Linux-Advocacy Digest #384, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (CG)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Virus on the net? (William Adderholdt)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Ned Nondo)
Microsoft = Popcorn Farm! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Who is "S"?? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 23:29:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ev79n$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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.
>>
>> Not this particular virus.
>>
>> Active
>>
>> X
> This particular virus is *NOT* ActiveX. And it's not executed
> automatically.
But if it was....wwheeeeeeee watch out. :)
Arent they done with that linux port of active x YET???
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 05 May 2000 19:31:35 EDT
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
>content is auto-executed and email lists are available for anyone to read on
>either platform.
>
then why doesn't it happen in linux or unix?
why do the overwhelming majority of viruses, particularly the macro
and self executing viruses, affect only M$ o/s computers?
>> 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?
>
what up to what my friend?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:43:26 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:21:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
wrote:
:"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:[...]
:
:>You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit.
:
:Well, this is an .advocacy thread, so what do you expect ?? :)
:
:>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?
:
:Possible, yes. Probable, no.
:
:a) There aren't that many possible attachments that could do such
: damage, due to the UN*X way of handling things one-at-a-time.
: For example, most UN*X newsreaders or email clients are just
: that - clients for reading email or news, and not OE-similar
: bloated programs that think to be knowing better than the actual
: user of what's needed next. Yes, there is Netscape, which sucks.
: Real newsreaders or email programs, however, don't need the
: useless overhead of these binaries, and will therefor just do
: what the user tells them to do - and nothing more.
How does OE think it knows better than the actual user? Because it
puts attachments only 2 clicks away? (after a warning message not to
open unknown files) That's pretty weak. I hope everyone understands
the USER has to still click the file twice AND read a warning message
AND hit ok.
:b) Even if a user was foolish enough to execute a binary from outta
: there, it would just hurt the user, not the whole system;
So you're saying the destructive payload (deleting images and mp3
files) would be exactly the same on a UNIX system? Unless you happen
to keep your Mp3 collection under a different user name? Again, very
weak.
:c) UN*X attachments are rather rare :)
There were no e-mail virii for Windows till a year or two either. Just
wait. If the market share ever makes Linux a worthy candidate for
virus attacks and it'll happen.
:So, while it is certainly possible to shoot yourself in the foot
:using either UN*X or MS products, MS makes this the default solution...
:
:Michael
How so? Read the exact instructions on what you have to do in order to
infect yourself with ILOVEYOU.
1) click the paper clip
2) click the attachment
3) click ok after getting this message:
"WARNING: web pages, executables, and other attachments may contain
viruses or scripts that can be harmful to your computer. It is
important to be certain this file is from a trustworthy source"
Exactly how is that the default solution?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:44:52 GMT
On 05 May 2000 10:11:21 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
: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.
What's your theory on why Netscape Mail is free? or why UNIX mail
clients are free? Hmm?
Double standard.
------------------------------
Reply-To: William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Adderholdt)
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:48:10 GMT
In article <MrjQ4.4414$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>
> No, instead it has sh.
Here's the relevant quote from RFC1341:
Content-type: application
Subtypes defined by this document: octet-stream,
postscript, oda
Important Parameters: profile
Encoding notes: base64 generally preferred for octet-stream
or other unreadable subtypes.
Security considerations: This type is intended for the
transmission of data to be interpreted by locally-installed
programs. If used, for example, to transmit executable
binary programs or programs in general-purpose interpreted
languages, such as LISP programs or shell scripts, severe
security problems could result. In general, authors of
mail-reading agents are cautioned against giving their
systems the power to execute mail-based application data
without carefully considering the security implications.
While it is certainly possible to define safe application
formats and even safe interpreters for unsafe formats, each
interpreter should be evaluated separately for possible
security problems.
This RFC is from June 1992, by the way. Either Microsoft doesn't read the
RFC's, or they just didn't "carefully consider the security implications."
As for how Linux handles applications in attachments, I looked through my
mailcap file, and the only application MIME entry I could find was for
Postscript, to use a viewer on the file. No shell scripts. (Though I
did find an entry to execute safe-tcl programs if "swish" was installed
on the system. It was commented out by default.)
