Linux-Advocacy Digest #267, Volume #26 Wed, 26 Apr 00 14:13:43 EDT
Contents:
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Jim Richardson)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Jim Richardson)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Cyberia Internet Cafe)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Aaron Kulkis)
BEWARE thelinuxstore.com , also known as msquaredsystems.com CUSTOMER ("change")
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Truckasaurus)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:52:47 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 14:23:22 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>But you just told him he didn't know what he needed. You need to make
>>>up your mind here Terry, you can't have it both ways. Now did he know
>>>what he needed? Or did he not know what he needed?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>rpm -Uhv gnome-libs-1.0.58-1.i386.rpm
>>>>>error: failed dependencies:
>>>>> gtk+ >= 1.2.1 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
>>>>> libjpeg.so.62 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
>>>>Ditto.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that these are basic libraries that should have been
>>>installed with 11 gig of SuSE "install everything" option .
>>
>>This is one place where debian's dselect and the *BSD ports system are much
>>better. They handle the dependencies for you.
>>
>>I could envision a frontend for rpm that would keep track of what the sytem
>>had, then look at what a new rpm requires, and finally, go out and grab the
>>required stuff off the net. I bet someone could even make money off a thing
>>like this by charging a subscription fee. It sure would save a lot of grief
>>by avoiding "dependencies hell" is a RH-type system. :-)
>
>But I thought the real problem here was the SuSE actually had
>all of the necessary libraries, they just named the packages
>containing them something different from what the RedHat built
>RPMs expected. A tool that automatically grabs what it thinks
>are the missing packages will do more harm than good here.
>
What will happen is that the redhat packages will conflict with the suse
ones, ie, gnome-libs conflicts with gnlibs etc.
What is especially annyoying is that it doesn't matter (to rpm) what the
package is called, because there is an entry in the spec file for the
official rpm name of the package, if suse hadn't changed that, there would
be no problem.
Like I said, it's about my major bitch with suse. Which is an otherwise
excellent distro.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:55:30 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:38:46 GMT,
Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>It would be Very Interesting if a Linux distribution were to be built
>based on the BSD Ports packages; that would provide access to a
>well-known "package repository," possibly providing _more_ "coherency"
>than any of the Linux distributions currently offer.
>--
What would the technical difficulties be?
(for porting ports that is.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:10:05 GMT
Christopher Browne wrote:
> I use MILO, don't you? :-)
And I've used SILO on sparc... every arch doesn't use the same exact program.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, past the firewall, past
the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing
but net.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:11:49 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:40:49 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:04:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, that would be a far more individual thing than you
>>>> acknowledge. No matter how much M$ would like to think of them
>>>> as such, end users are not borg drones.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, a simple list of commands is far less ambiguous and
>>>> less bulk of information.
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, clicking on an icon for a drive letter and clicking
>>>sharing seems, to me, to be something far easier for most people to
>>>digest, remember, and do.
>>
>>
>>but as my mom said, what's an icon?
>>(not to mention that the drive letters aren't on the desktop, they're hidden
>>in My computer, right?)
>
>Which do you think is more common - someone who knows what an icon is
>and can do basic things with it (like right-click in a given area) or
>someone who is already familiar with dir, grep, cat, pico, etc.?
If someone is familiar with an icon in windows, then they are also familiar
with an icon in linux, Linux does have GUI you know.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:30:08 GMT
s_Ea_DAag0n wrote:
> Are you really new to computers or something? Modems on Unix machines
> are typically connected through terminal servers, not to the computer
> itself. A serial console refers to a serial port which the console lives
Jesus Christ man.. he gives an example of what he's done himself and you
friggin' insult him? Everytime someone gives an example or idea that's
different from your preferred way and you either call them clueless or claim
they know nothing... nice way to debate.
I've personally setup a modem on a Unix box (connected directly to the box no
less) for a consultant in another city so that we could dial into it to do
configurations, or to fix problems.
Just because _you_ haven't done something, or don't normally do it that way,
doesn't mean it isn't done.
> on (by means of a terminal). Typically it has special priviliges. For
> example, sometimes root is only allowed to log on through the console. It
> has nothing to do with connecting to a machine over a serial port.
