Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Rolf Rander Naess)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tholenbot)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux Setup ("John Tankersley")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 19:03:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I use the preview pane, and here's the deal. Attachments aren't even
>>>displayed there. They're accessed through a dropdown menu in the upper
>>>right of the pane. You have to (a) pull down the menu, (b) select the
>>>attachment you want, (c) change the option in the resulting dialog to
>>>"Open it", and (d) hit the OK button.
>>
>>Does that mean that even there you can't tell the difference between
>>a gif and a script before executing it?
>>
>
>Huh? How do you get that from what I said?
I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 19:06:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
>>>"auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
>>>anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
>>
>> Outlook blindly hands content off to the shell.
>>
>
>Hogwash. Outlook doesn't hand off anything unless the user (a) asks
>for it, then (b) actively issues a confirmation despite a clearly
>phrased warning. That's not "blindly", nor "automatically". Look the
>words up if you have to.
If it isn't blind, what is the correct procedure for determining
the difference between a safe image and a dangerous script
before pushing the fatal 'open' button?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:13:37 GMT
On 10 May 2000 22:49:56 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
>> "auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
>> anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
>I wonder why it is so that most of the ordinary MSW users are
>`some moron users'. Could it be they're just misinformed by the OS
>or its makers?
>
>>> It has to be 'easy' and 'secure'.
>> You're forgetting "functional".
>It's apparently included in `secure'.
...nah, just assumed.
The only thing that is missing in 'secure' on the Unix side is
that programs in documents aren't executed. That condition would
likely be far less of a tragedy than a single occurence of an
MS email worm.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:16:04 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:12 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> That's not what the Linux Journal article this month says. It goes on
>> for pages explaining how to share a printer. And BTW they give
>> examples with SWAT also.
>>
>> No way is it as easy as WIndows...
>> Not even close.
Sharing printers is automatic 'out of the box'.
If you need to tweak, you can do it manually with a well documented
config file or a rather simple to use web front end, or with the
other available GUIs.
The scheme is more 'different' than it is 'difficult'. The Unix
schema acknowledges that it is indeed a server that you are running.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
From: Rolf Rander Naess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:13:02 GMT
[ Christopher Browne, 10 May 2000 23:41 ]
> --
> Real Programmers are surprised when the odometers in their cars don't
> turn from 99999 to A0000.
Actually, I would expect it to be 9999A. :-)
rrn
--
(c) 2000 Rolf Rander Næss
http://www.pvv.org/~rolfn/
My mailer limits .sigs to 4 lines. But ingeniously I bypassed this by
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:19:08 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And does he answer the question?
> >
> >Don't you know?
>
> Yes.
Why did you ask the question?
> >> Why, of course not!
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> Read his post.
I did read his post. Meanwhile, you still fail to provide proof.
--
What is allegedly "roly-poly" about the fish heads? Evidence, please.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:59:50 -0400
Brent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <l43S4.345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
>>> display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
>>> innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft
>>> want anyone to know about it?
>>
>> I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
>> message occured in the retail product.
>>
>BULLSHIT!!!!
>I had a retail copy of Win3.1` and it most certainly would not install under
>DRDOS.
I once had a copy of Win95 that wouldn't install under IBM PCDOS, until IBM
wrote a patch that made it report it was MS DOS to WinCrap. --Xerox bought
that copy for me so I would test one of their programs. It was the last time I
was ever willing to use M$ Junkware anything.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "John Tankersley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Setup
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:09:58 -0500
Hello,
My name is John Tankersley. I am seeking some help from anyone that has any
advice or information. I am trying to install SuSE Linux 6.4 on a new
machine. I booted the machine with the first cd installed. The machine
started
reading the cd. I checked the Language and Country to be installed. Next
step, was to started loading base system. The unit does not recognize the
cdrom player. I believe it is a Plextor unit. I went into the BIOS setup
and checked for the boot sequence. I set it to boot A then C. saved it .
Then retryed to installed base system. Unit still does not recognize cdrom
player.
What should I be looking for. I was told that some of the older machines
need a
module installed to recognize the cdplayer. I am not sure if the bios is
upgradable. Thanks for any help.
John Tankersley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:21:48 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fan3l$nsj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, the point of the matter is that Microsoft did it for one purpose
> > only: to damage the competition. The fact that they encrypted it strongly
> > supports this motivation. The fact that they disabled it in the final
> > release does nothing to disprove it.
> >
> > With all the evidence to the contrary, do you really believe that error
> > message was there for a legitimate reason?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
>
> Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991: "drdos has problems
> running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future."
> Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)",
And lo and behold, two years later, it did.
> Clearly damage to the competition is not the only reason that could be
> deduced if there were actual technical problems, which Silverberg says there
> were in internal memos.
>From that same page:
Microsoft had a separate motion for dismissal of the
AARD-related perceived incompatibilities.