William Adderholdt
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:53:47 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:27:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
: Automatic execution of random code is BAD BAD BAD.
It's not automatic. You get a warning it might be a virus.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:54:58 GMT
On 05 May 2000 11:12:33 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
:All those handy APIs and friendly double-clicks lead to disaster.
Do you realize that you get a message box warning you it might be a
virus?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:58:07 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 21:42:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> On Thu, 4 May 2000 19:51:58 -0700, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
:> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:[snip]
:
:> The fact Microsoft has not prevented Outlook Express / Outlook from
:> running any executable programs is an outrage. E-mail was never meant
:> to transfer large binary files. If you want to share files, use an
:> online backup provider. A simple setting in Outlook could have stopped
:> this whole thing. Obviously Microsoft was to busy working on Windows
:> ME(TM) aka Windows 98 SSE (super SE) to plug up a simple security
:> problem that has now created 2 huge (in NBC Nightly News sense) virus
:> breakouts.
:
:Well, it's all part of this integration of things, web stuff,
:interactive apps, e-mail, to try make it all look the same.
:Needless to say, that makes it easy for beginners to use,
:but makes it easy to hack as well.
You get a warning that ILOVEYOU.txt.vbs might be a virus. People open
it anyway.
:
:
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 19:57:02 -0400
In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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?
Even if someone sent a perl script to me, it would not be run. If any
vendor implemented, and this is the important aspect, an e-mail client
that would allow virtually anyone to send you executable content and run
it without so much as a dialog box, no one using Linux would use it.
It would actually be fairly easy to do, but doing so would raise quite a
few warning signals to any developer.
So yes, if your mail client, saved the script, modified the protection
bits so that it can run, and then run it, and did this without asking
the user, that would be a very BAD program indeed.
Now, this gets us back to Microsoft. Microsoft has had more than ample
warning that this is a HUGE problem in its mail program. Any other
vendor would take this vulnerability seriously and fix it the first time
they see it. Which was, by the way, several years before malissa in
Microsoft Word documents. At the point it was hailed as the first virus
of its kind, the first "Macro virus." Right then and there Microsoft
should have been serious about e-mail security.
They offered methods for disaffection, but did not offer any serious
consideration to figuring out, how the biggest, most powerful software
company, which claimed the most geniuses, could prevent this from
happening again. To this day, they do not see that this is fundamental
flaw in the e-mail package.
If you read my post, it is not a Windows bash, it is a Microsoft bash.
Microsoft is a monopoly, if they were a company that had to fight, and
fight hard, for their business, this virus would not have happened,
because they would work at making sure their products were competitive.
An e-mail program, with this huge a security hole, would not be
successful in a competitive market.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Ned Nondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 23:45:48 GMT
Jedidiah wrote:
> That's quite a big IFF.
>
> [deletia]
>
I just wrote a pretty small perl script that searches through any
files that the runner owns for anything that looks like an e-mail
address and stores the addresses in a hash variable. It then uses mail
or sendmail to send itself to other users. If you can get the receiver
to run the script, will it create any less havoc then the I love you
virus? It also could look for network perl modules and do the smtp
transfer without sendmail. It could potentially run on any system that
had perl installed.
Ned
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft = Popcorn Farm!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:15:14 GMT
I agree!
And further, I wonder how many MORE times half the country is
going to go down before corporate IS management get's the idea=20
that Microsoft is a serious security risk?
How many more times? =20
I can remember going down with viruses in the early 90's all
the way thru the decade. This latest virus is CLEAR slap in
the face to anyone running a Microsoft OS as it's based on a=20
simple VB script! Nobody wrote this thing in C and compiled=20
it! It's just a simple script for VB! There was not diabolicle
INVENTION here folks! The person who wrote it I would bet
didn't spend 30 minutes of his precious time and yet managed
to take down 50% of the world with this simple script!
But AGAIN! How many more times are 12 year olds going to=20
take YOUR corporate systems to the ground before the ADULTS=20
running your company figure out Microsoft
is a SERIOUS SECURITY RISK!
HOW MANY MORE TIMES ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THE FULL BLAME=20
AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DROPPING THE CORPORATE NETWORK ON=20
A 12 YEAR OLD BEFORE THEY FACE THE MUSIC!