You can use a modem on a unix box (at least Suns) to dial in... _and_ it can be
the console.
> The original poster's point was that they are useful in cases where TCP/IP
> is down. You can certainly restart TCP/IP through this and continue over
> Termial Server (or whatever technology). I doubt most Unix admins would
> want to do admin over a serial line, and would prefer an xterm as soon
> as it was available.
Prefer, yes... but I admin some remote machines via phone at times... even done
it over 2400 baud. Sometimes it's the most cost effective way to do it, if they
don't have full net access.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth
beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name
that sat on him was DiVX, and Circuit City followed with him. And power was
given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to mislead with
deception, and with trickery, and with fan sites, and with the beasts of the
sales floor." - Stolen from the alt.video.dvd NG
------------------------------
From: Cyberia Internet Cafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:40:32 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Yeah right... like there are just millions of users out there
> dying and trying to use crusty ISA soundcards and ISA SCSI
> controllers.
>
> The system you are harping about is a relic that even I wouldn't
> bother with & I only stopped using my VL 486 system ~ 18 mos. ago.
>
> You could pry open that wallet and try a $20 PCI soundcard or
> $30 PCI SCSI2 card.
>
Exsqueeze me? I run both of those pieces of hardware in a handbuilt p233mmx.
They both work well, and so far seem to perform better than the machine you would have
someone
shell out for. And as to the wallet situation, there are those who end up building
their
machines out of what they can beg, borrow, or cadge. I think I did damn good building
the
machine I have for $0.00, and being dirt broke at the time the price was right. And
just to
review, how many people out there built their first linux box out of the scrap pile?
Having to
use and save dead and or dying hardware is an everyday thing. Just yesterday I had to
hand make
a spring for the ribbon in my old centronics printer. It's the only thing that
actually works on
a UNIX box right now. The unix box is infact a 10 year old SGI, which will lay the
smack down
on your touted VL bus 486.
And if you tell me I need a laser printer, eat me, since I have one and the thing
refuses to
work. A working hacked to life piece of hardware is worth more than something you paid
too much
for that doesn't work anyway. Some time tally up the amount of ISA cards you have in
your
scrap. Then figure out how many working machines you can have through those cards.
When you
have more time than money you work with what you have, and for damn sure make it work.
And I
find it nice that i don't have to search everywhere for some damn driver for
something, because
linux already supports it.
HeV
I'm just in it for the VAX MIPS (and slightly dented VAXstations)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:50:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alun Jones wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jianmang Li wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Connors wrote:
> > > >
> > > > in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], laugh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> > on
> > > > 4/16/00 1:07 AM:
> > > >
> > > > > Robert,
> > > >
> > > > > And with Linux growing to 35% of all servers and 10% of desktops this
> > year
> > > > > alone
> > > > > (half of those being NT replacements), there won't be much of an
> > audience
> > > > > for any future releases of windows when and if they do make it out.
> > > >
> > > > If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> > > > not a desktop OS.
> > > I'm always puzzled when people calling Desktop and server. From software
> > > point of view, what is the different. MS had difficulties to let Windows9x
> > > offering network services so it call it Desktop. In Unix world, if you got
> > the
> > > right hardware nobody stop you offering network services from your "Desktop"
> > -
> > > they are the same.
> >
> > Because people from Microsoft land can't imagine the peer-peer model.
>
> I'd say there's a fair level of support in Microsoft's OSs since '95 for
> peer-peer model - it looks like they can imagine more than you're aware of.
> Perhaps if you spent less time building a screen full of signature for a
I add A LINE when I determine that a person's behavior warrants a
blanket
retort to that person's wave of bs...
> one-line throwaway remark, and more time paying attention to the operating
> system whose newsgroups you're cross-pisting to, you might actually have
> something to contribute.
If you focused on my message, rather than my .sig, you would hear the
message.
>
> I can't say that I'm Microsoft's biggest fan, but please, if you're going to
> attack Microsoft, at least attack them for their true, provable,
> shortcomings, rather than just rolling out the same tired old rumours and
> jokes. Otherwise you sound like you're just jumping on the big boy because
> he presents such a huge target.
Name 5 applications in Microsoft land that are based upon a peer-peer
model.
