Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which OS is WORST? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (mlw)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: Here is the solution (Peter Ammon)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (John & Susie)
Re: Slashdot is down ("Francis Van Aeken")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:39:09 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> That still doesn't indicate that MS's ONLY reason for the message was to
> drive them out of the market. That's the message i'm responding to, the
> fact that driving them out of the market is not the only possible reason for
> it.
Well, since Microsoft's legal argument was that it was product
disparagement, why should I listen to you? Do you work at Microsoft?
Were you involved in writing or implementing the AARD code in any way?
Do you have some special hot line to MS development central? You're
just trying to come up with some "reasonable doubt" in an attempt to
protect your beloved Microsoft.
--
"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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 17:37:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Which point? The content is hidden behind a picture, the program
>> >> that is going to launch is even harder to determine. Your only
>> >> choices are to open or save, and if you save, any subsequent attempt
>> >> to access the resulting file will in fact have the same effect.
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but what the FUCK happened to the possiblity of NOT
>> >opening the damn mail and checking with whoever sent it FIRST? Sheesh. People
>>
>> Why bother with email if you have to exchange the information some
>> other way first? I thought it was supposed to be making things
>> easier.
>
> That statment is tottally idiotic. We were talking about not opening
>and ATTACHEMENT until you knew what it was about, not the bloddy email you
>twit.
No amount of capitalization or misspelling will change what people
actually did, or what they will predictably do again. You can
fool most of the people most of the time if you don't give them
any way to tell what is really going on.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [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 22:29:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > Challenge:
> >
> > Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done
with
> > their *free* downloadable SDK?
> >
> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking.
> >
> > MS provides WIn32 developers with *everything* they need and more.
> >
> > If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one*
undocumented
> > API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
> >
> > I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal
SDK
> > that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
> >
> > All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
> >
> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>
> A quick search of "undocumented API" reveals not one, but two.
>
> RegisterServiceProcess, in KERNEL32.DLL, appears to "Register a
process
> as a service, which means it doesn't show up in the Control+Alt+Delete
> program list," and there is also WNetEnumCachedPasswords in MPR.DLL
> which "Retrieves all of the current user's cached passwords, and calls
> the specified callback procedure with a pointer to each one."
>
> The WINE project also seems to have a great deal of information on
> undocumented Windows APIs.
>
> -Peter
Todd are you there? I've searched everywhere for you're reply on this,
can't find it, can you repost? Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:40:28 GMT
I'm sorry but W2K is the worst!
Even my Microsoft supportive freinds went back to NT and 98.
Microsoft still hasn't pleased ANYONE with a first cut release of
any version I've seen.
I will say one thing on Microsoft's behalf.
I wish them luck on W2K as I really believe this
will be their LAST gammit at building a credible OS.
Die hard Microsoft fans are HOPEFULL that W2K will iron itself out
within one year.
Charlie
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ketil Nordstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 06:41:33 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>Actually, that is why the screens were green. They could have been made
> >>black and white but it was discovered that green on black leads to less eye
> >>fatigue.
> >>
> >>Gary
> >
> >Sure about this? Why are they grey on black these days then?
> >
>
> Could you give us some context here?
>
> There are currently so many options out there it's hard to determine
> what exactly you're talking about. For instance -- I'm using Tera
> Term to ssh into my home box, and it has black characters on
> white, but it can do any color on any other; the Command Prompt
> on NT has white on black; Word and IE have black on white; Netscape
> is black on grey by default (the HTML page, however, can change it with
> a <BODY BGCOLOR> declaration); Xterm is also arbitrarily configurable;
> the standard Linux/ix86 console is white on black, but the
> Linux/Amiga console was white on black with a red cursor at one
> point (that was kinda cool, I think); DOS was by default white on
> black unless one did an escape sequence and could change to any
> one of 8 colors (including black), on 8 colors.
>
> I also have a (regrettably, dead) Wyse terminal that was in fact
> green on black. Windows labels and read-only Windows text widgets
> are black on grey. My bank's ATMs are amber on black (and can
> draw ads...wooooooo).
>
> In short, we have lots of color options out there now. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:58:30 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:25:14 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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?
Note: no response
> > Seems like you think you know everything.
>
> Isn't behavioral conditioning wonderful?
Sure is. Post again, RJ. Make yourself look like more of an unreasonable
jackass.
I'll extend the proverbial olive branch once and only once: What is your
problem with me? If you can express it in a cohesive thought (lacking your
usual baseless insults), I'd sure love to hear it. What did I do to earn such
scorn from you? Do you even know why you're so annoyed with me? I gotta say,
I don't.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:59:36 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:26:34 Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> ˙You have again unwittingly, and witlessly answered my question. Thanks again.