HOW MANY TIMES MORE WILL CORPORATE SYSTEMS COME CRASHING=20
TO THE GROUND BEFORE THEY FINALLY GET A CLUE HERE! =20
Let me spell it out for you people! In America, we have
houses & cars built and sold every day,=20
BUT NONE WITHOUT LOCKS!
Using a Microsoft operating system is EXACTLY like buying
a car or house WITHOUT LOCKS! Sure! =20
In the Microsoft house we have entire walls which turn
into large screen T.V.'s, Kitchens with robots to cook
the food, a consistent-steril environment which is
odor free! BUT NO DOOR LOCKS! Any kid on the block
can come thru your house on his tri-cycle and take
his can of Krylon spray paint and do some interior=20
decorating, ANY TIME HE WANTS!
HOW MANY TIMES am I going to hear, "YEAH BUT THAT'S BECAUSE
THIS SYSTEM IS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET, THAT'S WHY IT GOES
DOWN AS ANY SYSTEM CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET IS A RISK!"
WELL! If the system isn't connected to the internet then
it's totally WORTHLESS PAL! I didn't realize you were INTO
SCULPTURES! Are you into DECO also?
So I've HEARD TWO excuses from the Microsoft Croud so far!
#1. KIDS, KIDS, KIDS!
#2. It's CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET!
Well, AIRPLANES fly way up in the air and that's dangerous
too! And guess what, kids ride on them also! But if KIDS
made the airplane fall out of the SKY you can bet there
would be an OUTCRY to redesign the plane so it couldn't
happen! Nobody would be saying stupid KIDS! NOBODY WOULD
BE SAYING, YEAH BUT THAT'S BECAUSE AIRPLANES CAN FLY!
Microsoft CLAIMS their system is GOOD on the internet!
That's why you bought the damn system in the first place!
Let's just face facts here!=20
Let's ALL be adults for a change!
LET'S ALL REALIZE THE ISSUES HERE!
To have Microsoft products inside a current day business
is about as smart as buying stock in a popcorn farm!
So! Here's how it's going to be! =20
We can act like ADULTS in corporate IS departments and
MANAGE another OS in to replace Microsofts. That's=20
OPTION #1 and the MOST PREFERABLE.
#2. We continue to act barely as intelligent as the
12 year old who wrote that VB script! I mean to tell
you people that I'm actually shocked to hear the
comments made by some people in the last 2 days!
AND, continue to reload your databases whilst your
down for 2 days, AND CONTINUE BITCHING!
Whilst sitting down on the couch this evening, my=20
small cocker spaniel lap dog started humping my leg
and I thought to myself ~
"At least he has a game plan! Shouldn't we all,=20
Shouldn't we all"
Charlie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 5/5/00, 5:42:20 AM, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding This=20
is Bullsh&^%T!!!:
> 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=20
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=20
was
> competition, this would have been fixed way before Malissa even showed=
> up.
> This is just stupid. Anyone that uses MS Products for e-mail, after=20
this
> one, is a fool.
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered=20
the
> lobster"
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:25:56 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evl0m$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
> >> really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
> >> changes are still underway.
>
> > So how are you supposed to work on your thesis if you can't modify it ?
> > Harass root whenever you want to add a reference or write a paragraph ?
>
> You're an idiot. We're talking about linux and windows WORKSTATIONS,
> dolt. You ARE root.
So a script is just as lethal as it is on Windows, then.
Glad you agree.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:13:01 GMT
In article <CJHQ4.4653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ev58u$gmd$[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?
> >
> > Yes, Unix machines can have mail programs that allow attachments
> > to be opened, or executed (FWIW, my Solaris mailtool will
> > open attachments using the apppropriate program if I click
> > on them). However, the environment that this is done in can
> > be controlled, and process permissions can be limited so that
> > they are not allowed to access system files, or wreak other
> > havoc such as the "ILOVEYOU" one did.
>
> Sorry, ILOVEYOU doesn't access system files. It accesses the
> users address list (which will always be visible to a user, or
> what's the point of having one?) and it overwrites graphic and
> music files belonging to the user. No system files at all.
