've already got a few good books sitting in the in
queue, e.g., Comer, but I've never done any EUnix <g> programming and
would prefer not to read several thousand pages of documentation off of
a rinky-dink 17" screen. Hardcopy is expensive, but so are my eyes.
I'm considering "Linux Complete" as a primer; any pros or cons?
> --
> Salvador Peralta
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Apr 2000 10:15:01 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Try running News offline...
> >
> > I am at this very moment. As a matter of fact, I have my own news server
> > running on my notebook...
>
> Isn't that a bit overkill? And it usually requires you to get a peering
> relationship with your ISP. Is that something you expect an average person
> to be able to do?
Let the average person run PAN then.
--
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: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:21:31 GMT
krn also does offline newsreading.
On 18 Apr 2000 10:15:01 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Let the average person run PAN then.
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
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: 18 Apr 2000 10:23:57 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
> personally know looked at the Linux Source?
I did last week.
I wanted to figure out why I couldn't have more than 8 SCSI CD-ROM
drives attached to the system.
Regards.
--
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] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:33:34 +0200
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karl Knechtel wrote:
> >
> > Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > : instance of a program at a time. (This is year 2000 ??? ) I tap the
> > : spacebar twice and my PC turns on, boots & connects to the net with
> > : _3_ instances of IE running , one goes to my news site, one to web
> > : mail, and one to my online broker. With as much web intensive work as
> >
> > If hitting the spacebar "turns on" your computer, it was not turned off in
> > the first place. At least, I don't suppose so - with all the gimmicky PC
> > keyboards I'm seeing these days I wouldn't be in the least surprised if
> > they've made one where the space bar doubles as a power key.
> > (ThoughIreallywonderhowyou'dwriteanythingthatdidn'tlooklikethisifitdid...)
>
> Actually, with most electronic devices, "off" is a state of "on" ;-)
> However, newer PCs and motherboards have the ability to be "off" with
> only a slight power consumption running "power on" devices like
> keyboards, mice, and yes, network cards. Does this mean that the CPU is
> "on?" not typically.
"my PC turns on, boots & connects" doesn't sound like it was just
sleeping.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: 18 Apr 2000 11:37:46 -0500
In article <PCSK4.2636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Microsoft had been promising DCOM since COM was officially launched in a
>product in 1992. CORBA had very little to do with it, since it was an
>extension of the existing COM architecture, not a perversion of CORBA. It
>didn't introduce incompatibilities or hassles for most customers, since it
>was designed to help them leverege their existing COM code, making it easier
>to do distributed processing if they were already heavily invested in COM.
So one way of looking at it is that it is designed to make it
easy to make Microsoft products work together. Another way of
saying the same thing is that by ignoring standards they make
it difficult to interoperate with any other vendor's products.
Les Mikesell
[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
******************************