>
> So, which is it? Are you a moron or a RAT. Don't be shy -
> squeak right up.
Do you enjoy beating your wife? Yes or no? Don't be shy - squeak right up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:06:09 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:31:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bit Twister) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:49:59 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 May 2000 22:30:52 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>
>Dangerous, you might want to look here
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-02.html
It's not dangerous in that the Javascript embedded in the
html of a web site or email cannot insert a virus onto my system.
Or otherwise corrupt or retrieve data from my system (which
is what everyone is worried about).
Yes, hackers can apparently play cross-site scripting games.
But that's all in the security context of the browser.
James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
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 19:06:11 -0400
In article <8fdbr1$84f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <39195c3d$20$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/09/2000 at 08:01 PM,
> > > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > > I think we made the fatal error of using Windows PCs and Macintoshes.
> > > > OS/2 PCs are the only things that could save us, right Bob? Not to
> > > > mention kicking out all those E-Ville homosexuals and L*b*r*l
> > > > D*m*cr*ts.
> > >
> > > What a person does in private is not concern of mine. When a pervert
> > > openly advocates an immoral lifestyle, he or she become anathema.
> > >
> >
> > So Bob, what's the name of your country club?
>
> I think I've found someone more pompus than George :).
>
> *Way* more. In a whole different league, in fact.
Don't be so hard on Bob....('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:16:16 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
No, it's not. The email program launches the attachment by sending it to
the shell. It calls the exact same API that get's called when you double
click a document file in explorer. The shell is what determines what
application to launch when the attachment is opened, not the email program.
> MIME has been commonplace in the Unix world for the last 8 years, and
> uuencode/uudecode has been common in Unix many years before that. Still,
> after all these years, it is not common for Unix MUAs to spawn
> executables.
Depends on what you mean by common. Netscape is certainly common and it
does, so is Sun's email client.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:20:49 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
Uhh.. no. It's a protocol. Why would they write an API for something that
the OS already does? The point of making a different domain controller is
to do it on a non-MS platform, which means that an API is meaningless.
> They have the symbols all there, I'm sure of it -- they just don't
> want to "create" the API for it.
How would that be useful?
> As for other undocumented APIs, follow this link:
>
> http://www.winehq.com
>
> They have several.
"There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:23:17 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
You haven't proved the use of undocumented API's in any 32 bit software.
Yet I've proven through objective 3rd party documentation that the use of
undocumented API's in the early Windows 3.x days was almost entirely
leftover from a time when the OS was not an OS. (proving that you lied about
undocumented API's that you were aware of as well).
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:19:01 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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".
> >
> > Actually it does whatever action is under the
> > "filetype\shell\open\command". In other words, if you change the
> > default to be "Edit", then that's what a double click in Explorer will
> > do. Double click in Outlook and you get a dialog to open or save. If
> > you select open, you get "Open" regardless of what the default is.
>
> No, you don't. If you double click an attachment in Outlook it does
> whatever the deafult action for that filetype is (defined in explorer).
That's what happened to me when all I did was change the default to
"edit". It still performed the "open" action. After I changed the
command for open the email attachment opened in notepad. I'll try it
again tomorrow and report the results either way.
>
> IOW, if you change the default action for .vbs files from "Open" to "Edit",
> double clicking a .vbs file [in Outlook] will open it in notepad.
>
> > A pedantic point, but I thought someone might need to know the
> > difference.
>
> An incorrect point.
--
"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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:19:31 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:16:16 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
>> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
>> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
>> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
>> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
>
>No, it's not. The email program launches the attachment by sending it to
>the shell. It calls the exact same API that get's called when you double
>click a document file in explorer. The shell is what determines what
>application to launch when the attachment is opened, not the email program.
It doesn't matter where you pass the buck to. The fact remains
that someone is assleep at the wheel while proven dangerous
programs are being bandied about.
The mailer is at fault for not making distinctions between types
of content as is the shell. The shell is likely also at fault for
having no concept of a 'sandbox'.
>
>> MIME has been commonplace in the Unix world for the last 8 years, and
>> uuencode/uudecode has been common in Unix many years before that. Still,
>> after all these years, it is not common for Unix MUAs to spawn
>> executables.
>
>Depends on what you mean by common. Netscape is certainly common and it
>does, so is Sun's email client.
Name one Unix that doesn't come with uudecode and procmail or
their equivalents? Automated processing of email is considered
mundane in Unix as are format converters.
You don't even need a mail client with eye candy to have fully
access to mime attachments in Unix. You don't even need a user
mail client at all actually.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:28:47 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fepfn$7lq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
>
> I have the feeling that you are going to reply that anything that
> isn't documented isn't an API, but let's take the same issue
> from the other direction where it clearly is an API. How do
> I, on a client, exchange a password in the NT encrypted mode
> using a protocol of my own and a server of my own, and then
> make the client consider itself authenticated in the domain?