Microsoft's defence was not that it hadn't done it
(which it had previously argued), but that it was just
jolly old product disparagement.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:23:03 GMT
On 9 May 2000 23:19:41 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>Well, since the situation under question does not involve the running
>>of any random bit of code, but instead an active decision on the part
>>of the user to run code instead of saving it as is the default, your
>>point would be ... ?
>The point is that the decision was ill-informed because the mailer
>does not distinguish between viewing content and executing it.
>How would it have been better to use the default 'save' and
>then click on it later?
I don't understand -- you prefer for the user not to have ability to
run code at all?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:25:14 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:23:13 "David T. Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ÿ> Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with that.
>
> ÿWhistler's Mother could have come up with that. It was reported in
> ÿabout 10 zillion publications only 2 years ago.
>
> Now you see why I used to think he was a moron (knows
> nothing, yet has an opinion on everything).
And how did you leap to that assinine conclusion? Seems like you think you
know everything.
> I know better now
Apparently not. You're still wallowing in your irrationality and ignorance.
> - he is not a moron - he only acts like a moron in order
> to act out his true nature - being a RAT.
And I do this by asking you for proof for the wildly baseless statements you
make. What a bad guy I am. Wake up, dipshit. Your unwillingness to be held
to some level of accountability has no reflection on me whatsoever.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:26:34 GMT
> > Any particular examples or evidence, or are you just talking out of your
> > ass as usual?
You have again unwittingly, and witlessly answered my question. Thanks again.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:27:42 -0500
Marty wrote:
>
> David Steinberg wrote:
> >
> > But the fact that they encrypted it implies that they didn't want its
> > existance to become public knowledge.
>
> Did they, in fact, actually encrypt it or just compress it? They've been
> compressing their binaries for years. The first compressed executable from
> them I saw came with DOS 3.3. I found it very difficult to poke around
> through it with DEBUG because I couldn't see the real code until it was all
> decompressed in memory, and consequently I couldn't easily map it back to a
> location in the file to change any piece of it.
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
The first step in discovering why the error message appeared
under DR DOS but not MS-DOS was to examine the relevant
WIN.COM code. However, the WIN.COM code that produced this
message turned out to be XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and
deliberately obfuscated--all in an apparent attempt to thwart
disassembly.
The code also tries to defeat attempts for a debugger to step
through it. For example, Figure 2 shows a code fragment in which
the INT 1 single-step interrupt is pointed at invalid code
(the two bytes FFh FFh), which disables DEBUG. The same is done
with INT 2 (nonmaskable interrupt) and INT 3 (debug breakpoint).
However, since modern debuggers (I used Nu-Mega's Soft-ICE) run
the debugger and debuggee in separate address spaces, the AARD
code's revectoring of INTs 1-3 has no affect on the Soft-ICE
debugger. In any case, these attempts to throw examination
off-track are in themselves revealing.
For whatever reasons, while much of it is XOR encrypted, the
code contains, as plain-text, a Microsoft copyright notice and
the initials "AARD" and "RSAA," perhaps the programmer's initials.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:39:17 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39195d3d$21$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 05/09/2000 at 04:20 PM,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> > > They admitted the absence of a wall as far back as 1995. See James
> > > Gleick's 1995 article on Microsoft, which discusses this subject:
> > > http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
> >
> > Actually, the admission was in a book which came out well before 1995
> > called Hard Drive.
>
> Hard Drive was published in 1992.
>
> Mike Maples, in the December 30th, 1991 edition of InfoWorld stated that
> there was no such chinese wall.
MS Execs contradict themselves so you'll find examples supporting both
claims.
In fact the NYTimes made mention of MS's "Chineese Wall" contradictions
in their article today. Who cares what they say since they'll say what
they want regardless of the truth. One would be a fool to take them at
theor word - so we'll just have to break them up.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 May 2000 02:45:38 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|
|Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
||
|| David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|| news:8f9jt2$sml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|| > Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
|| > : Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows. Since Windows has a
|| > : tendency to do some rather unholy things to DOS (particularly the memory
|| > : managers provided with it) notifying users of a DOS which was *known*
|| > : not to be 100% compatible was simply common sense. It was not
|| > : Microsoft's responsibility to debug DRDOS.
|
|MS wasn't asked to debug DR-DOS.
|
|| > Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not belive this action was so
|| > innocent...
|| >
|| > Care to explain the encryption?
||
|| Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
|| supposed to be evidence of guilt?
|
|Nor more than irrelevant comments explain actions deemed to be
|uncompetitive. Maybe you should also rock back and forth.
|
|Encryption is a sign that the communication is not indended to be
|understood.
The rocking back and forth took place during periods of
deafening silence. Erik could learn from that...
Guido
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:45:11 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > 3rd party vendors didn't start supporting OLE for quite some time after
> it
> > > was available.