>
> HAND.
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~
>
> --
> Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us
> 1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
> Cedar Park TX 78613 | us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] VISA / MC accepted.
> Fax +1 (512) 378 3246 | NT-based ISPs, be sure to read details of
> Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "change" <changeme@changeme>
Subject: BEWARE thelinuxstore.com , also known as msquaredsystems.com CUSTOMER
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:35:37 -0400
BEWARE thelinuxstore.com , also known as msquaredsystems.com CUSTOMER
SERVICE BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:51:33 GMT
s_Ea_DAag0n wrote:
> Incorrect. The superblock was bad. The kernel didn't recognize the FS. It
Did you even bother to try giving it another superblock using the -b flag with
e2fsck? I know I've salvaged filesystems on Solaris boxes in the past doing
this when a disk was dying... gave a chance to save the data before the disk ate
it completely.
> didn't even get to run fsck on it. It was unmounted cleanly (at least,
> assuming Linux does it properly on shutdown -r; if not it is Yet Another
> Linux Bug).
Yes, Linux does umount on a reboot, I'm sure you know this. It's not like
windows never suddenly needs to scandisk a fat[32] partition sometimes even when
it's been shutdown.
> Because the kernel architecture of Linux is too broken to support it, and it
> would have to be kludged in. It would be messy, at best.
But you claim it's so important for any OS to be worth your time... so it being
in ther (no matter what it takes) should be more important then how elegant it
is.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Do you know what this is? No, I can see you don't. You have that vacant look
in your eyes that says, 'Place my head to your ear.. you will hear the sea!'"
--Londo, Babylon 5.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:54:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Stephen Bodnar would say:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Bodnar wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well, I dunno. We had a firsthand experience with it here in our neck of
> >> > the woods. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill just about put Lloyd's of
> >> > London out of business when Exxon claimed that the oil spill related
> >> > damages were included in the liability insurance of an oil tanker.
> >>
> >> Sounds reasonable to me.
> >>
> >> Sounds like Lloyd's just plain screwed up and under-bid the coverage.
> >
> >They just figured that the chances of a major spill were so small
> >and so unlikely, that they didn't have the resources available
> >to cover it when it did indeed happen.
> >
> >I would imagine that it is much the same case with Microsoft -
> >the insurance company, even in their worst nightmare never
> >dreamed of having to cover something like this - and are left
> >short cash wise - it's part of the insurance game
>
> The problem comes in if Microsoft makes decisions that make the
> insurance claim increase.
Criminal behavior does have its downside.
>
> _THAT_ is something that the insurance company can fairly legitimately
> object to.
Absolutely. Microsoft want the medical insurance to pay off after
shooting themselves in the foot...with a machine-gun.
>
> After all, the _intent_ of insurance is to have the underwriter take
> on the liabilities associated with _risks._ It is _not_ to have the
> underwriter take on the liabilities associated with costly decisions
> on the part of the insuree.
yeppers.
>
> It is not atypical for insurance policies to come with some conditions:
> --> Life insurance tends to _refuse_ to pay off if you commit suicide;
> suicide is a "risk" that _YOU_ decide to take, and not reasonably
> something they should be providing you coverage for.
> --> It is not unusual for property insurance policies to require having
> equipment and services in place to help prevent problems. The insurer
> may require that you have a fire alarm, or burglar alarm, or other
> such "defensive" materiel.
>
> If MSFT goes and "walks into" bigger legal claims, it is not obvious
> that it is appropriate for them to claim the expenses on a liability
> insurance policy.
>
> They've obviously got a boatload of lawyers around, and if they deploy
> them against the insurance company, they may win on technicalities,
> or may have _already deployed_ them at the time the contract got signed.
>
> If the latter is the case, this provides Yet Again One More Example of
> how making a deal with Microsoft resembles organ donation more than
> anything else...
While you're living, no less. (Think: the Red Chinese prison
system...ACK!)
> --
> "You think you know when you can learn, are more sure when you can
> write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can
> program." -- Alan Perlis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:56:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ccghst wrote:
>
> Darren Winsper wrote in message ...
> >Is having a default password really a back door? After all, any idiot
> >would set a custom password when they install something like that.
