Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Not so fast... (Tim Kelley)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: win millenium (Tim Kelley)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Angus Cameron)
Re: Here is the solution (Joe Ragosta)
Slashdot is down ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: What have you done? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Which distribution (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 11:18:24 -0500
In article <8fdju4$4ic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
>> >
>> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>>
>> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
>> first time you see a new type?
>
>How do you tell, the first time you see a .exe file ?
Assuming you understand program execution at all, you know that
the .exe file will have the power to do anything that your
own permissions allow. Does outlook directly execute an
exe file if you try to open it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:20:37 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 05:46:12 -0700, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
>a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
>Is it possible for an ordinary user (not root) to destroy the
>system from a terminal? I think we can all concede that any
>system can be destroyed from the console and any system can be
>destroyed by one with superuser privileges.
>
>A part of the problem here is that Linux source code is available
>to anyone. If you have a plan of the castle it is easier to
>attack it. But I would like to see/hear about a successful attack
>strategy through terminal access, ftp, mail, whatever that does
>not involve prior knowledge of the root password. (Attacks that
>ferret out the root password through some strategy are valid.)
It's plenty easy to get root using an exploit of some kind
if you really know what you're doing. Taking some simple
steps can dramatically decrease the likelihood of your
system being broken into however.
Restrincting remote terminal access to non-routable subnets
and trusted domains is a pretty good start. While not typically
set up by default properly on most distros, this can be put
into place with a fairly generic 'canned' configfile.
(/etc/hosts.deny)
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:22:11 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 16:36:22 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fdcam$29kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
>> >
>> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>>
>> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
>> first time you see a new type?
>
>How do you tell, the first time you see a .exe file ?
If you are running a sensible 'morons OS' then you would be
able to exploit the great and boundless wisdom of the
software development team.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:24:20 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> Fair enough. Do all RPM packages have a PGP sig? Do other package
> formats have it? Does anyone actually use -checksig? What protection
> is there against non-compiled binaries? (besides the easy detection of
> the source modifications?) If someone modified the source and created
> a new RPM with a PGP sig wouldn't it still pass?
No, all do not have pgp signatures, but they do at least have MD5
signatures, which can be checked with rpm -K (I think). This is
still much more secure than installshield.
You bet your ass I would check signatures before installing
network-wide, or on a server. I might be a little more careless
with my own (home) system. But at least the package management
systems in linux distros provide the basis for sane software
management.
the biggest problem with install sheild is that the files are
executables. Package management systems are slightly more
complicated to use (well, GNOrpm is pretty easy), but using
executables to package software is just insane.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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 16:25:00 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 09:07:14 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry, I disagree. Email attachments should *NOT* be executed by your
>>MUA, period. If you get executable content via e-mail you should take
>>the necessary steps to be able to execute it (i.e. save to disk and
>>spawn it from the shell).
>>
>
>What's the major conceptual difference between (a) double-clicking and
>issuing a confirmation and (b) saving to disk and launching from the
>shell? Is it only that the former is "too easy"? Is that really the
No 'one stop shopping'.
>reason behind all the vicious bashing?
Nope.
It's just that the notion of an 'email virus' used to be an
asurdity before MS blurred the line between a document and
a program. Many of us have to deal with the aftermath.
[deletia]
--
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)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:26:53 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 11:32:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
>> >
>> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>>
>> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
>> first time you see a new type?
>
> A smart person does not "open" something unknowned until having
>checked with trusted others about it.
A person should not "need" to be "smart" merely to "open" something.
That rather defeats the point of an ease-of-use system.
[deletia]
Only bad policy creates this enviroment of total paranoia that
you would like subject novice end users to.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:26:39 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > "Getting convicted" isn't a behavior. It's an event that can happen
> > > to a company.
> >
> > You are an absolute silly person. Getting convicted results from illegal
> > behavior. Most companies do not engage in illegal activity. Microsoft did.
> Yes, illegal activity, such as Microsoft's, is a behavior.
>
> Convicting lawbreakers is a behavior of the judicial system.
The defendent is part of the process of a conviction. Defendant behavior
during the act of conviction, a trial and sentencing, has a great impact -
for example doctored videos, memory lapses, denying e-mails.....
http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg051100.htm
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:34:58 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Peter Ammon wrote:
>
>
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > MS does NOT have a right to warn people of possible incompatibilites.
> >
> > You're kidding right ? You'd prefer they just wandered around wondering why
> > something wasn't working ?
> >
> > Sheesh, I suppose you think people shouldn't be warned not to stick knives
> > into toasters, as well ?
> Let's say that Microsoft begins "warning people of possible
> incompatibilities" with Be OS, because, after all, it's possible that
> there are incompatibilities. The end result is that people no longer
> use Be OS and Windows on the same hardware.
>
> Is this OK with you?