You're wrong here.
It zapped some of my .JPG and .HTM files on the network filesystem
that the company uses for all users. It looks at all (writable,
IIRC) filesystems that can be accessed.from the infected machine.
At least some of my Unix directories were protection "a+rw",
and even though I didn't run the virus myself, a couple of people
in the company did. Some other .JPG files that were in directories
that had default protection survived. At least I have the menas
to protect myself in a Unix environment, should I need it.
> > Because Windoze has no concept of security, however, there
> > is really no way to limit what such executables do in the
> > Micro$ux environment.
>
> You can't do that in MacOS, BeOS, OS/2 or any other consumer
> level OS either.
I use Solaris whenever I can. It has the capability to
avoid such problems. Too bad I trusted nu colleagues a bit
too much. Fortunately, not much important was lost.
Cheers,
-- Arne
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:27:26 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evl5a$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From *deletion* ? ACLs in NT will do exactly that - allow writes but
not
> > deletion.
>
> > The whole point here is that Unix is no more inherently resistant than
NT,
>
> Yet there are almost no viruses that work on UNIX, and buttloads that work
> on NT. Why is that again?
For the same reason there's bugger all viruses for the Mac, or for BeOS -
no-one writes viruses for OSes less than 5% of people are ever going to use.
A virus on a properly setup NT box is about a dangerous as a virus on a
properly setup Unix box.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:28:23 +1000
"CG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:20:28 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Tell me how this is "hiding"?
> >
>
> Windows warns people not to do things all the time, even things that
> need to be done or are beneficial. It's called the operating system
> that cried wolf.
>
> Anyway, the warning only serves to point out the poor design of the
> program/operating system. M$ wants everything to be point and click.
> that's good for some things but stupid for other things. M$ should
> know the difference. What possible purpose is served by enabling a
> mail program to execute unknown binaries?
SO that when I get something I know is safe, I don't have to screw around
saving it, then navigating to where it is just so I can look at it.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:30:40 +1000
"CG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
> >content is auto-executed and email lists are available for anyone to read
on
> >either platform.
> >
>
> then why doesn't it happen in linux or unix?
Because no-one bothers to write Unix viruses. There's no point since so few
people really use it (and even fewer likely to be infected).
The whole *point* of writing a virus is to get noticed. Be 1337, kewl,
|<-rad etc.
> why do the overwhelming majority of viruses, particularly the macro
> and self executing viruses, affect only M$ o/s computers?
Because they are the overwhelming majority of computers on the market.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:33:36 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
Damn straight. We should all go back to flicking switches on a control
panel to get anywhere. Bah, not even that. Vacuum tubes all the way, baby
!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Who is "S"??
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:28:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 4 May 2000 23:27:48 +0200 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was the Thu, 04 May 2000 14:59:37 GMT...
>...and The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Also, we may see the day when Perl applets will
>> >rival Java applets, since they both are capable of compiling into
>> >bytecode, and a lot of sites already use Perl for various things,
>> >including cgi scripts.
>>
>> Indeed; php, as I understand it, is an embedded Perl interpreter
>> in Apache. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. :-) ) This avoids the
>> overhead of a process fork() without losing the functionality
>> inherent in Perl.
>
>Uh, no. You're confusing PHP3 with mod_perl. PHP is not Perl.
Noted.
One of these days I'll have to get Apache to run this stuff. :-)
(Shouldn't be hard, but time? What's that?)
>
>> Tcl is absolutely brain-dead as a language, but Tk makes
>> up for it. :-) )
>
>Tcl is actually a language with a great concept. But the kind of
>master it takes to write real good Tcl scripts without producing ugly
>hacks can as well master a different language like Perl or Python and
>be more productive with it.
I'll admit, I like Tcl as a concept language; it's almost as clean
as S-expressions in LISP. Unfortunately in LISP, S-expressions
are hard to read. :-) (Although I suspect there are a lot of LISP
beautifiers out there.)
But Perl is definitely a better language. I don't know Python.
>
>mawa
>--
>...Robert Pappert...der Bill Gates der deutschen Chorliteratur...
> -- mawa
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