>
> Not -any- idiot. IIRC, Jim Seymour wrote some years
> back about walking into a number of Unix shops that
> left the root password set to the installation default.
Some idiots leave their car with the keys in the ignition and the
engine running.
Go figure.
>
> Anyone could login as root (it might not have been Jim
> Seymour who wrote this; it was some time ago)
>
> Never underestimate human stupidity.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:00:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Stefan Ohlsson would say:
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >>Seeing as how a simple buffer overrun was mistreated as a "backdoor" that was
> >>purposely placed by Microsoft, I thought it was only fitting to see how
> >>Open Sores can fall victim to the same thing.
> >>
> >>http://xforce.iss.net/alerts/advise46.php3
> >
> >>"With this backdoor password, an attacker could compromise the web
> >>server as well as deface and destroy the web site."
> >>
> >"If the affected "piranha-gui" package is installed and the
> > [default] password has not been changed by the administrator, the
> > system is vulnerable."
> >
> >So, if the admin installs the package and does not alter the default
> >password, then people who know this default password can log in.
> >Any secutiry-concious admin would change it upon installing.
>
> Indeed.
>
> <http://www.data.com/lab_tests/token_authentication.html> describes
> how security systems have to be competently administered, in that they
> start out with a _default password._
>
> The same sort of thing is true for _ANY_ password-based security
> device, including such "legacy systems" as ATM systems and safes.
> (Remember those big iron boxes with dials on the front? :-))
>
> Richard Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" described the
> 1940's version of the problem, which was where a Seriously Secure
> Military Site installed the latest and greatest in Highly Secure
> Safes, and he was able to "crack" the safe due to the security breach
> that the staff neglected to _change the password._
>
> They thought the safe was secure because it was big, thick, and fancy;
> in contrast, because it was being operated by incompetents, it was
> only secure against people that didn't know that the safe had a
> default setting.
>
> The problem with the web, today, is that it is thrusting people that
> have no _concept_ of computer security into the situation where they
> have to manage computer security.
>
> UNIX-like systems have the _slight_ advantage over Microsoft solutions
> that since they lack a point-and-drool interface, people assume that
> it might require at least a _little_ intelligence to get such systems
> running.
>
> _Reality_ is that anyone that didn't pass the set theory portion of
> their mathematics education should probably not be let anywhere _near_
> computer security. Of course, reality _also_ is that
> Pointy-Haired-Bosses have no concept of this, and so make Other Policy
> Decisions...
And in such situations...
remember the key phrase
"*I* don't make those decisions..."
Which will be garner one of the following responses?
A. "Well, who does?" or
B. "So, who told you to do that?"
[Make sure you know WHO told you to do it]
> --
> "NT 5.0 is the last nail in the Unix coffin. Interestingly, Unix isn't
> in the coffin... It's wondering what the heck is sealing itself into a
> wooden box 6 feet underground..." -- Jason McMullan
My guess would be NT 5.0.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/security.html>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:01:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steinberg wrote:
>
> Drestin Black ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : I claim the trademark on "Open Sores(tm)" :)
>
> You can't, since you idiots stole it from "User Friendly," February 6,
> 1999.
>
> Of course, the original context was that a clueless VP called it that,
> because he's never HEARD of Open Source. The funny part is that a year
> ago, there were still people who hadn't heard of Open Source. In another
> couple of years, we'll look back at a time when there were still people
> who didn't USE Open Source...and we'll laugh.
Of course, 2/3 of the people on the face of the earth still have
never made a phone call.
Imagine...living in a town that has one telephone...and wondering
what it's like to make a phone call. Weird, eh?
>
> --
> David Steinberg -o)
> Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 06:46:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
(...)
> Is having a default password really a back door? After all, any idiot
> would set a custom password when they install something like that.
Apparently, Chad wouldn't set a custom password...
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:03:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > It is stupid to have a default password, but it's hardly a new
> > attack. I've never used Microsoft SQL Server, but I'd wager that it
> > also has a default password...
>
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't. It forces you to type in a password
> during install.
>
> You can put in a default one, but it warns you about it. You can't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of your previous sentance.
Spot the idiocy.
> just keep hitting next and bypass it.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