More specifically, a toaster is a class of device, not a brand. DR DOS is
a brand MS tested for and issued a nonsense warning.
It is possible the world will end Friday at 1:00 GMT and it is possible DR
DOS will have problems with windows and it is possible MS DOS will have
problems with windows. Possibilites are endless.
If MS knews of a specific performance bug or defect then they can flag the
defect but MS had no such knowledge.
------------------------------
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 16:28:44 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 11:36:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> Is this the 'easy' part of the windows interface? What if you've
>> never seen a .vbs before. What should have prepared you to
>> expect something different to happen than with the .gifs you
>> get all the time?
>
> How about common intelligence? To _not_ open a file you have no
>clue about until you get its contents verified, by someone you trust? HOw
>about some personal responsability people?
...starting with Bill Gates.
"Document" should not be confused with "program".
This whole mess stems from that willful perpetuation of confusion
and arrogance. Operating systems are supposed to manage resources
after all and not just revert the user to the equivalent of
flipping toggles on the front of an Altair.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win millenium
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:29:15 -0500
Martijn Bruns wrote:
> What more can you tell us about it? It's good to know about the
> competition :-)
Don't we already know what new features it will have?
1. Windows ME will be FASTER
2. Windows ME will be more STABLE
3. Windows ME will be more FUN
4. Windows ME will make me more PRODUCTIVE
At this rate, having analyzed trends in M$ OS development, they
will have a stable, fast, fun and productive OS in exactly one
(more) millennium.
For those that have the time to wait, that is.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 11:20:51 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
>> >
>> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>>
>> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
>> first time you see a new type?
>
> A smart person does not "open" something unknowned until having
>checked with trusted others about it.
We aren't talking about smart people here. We are talking about
people running Microsoft products - people who have to have a
picture drawn for them...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Angus Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:24:22 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
> > In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
> > >
> > >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
> >
> > Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
> > first time you see a new type?
>
> A smart person does not "open" something unknowned until having
> checked with trusted others about it.
>
> --
> Da Katt
> [This space for rent]
When did "smart people" become the target market for MS products?
AC
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:33:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
> > > contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
> > > primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
> > > controller?
> >
> > That's a protocol, not an API.
>
> Just because they want to keep it a secret.
>
> They have the symbols all there, I'm sure of it -- they just don't
> want to "create" the API for it.
>
> As for other undocumented APIs, follow this link:
>
> http://www.winehq.com
>
> They have several.
Then there's the original challenge which was to provide the name of a
"secret" API. If we knew what it was, it wouldn't be secret, now would
it?
But that inconsistently seems to escape toddler.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:41:39 -0300
Slashdot is down.
They always have had their share of technical problems,
which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
of the hobbyist software.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 11:37:52 -0500
In article <8fe868$p18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>>
>
>Exactly. Which begs the question, what exactly is the point of this
>feature? Sendmail has been able to pipe email through programs for
>decades. That has many useful applications, such as the vacation
>program and email filters.
Even there the facility to run arbitrary programs has been recognized
as potentially dangereous and there is a way (smrsh) to limit
the programs that can be run to a set selected by the administrator.
>But what possible reason could there be
>for executing code from an email client?
More specifically, what reason is there for letting the sender
effectively choose the program that will be executed and
hiding it from the recipient who only has the choice of
'open' or not?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:29:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) wrote:
>
> >
> >Sorry, I disagree. Email attachments should *NOT* be executed by your
> >MUA, period. If you get executable content via e-mail you should take
> >the necessary steps to be able to execute it (i.e. save to disk and
> >spawn it from the shell).
> >
>
> What's the major conceptual difference between (a) double-clicking and
> issuing a confirmation and (b) saving to disk and launching from the
> shell? Is it only that the former is "too easy"? Is that really the
> reason behind all the vicious bashing?
>
It blurs the distinction between installing and running software
versus clicking on an attachment. Tell the average pc user to install
a program and the first thing most will ask is what does it do?
Who wrote it? Why do I need it? Most pc users have been burned
often enough over the years by virus's. Perhaps the additional
time taken to install the software properly in a more useful
environment for subsequent runs will give the user enough time to
consider the implications of his/her actions.
As for the reason behind all the vicious bashing, it's because
most of us don't really like Bill Gates. We didn't like it when
he stated that unix was insecure with the clear implication that
Windows (all evidence to the contrary) was. We didn't like it when
he stated that unix was 20 year old technology. We also don't like
it when people who should know better defend an obvious MS mistake
on the grounds that MS can't help it if their customers are morons.
[snip]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:28:55 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 07:47:26 -0700...
...and Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That the German government is restricting
> free speech and free religion in this way is frightening given what was
> happening there 2 generations ago.
The Scientology issue is completely unrelated to religious freedom. If
you seriously think that the "Church" of Scientology is a religion in
any way, you must be a damn fool. Actually, Scientology is the
essence of capitalism. It's a corporation that produces nothing, makes
enormous amounts of money and expands all the time, paying its
"employees" next to nothing (instead, cashing in money from them!).