> >
> > Correct. Because it was not even available to them for several (6+)
> > months until after the release of Power Point.
>
> No, the OLE API was available when with the WIndows 3.0 SDK.
Your dead wrong. MS cheated. OLE was invented by the apps group:
Powerpoint to be specific. OLE was made available to the powerpoint
group first being they were the ones who invented it and understood what
the syntax and the SEMANTICS of the API.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:47:17 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
>
> Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991: "drdos has problems
> running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future."
> Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)",
>
> Clearly damage to the competition is not the only reason that could be
> deduced if there were actual technical problems, which Silverberg says there
> were in internal memos.
MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:55:00 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fctbo$1d5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>I use the preview pane, and here's the deal. Attachments aren't even
> >>>displayed there. They're accessed through a dropdown menu in the upper
> >>>right of the pane. You have to (a) pull down the menu, (b) select the
> >>>attachment you want, (c) change the option in the resulting dialog to
> >>>"Open it", and (d) hit the OK button.
> >>
> >>Does that mean that even there you can't tell the difference between
> >>a gif and a script before executing it?
> >>
> >
> >Huh? How do you get that from what I said?
>
> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 21:55:25 -0500
Umm.. not in my book it doesn't. Please provide quotes and pages.
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> He then goes on to explain how it is an unfair advantage. It allowed
> them to build features on their office suite of products (as an example)
> that were not open to their competitors, and enabled them to write code
> that was deliberately harmful to the proper functioning of competitors
> products on windows machines.
>
> > Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented
functions
> > shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to information
on
> > Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair advantage?"
>
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
>
>
> --
> Salvador Peralta
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:49:59 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:30:52 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As to your point, since Outlook always warns the user of potential
>> malice, any confusion on the user's part is the user's fault.
>
>This is not correct! Just today at work i received some spam mail that when
>it appeared in the previewpane automaticly launched IE and went to some
>weird URL. This is potentially a security risk!
>
>Cheers
This is most likely Javascript embedded in an html document that opens
another browser window (the preview pain in OE is also a browser).
This is no more dangerous then going to a web page the does the
same thing. I get those also..and it's annoying as hell.
James
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:58:47 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fasd8$2rgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8fahm7$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8fah5u$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > You're asking that the OS have artificial intelligence. It should
be
> >> > able
> >> >> > to recognize that a file is not what it claims to be, and somehow
> > deduce
> >> >> > that it's actually a script (who's language may not even exist at
the
> >> > time
> >> >> > the OS was written).
> >> >>
> >> >> MacOS can do this.
> >>
> >> > MacOS uses a resource fork entry to determin file type. This can be
> >> > modified and frequently is.
> >>
> >> Indeed; in fact my favorite name for a program that can do such a thing
> >> is 'forker'. Love it.
> >>
> >> Yet no one seems to be able to embedd MacOS-specific viruses in jpegs.
>
> > I'm sure people can (and have).
>
> Who?
Dunno. But if it is possible, someone, somewhere will have done it.
> I'm actually interested, because so far as I have heard, viruses on
> macs (at least powermacs) are nearly nonexistant.
Of course they are. What would be the point of writing a virus for a Mac ?
Hardly anyone would either a) see it or b) be affected by it.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:00:17 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display
> > data
> > > >and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives
don't
> > just
> > > >display data, they can create new files).
> > >
> > > It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
> > > starting the program.
> >
> > No, it's not. It's the mailer passing the file to shell saying "the
user
> > wants to open this, go dow hatever the default action is".
>
> OK, then it is an OS issue. Fine, MS needs to fix it. It is a security
> bug.
The shell running a script is a security bug ? You _have_ to be kidding.
Would you call "/bin/sh ./myscript.sh" running a script a security bug as
well ?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:55:15 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
> > > > display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
> > > > innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft
> want
> > > > anyone to know about it?
> > >
> > > I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
> message
> > > occured in the retail product.
> >
> > It did occur in the public BETA of windows3.1 and windows 3.1 is a a
> > retail product.
>
> You're arguing that a beta is a retail product?
Windows3.1 is a retail product. A BETA is a compplete, fully functional
version of a retail product and that BETA was released to the public and
was used to disparaged DR DOS.
> > The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
> > Windows3.1.
>
> If no message is ever displayed in the retail version, the the message does
> not exist regardless of the existance of code. What matters is what the
> user can see.
Those are your made up rules. No one cares about your made up rules or
the rules Billy Gates wants to make-up about anti-trust laws.
Developers and corporations were given access to the BETA for planning
and compatibility testing purposes -- they saw the message in a
pubically distributed BETA. Address the facts.
The message was still visble to people who were users of windows and
looked at the binaries and reported that it was still buried in on the
code. The arrogant idiots did not remove it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
