Linux-Advocacy Digest #376, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus on the net? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Virus on the net? (Russell Wallace)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Are we equal? (TNT)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Mike Palmer")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Mike Palmer")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Joe Pfeiffer)
Re: Virus on the net? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 May 2000 11:12:33 -0600
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5 May 2000 15:18:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type could
> >> be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
> >> email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
> >
> >Then do it. I'll happily test it for you on:
> >
> >Mandrake linux 7.0
> >Redhat 6.2
> >SuSe 6.3
> >
> >I'll happily check my email apon notification that its been sent with:
> >
> >Netscape
> >Balsa
> >pine
> >elm
> >mutt
> >
> >You write it, ill run it. I shall give you no clues at all about how any of
> >the three systems are set up---that should be utterly irrelevant. (since
> >it is under windows apparantly).
>
> If I send you an email with an attached "rm -rf $HOME/*" script and
> you run it, your files will be deleted.
Pine (my emailer) won't run it. It'll only save it to disk.
If I used Windows, I'd make sure my client did the same.
[snip]
> In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
> it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
> destructive.
Outlook makes it *too* easy to fsck up your computer.
All those handy APIs and friendly double-clicks lead to disaster.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:31:45 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
could
> >easily be read.
> >
> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
> >
> >No, instead it has sh.
>
> So fucking what? No linux e-mail client automatically executes
> attachments.
And no windows e-mail client does either. Get it through your head. This
virus does *NOT* auto-execute. The user chooses to open it, that's the only
way it spreads.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:32:15 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Sorry, but this virus is *NOT* run automatically. It's only run by
> >executing the script attachment. The user must physicall execute the
file.
> >
>
> The standard settings for outlook were to automatically execute
> attachments.
>
> Get over it.
Untrue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:26:40 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:51:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Auto-executing content is part of what makes windows user friendly,
>> and Linux will have to do this if it ever wants to play in the same
>> game as Windows. That's simply a fact. Users won't put up with it
>> when they have an OS which will do that for them.
>
>Sun's sendmail used to be configured to automatically uudecode email
>for its users. That's one of the reasons sendmail has such a bad
It't not the binary decode that's a problem. An unexecuted
virus or trojan is still moot. It's EXECUTING that 'virus'
that's the problem.
>security rep. A few more virus's and I suspect MS will be as
>user-unfriendly as unix.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:31:02 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CG wrote:
> here it is in all its glory.
>
> rem barok -loveletter(vbe) <i hate go to school>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*lol*
That must be the funniest example of a "not necessary because it's
obvious from the code" comment I've yet seen.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 5 May 2000 12:21:02 -0500
In article <xhdQ4.77518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft can't take the credit for that. This again is something
>> where all the 3rd parties are doing the work. Individual ISPs make
>> it easy for WinDOS users to connect to their service.
>
>And just how did the ISPs do that? Did they develop the "three click" system
>on their own and then gave it to Microsoft? Doubtful to say the least. Prior
>to any modem connection to the ISPs the OS needs to setup and initialize the
>modem.
OS initialize the modem??? Perhaps you have forgotten how horrible
Windows 3.1 really was. Or you are just very young. Windows 3.1
didn't do anything with modems. ISPs generally supplied a
preconfigured third-party (Trumpet, etc.) winsock that did
everything necessary. This was all well established practice
before Microsoft was interested in dial-up tcp. They did have
a downloadable TCP for windows-for-workgroups that was necessary
for file/print sharing over tcp, but it did not do dialup and in
fact did not co-exist with third party products that did.
>Microsoft did make these steps easy on their own, without the help of
>the ISPs.
Yes, perhaps as part of the strategy to force everyone to upgrade
to Win95, they never did suppy the 3.1 dialer, but integrated
PPP into the win95 setup.
>Windows user's don't need to read "Sane PPP documents" to use a
>modem.
That depends on having a suitable .inf file for your modem. Try
doing PPP over a direct serial connection which should be the
easiest thing of all.
>On the Linux side Caldera's 2.4 version, AFAIK the only one, does the
>same as Windows. It correctly detects and sets up the US Robotics modem. To
>make the connection to the web, enter the phone number and user's info and
>off it goes. No need for editing cumbersome config files. 5 years after
>Windows95, but nonetheless working just fine.