It's unsurprising that this organisation has emerged from the US, is
most popular in the US, and that it has established a firm foothold in
the traditionally greedy personnel of Hollywood. (Scientology's ethos
is clearly being transported by Aaron Spelling's TV shows, to
mention only one example. Spelling is a Scientologist. A Scientologist
with an ugly daughter maybe, but still a Scientologist. ;-)
As for free speech, we handle that a bit different in Germany than in
a lot of other countries. The simple reason is that we want to avoid
"what was happening there 2 generations ago" from happening again. The
restrictions in our constitution become plausible from the context of
its creation and the fact that Germany's responsibility towards the
international community is paramount to our constitution. This is why
we've got constitutional articles of "eternal durability" which are
considered eternal and unchangeable truths and which cannot be
replaced or changed in any way. This is also why the German people
cannot give themselves a dictatorial government even if, by majority,
they wanted to.
It's clear that you probably don't understand that, coming from "the
best country in the world" where the general stance seems to be that
the 5.8 billion non-USAmerican people living on this planet are
completely irrelevant and that your country has never done anything
regrettable or even only wrong.
mawa
--
Windows is the one true OS. MS invented the GUI. MS invented the 32
bit OS. MS is open and standard. MS loves you. We have always been at
war with Oceana.
-- Tracy Reed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:41:43 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:52 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:24:10 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I have actually tested this on netscape, it it complains. I have setup
>>two application accociations in netscape, one a pdf file and another a
>>shell script. The pdf opens up without a single question, the script
>>pops a windows, "This is an executable "sh" script..." and goes on to
>>warn me what could happen if I run it. There is NO way to get rid of the
>>warning.
>>
>>One of the few things Netscape does right. One of the numerous things
>>netscape does better than MS.
>>
>
>How is this "better than MS"? Outlook pops up a warning whenever you
>try to launch any attachment. There's no way to get rid of that
>warning either. This just goes to show that most Microsoft bashing is
>totally mindless.
This 'warning' is much like that joke about the helicopter
pilot lost in the fog in Seattle. The 'correct but useless'
explanation the pilot gets from someone from an office building
clues him in that he's in Redmond.
The warning is far too generic.
The user (who is assumed by MS Marketing doctrine and MS Shills
to be an idiot) is still burdened with the manual task of
determining whether or not a bit of content is inert or not.
Either end users are totally capable of fending for themselves
(and then ultimately capable of running VMS, nevermind Unix) or
they need to be protected from themselves and each other because
they are ignorant or possibly malicious.
Perversely enough, the system that makes the most pessimistic
assumptions about it's users and programs ends up being the less
paranoid enviroment at the user level.
--
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: What have you done?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:43:13 GMT
On 11 May 2000 14:34:18 GMT, Steve Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <RsmS4.15586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher
>Browne wrote:
>
>>>Then use ssh. I'm pretty sure Samba supports some form of password
>>>encryption as well, but it's been a while since I've looked at that
>>>part of the documentation.
>>
>>Any standard system that uses standards that are more than 15 years
>>old have some excuse for being "a tad creaky." FTP was first
>>implemented in RFC 141, back in _1971_. That's nearly 30 years old.
>>
>>No, it doesn't offer password encryption; they didn't consider that
>>important 30 years ago.
>
>
>Actually, I was installing Samba last night, and yes, it does support
>encrypted passwords out of the box (I was talking about Samba in my
>previous post; not ftp).
...coulda sworn that Bughat 6.x requires you to set a flag.
Although, that's not too difficult with Swat. You even get
a handy dandy tool to restart the server and monitor
connections.
[deletia]
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:42:00 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:35:28 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 05:46:12 -0700
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
>>a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
>
>One could in theory overload the partition containing the mail
Disk quotas + a sane mta will prevent this.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:45:04 GMT
On 11 May 2000 15:00:09 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> We should answer all questions courteously. There are no stupid
>> questions.
>
>This is one of the Big Lies. There are of course stupid questions.
>This is one of the Ethically Sound Big Lies, since it is usually used
>on children who are still developing a skin thick enough to withstand
>The World (TM).
A stupid question, sincerely asked of an ignorant person is
far more useful than merely perpetuating willful ignorance
and imposed helplessness.
[deletia]
It's not the knowledge: it's the attitude.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:53:00 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
> josco wrote in message ...
> >On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
> So in other words, you can't provide a secret API call that you couldn't do
> with the normal SDK.
I haven't found a good reason to bother.
Your test is irrelevant - it doesn't include efficiency. The existance
and use of undocumented APIs is proof enough MS cheated. Arguing they had
no purposes presupposes you know how MS competitors were supposed to build
software. The crime is the lack of full access to the OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