I still don't understand the question. A protocol is not an API. An API is
an interface that a program running on a computer can call to get the OS to
do something. A protocol is a stream of bytes sent via a network.
More importantly, the issue here is MS applications taking advantage of
hidden API's, not the OS preventing other OS's from interoperating.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:26:45 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
> > application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
> > content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
> > flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
> > executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
>
> No, it's not. The email program launches the attachment by sending it to
> the shell. It calls the exact same API that get's called when you double
> click a document file in explorer. The shell is what determines what
> application to launch when the attachment is opened, not the email program.
Then this is either a bug in the OS or a bug in the e-mail. It is a bug
in the e-mail because it can't protect the user from malicious content,
or it is a bug in the OS for not providing adequate security for the
e-mail client.
>
> > MIME has been commonplace in the Unix world for the last 8 years, and
> > uuencode/uudecode has been common in Unix many years before that. Still,
> > after all these years, it is not common for Unix MUAs to spawn
> > executables.
>
> Depends on what you mean by common. Netscape is certainly common and it
> does, so is Sun's email client.
When one tries to spawn an executable, or a script, in Netscape. It
makes a very specific warning. When wishes to open pure data, it does
not warn. This is different that Windows, where any attachment is
warned, so the user is accustomed to just clicking through the same
windows without reading them. You can't argue that Windows is easier to
use for the non computer literate and ignore the fact people who don't
understand computers have a tendency to ignore frequent dialog boxes
with the same text.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:32:21 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 15:21:40 -0500, Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Actually, an inline HTML document sent with ActiveX controls will
>auto-execute in Outlook Express upon view. No clicking required.
>
>--
>Mr Rupert
This is not correct. Under the default security settings the user will
get a warning before the activex control is installed in his/her
system and activated in the browser. The warning will contain
information about the origin of the ActiveX control. If you don't
know where is from, you simply cancel it. Another IQ test (as
Bill Gates put it).
James
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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 19:36:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
Why has nobody responded to both of my examples? RegisterServiceProcess
and WNetEnumCachedPasswords are two undocumented APIs. I found them at
http://www.people.unt.edu/~das0015/winapiundoc.html
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:47:36 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ffc7n$3g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A quick search of "undocumented API" reveals not one, but two.
> >
> > RegisterServiceProcess, in KERNEL32.DLL, appears to "Register a
> process
> > as a service, which means it doesn't show up in the Control+Alt+Delete
> > program list," and there is also WNetEnumCachedPasswords in MPR.DLL
> > which "Retrieves all of the current user's cached passwords, and calls
> > the specified callback procedure with a pointer to each one."
> >
> > The WINE project also seems to have a great deal of information on
> > undocumented Windows APIs.
> >
> > -Peter
>
> Todd are you there? I've searched everywhere for you're reply on this,
> can't find it, can you repost? Thanks.
I'm not Todd, but a quick look at the Platform SDK shows that
RegisterServiceProcess is a documented API:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/psdk/win95/95func
_3t0z.htm
I would imagine that WNetEnumCachedPasswords was an internal API used by the
OS. Such API's are common, even under Linux. You won't find many internal
kernel functions listed in man pages for instance. In particular, that
function should not exist, but things like MAPI depend on it. BackOrifice
makes use of that API, so I would expect that API to change in the future.
I know of no Microsoft applications that make use of that API other than
through other API's like MAPI.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:41:17 GMT
Linux can't go bankrupt.
Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
Federal Government, or any other Government.
Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
of
NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
will travel,
it will always be with mankind.
Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
there.
In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
be
with mankind for several centuries.
When I went to the Federal Courthouse one time, I had a man explain
to me that he works for another man who can only be fired by god.
But despite that, a Federal Judge will never be able to do anything
about
Linux.
Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
And for that I feel privileged.
And because Linux has the power of life itself, I really wonder why
people
still have faith that Microsoft will be with us in 10 years much less
20.
Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
100 years old.
Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
anything to write
home about.
Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
And as we all know, mere mortals die.
And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:43:07 -0400
Strange, every reply except JEDIDIAH's has expired on my isp
(Stargate.net)? Considering that they were posted today... ???
John Culleton 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.)
>
> John Culleton
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:47:26 -0300
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Do you mean the one where a hostile website can get its hands in
> your cookie jar, or the one where Microsoft asks to remove
> readers' posts, or ... ? :-)
The second one is quite interesting. We will find out now whether /.
is what it wants us to believe it is, or just a puppet in Andover's
(read LNUX) hands...
Francis.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