I've never had any particular trouble using the RedHat control-panel
setup that has been around for years.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 12:28:00 -0500
In article <n0zQ4.3$dv6.148@client>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Checking the Microsoft home page. Not even a mention of the virus. It is
>> Microsoft's fault that the "ILOVEYOU" virus can spread so quickly and so
>> bad, and they don't even mention it on their site.
>>
>> They have had ample warning, and ample evidence that their e-mail client
>> design is far too insecure for real use, and they have had ample time to
>> fix it. Because of their monopoly, they have no incentive to fix it.
>> Because they are a monopoly, industry, world wide, suffers. If there was
>> competition, this would have been fixed way before Malissa even showed
>> up.
>
>
>You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type could
>be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed from
>email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
If you detach it, make it executable, and execute it, of course the
same thing would happen. It is the concept of automatically executing
something from an insecure source like email by just opening it
that is insane.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:37:28 -0500
CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type
could
> >be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed
from
> >email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>
> You missed the point. the reason this worm spread so quickly is
> because so many people use outlook, and the only reason so many people
> use outlook is because M$ gives it away for free, and the only reason
> M$ gives it away for free is to bankrupt companies writing email
> programs, so that M$ can extend its monopoly grip to all software on
> your computer. Once that happens M$ can charge plenty for its crappy
> email program.
Do not be so arrogant as to believe that this could only happen to Outlook.
The worm does nothing that could not also be done on Unix or Linux. No
content is auto-executed and email lists are available for anyone to read on
either platform.
> anybody who uses outlook should have their heads examined.
Is it going to take someone to write such a virus for Linux to wake you
people up?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,talk.politics
Subject: Re: Are we equal?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:38:30 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 22:38:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>TNT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 May 2000 22:27:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>When you think about how the woman kidnapped the son, and left the
>>>country, should she have been american, she would be considered a
>>>criminal.
>>
>>It's actually a good deed to kidnap (it's really a rescue) a child and
>>bring him away from an oppressive country like Cuba which's often been
>>condemned for human right records and carrying a US embargo. Should she
>>have been american, there's no such reason she would have fleed from the
>>country politically. Even those who are communists often want to become
>>American.
>
>Let's turn the tables. When a Saudi-Arabian man kidnaps (or do you
>perhaps prefer the term "rescues") a child he has with an American
>woman and brings the child to Arabia, where she can be "properly" raised
>in an environment away from the "atheists" in the US, would you agree
>with that too?
>How about when the father dies in a carcrash during the process and the
>child is raised by distant relatives who refuse to give her to the US
>mother because she will not be veiled in the US?
One important fact that can not be ignored is that there isn't any noticeable
amount of people from the US or similar _free_ countries taking political
refugee in Saudi Arabia or any communist countries, where as there are
millions of those from the _other_ worlds in the US alone and tens of
millions more have lost their lives either staying there or on their way of
fleeing. It's easy to judge which country is better based on that fact.
Of course, politics aside, you'll have to count on that country's justice
system. And, IMO, you could have better chance with justice in the US.
>
>>Your reasoning is the exact reason why Elian's mother wanted to take him
>>away from Cuba where people have no right to take care of their own
>>business. The Communists take care of everything for you - from your body
>>to your soul.
>
>How long have you lived in a communist country to have had this
>experience?
Most of my life (but I'm not a refugee, however).
I think, I'd probably do the same way as Elian's father (acting as a patriot
to my country, not for the sake of my kid), were I in the same place with
him, but that as a result and success of the communists' brainwash on my
youth. You can find in textbooks from the 1st grade on to the university,
they've been teaching kids to love communism and its leaders, to hate and
treat the capital world as their lives' enemy, and that's their citizen's
duties. I was shocked to find it out only when prepairing mother-tongue
textbooks for my kid.
>
>I personally don't care about the political aspects of the Elian
>dispute, other that that I really pity the fact that the boy is being
>abused politically by *BOTH* camps.
You can't ignore that aspect in this case, because it's caused and motivated
politically. Why Elian's mother risked her and her son's lives fleeing in the
first place?? Brainwashed by the Cuban American??
>All I know, is that if my kid was
>kept away from me by distant relatives, I would not show the patience
>that Elian's father has.
You would if you have the same agenda. Would you with common sense, refuse
for months, to come by yourself to deal with US court of justice for the sake
of your son, even when suggested to do so at the beginning??
>Cheers,
>Rob
Regards,
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:49:24 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev0b0$10dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type
could
> >be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed
from
> >email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>
> If you detach it, make it executable, and execute it, of course the
> same thing would happen. It is the concept of automatically executing
> something from an insecure source like email by just opening it
> that is insane.
I agree. But let's repeat it again. YOU DO NOT GET THIS VIRUS SIMPLY BY
READING THE EMAIL. YOU *MUST* EXECUTE THE ATTACHMENT IN ORDER TO INFECT
YOUR SYSTEM.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:45:32 -0700
Reply-To: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 05 May 2000 11:48:02 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 5 May 2000 15:18:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> >In any case, blaming Outlook, VBScript, or WSH is idiotic. Actually,
> >it's the very essence of FUD, and as such it's misleading and
> >destructive.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Treating binaries like inert data is BAD BAD BAD.
>
> Automatic execution of random code is BAD BAD BAD.
>
> There's no two ways around it.
Always good to check things first.
Outlook doesn't automatically execute anything. What it does do is allow you
to launch attachments without saving them first.
Launching scripts is not automatic. You have to do it manually. I got around
ten copies of the email yesterday, and read them all in Outlook Express. The
attachment did not automatically execute.
In addition, Outlook puts up a window warning about virus possibilities when
you try to launch an attachment. The default action is to save the
attachment to a file.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:46:38 -0700
Reply-To: "Mike Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev0b0$10dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <n0zQ4.3$dv6.148@client>,
> Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you detach it, make it executable, and execute it, of course the
> same thing would happen. It is the concept of automatically executing
> something from an insecure source like email by just opening it
> that is insane.
And that doesn't happen in Outlook Express. So, what's the problem?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:56:11 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 12:49:24 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ev0b0$10dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type
>could
>> >be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed
>from
>> >email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>>
>> If you detach it, make it executable, and execute it, of course the
>> same thing would happen. It is the concept of automatically executing
>> something from an insecure source like email by just opening it
>> that is insane.
>
>I agree. But let's repeat it again. YOU DO NOT GET THIS VIRUS SIMPLY BY
>READING THE EMAIL. YOU *MUST* EXECUTE THE ATTACHMENT IN ORDER TO INFECT
>YOUR SYSTEM.
Yup. And the 'ease of use' OS tends to try and make that as likely
as possible, while hiding these security issues from a group of end
users that are presumed to be ignorant to begin with.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:57:02 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 12:37:28 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus type
>could
>> >be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments can be executed
>from
>> >email, is that not possible with Netscape on LINUX?
>>
>> You missed the point. the reason this worm spread so quickly is
>> because so many people use outlook, and the only reason so many people
>> use outlook is because M$ gives it away for free, and the only reason
>> M$ gives it away for free is to bankrupt companies writing email
>> programs, so that M$ can extend its monopoly grip to all software on
>> your computer. Once that happens M$ can charge plenty for its crappy
>> email program.
>
>Do not be so arrogant as to believe that this could only happen to Outlook.
>
>The worm does nothing that could not also be done on Unix or Linux. No
...assuming you have an applications vendor stupid enough to
treat foriegn executables in a casual manner...
That's quite a big IFF.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 05 May 2000 11:36:12 -0600
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> I think i've finally realized why criticism of X really pisses you
> zealots off. X is the one area where WinBLOZE beats Linux and UN*X in
> general. Granted, i absolutely adore Linux (I USE IT WHENEVER I CAN!)
> but let's face it's not perfect (no present OS is).
> Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
> (I could be wrong about this but) Surely this wouldn't be the first
> time that an integral part of the UNIX architecture was replaced with
> something superior. Reliable signals, for instance.
No, it's because we hear the same criticisms every couple of months,
and every time it's from somebody who doesn't understand how X works,
repeats a lot of urban legends regarding its performance, and doesn't
understand the different roles of the server, the window manager, and
the toolkit used to create applications.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
VL 2000 Homepage: http://www.cs.orst.edu/~burnett/vl2000/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:00:30 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 12:31:45 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
>could
>> >easily be read.
>> >
>> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>> >
>> >No, instead it has sh.
>>
>> So fucking what? No linux e-mail client automatically executes
>> attachments.
>
>And no windows e-mail client does either. Get it through your head. This
>virus does *NOT* auto-execute. The user chooses to open it, that's the only
>way it spreads.
...at which point it 'auto-executes'.
This scheme places a burden of being saavy and careful upon a
userbase not particularly well known for either characteristic.
Whereas, you would be hard pressed to find any Unix mail app that
would equate 'open it' to 'execute it' either in an interactive
context or non-interactive one.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
