Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Flavour Is Best? ("none2")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
NYC LOCAL: 10 May 2000 GNU/Linux/FreeOS Beginners' Meeting: Alex Khalil will answer
questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Flavour Is Best?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:13:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Rolfe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
> I agree! I just installed Mandrake 7.0 and it is really very good. The
> only thing I would fault them with is the install docs are a tad
> confusing and self contradictory. I found that ignoring the "warning
mandrake is prolly the worse distro i've seen, its basically a copy of
Redhat, btw dont give me that "optimised for pentiums shit" most of RH's
stuff is already -O2 optimised, and the kernel is the only thing that
needs to be optimised, like that 3dnow optimised shit. then mandrake
release version numbers to try to make it look better than RH. for example
a jump to a figure x.0 like 6.0 and 7.0 it would imply something, RH
jumped to 6.0 which was a 2.2.x/glibc 2.1.x upgrade, mandrake 7.0 offers
nothing extra apart from there own installer prog and a general upgrade of
RPMS.
REDHAT:
5.0 major upgrade
5.1,5.2,5.3,5.x minor upgrades
6.0 major upgrade
6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4 minor upgrades
7.0 major upgrade
7.1,7.2,7.x ....
MANDRAKE:
5.0,5.1,5.2,6.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,7.0,7.01,7.02,7.1 minor upgrades
something like that... cant remember the version #'s... u have to be 2
versions ahead of RH
....
> letter" and going with the thinner of the two install docs seemed about
> right for me. In any event, my grahpics adapter was supported by the
> automated install process
> (a first for me) and even my sound card came up and worked. My version
> of Mandrake came with star office which works fine for word processing,
> but I would recomend that you take a look at LyX. KLyX comes with
> Mandrake but I think that LyX is somewhat less buggy. Lyx is a word
> processor
but even there installer program wasnt that great, so they had to upgrade
to 7.01 and 7.02 came out just as fast, now 7.1 beta is here already!,
whats type of upgrading is this? cant the mandrake team wait a while? do
they wanna keep you downloading more ISO images? i think so. for example
RH7.0 will be a major revision, it will incorporate XFree86 4.0, Kernel
2.4.x, possibly gnome and kde2 updates. Now thats a reason to upgrade to
the version number. Mandrake would release 8 by then, oooo coz its got a
bigger number it should be better... bullshit. My version of RH
6.2 works better than any version of Mandrake 7.x, why? Redhat have a
better development model called rawhide and contrib, so theres less
problems. even my flatmate noticed that my 6.1 CD was better than mandrake
7... he had problems Mdk installing detected devices, typical.
Slackware is brilliant example of lets skip versions, what ever happened
to slack 5 and 6...come to think of it, what ever happened to mandrake
1-4? mandrake, it blows chunks, if u want a newbie distro, run windows,
otherwise dont bother with linux...we get so many dumb ass's asking
questions.
>> I'm personally using Mandrake 6.2 and i love it. It comes with a great
>> set of manuals. Plus you get to choose between KDE, Gnome, and X-
>> Windows GUIs.
Mandrake blows
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:33:09 -0500
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:24:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it
> >claims
> >> >to be?
> >>
> >> It doesn't need to know. All it needs to know is that a jpeg veiwer or
mp3
> >> player is a safe application to pass it to, because the application
will
> >> attempt to render the file's contents, instead of attempting to
interpret
> >> and execute the file's contents. If you pass a jpeg viewer a file that
is
> >> not in jpeg format it will report an error. Same with an mp3 player.
> >
> >And how does it know that the application is safe to execute content?
>
> You redesign the email client so that it does. Microsoft has the source
> code to Outlook so they can certainly do that.
Oh sure, and I'll just redesign my wallet so that there is always money
available for me to use.
It's easy to say "Just do something" without offering any real way to do it.
> >Since
> >file types are user defineable, the .mp3 association can point to
anything,
> >including WSH.
>
> The email client should now WSH is not safe to pass untrusted content to.
> Microsoft needs to *innovate* and find a way to fix outlook.
It should? And what if WSH is renamed to ie.exe?
> >And what if there's a link to sh called kview in your path?
>
> There isn't, because I do not intentionally sabatoge my system. It is
> reasonalbe to assume, when designing a security model that an admin will
> not intentionally sabatoge a system in that way. Why do you make such lame
> arguments.
The point is that you can't trust a system to be setup in any given way.
And you can't trust users not to do stupid things on their system. Nothing
stops a user from creating a link in their home directory to any file on the
system they have access to. And more importantly, nothing stops someone
that's compromised a system from doing so.
The recent DDoS attacks worked by compromising a system and installing
trojans. These can lie dormant for who knows how long and activate things
later. Unix systems were one of the major effected systems.
> >But how do you know that notepad is actually being executed?
>
> Because it reasonable to assume when designing a security model that the
> admin won't intentionally sabatoge a system in that way. Why do you make
> such lame arguments.
Is it reasonable to assume that someone else might have sabotaged a system
that way?
> >And should that be hardcoded?
>
> It can simply be registered as an alternete "safe" way to open untrusted
> content. And must I say, it reasonable to assume when designing a security
> model that the admin won't intentionally sabatoge the registry.
It's awfully easy for you to sit back and be an armchair security expert,
isn't it? Have you really thought through all the consequences and possible
ways to circumvent all your great ideas?
> >So now you're asking that outlook perform the duties of the shell (which
is
> >to determine what application to run for a given document).
>
> Either that or have a way of passing to the shell some information about
> the context of execution and have the shell deal with it. Microsoft has
> the source code and the resources to fix the problem.
Oh, so now every existing application that calls the shell has to be broken
to allow for this new level of security?
> >How come unix
> >doesn't prevent the creation of link files to potentially dangerous
> >commands?
>
> Because links are something set up by knowledgeable users or
> administrators and do not introduce content from unknown sources. An email
> client is used by nontechnical users and introduces content from unknown
> sources. Why do you make such a lame comparison.
Or they might be something set up by script kiddies who get clueless users t
o execute content they shouldn't be.
> >A common tactic is to infect otherwise trusted applications with a trojan
> >which does not itself do anything bad to the system. Instead, it enables
> >another program to do bad things. This was an early problem with IE and
> >Netscape. executable were being downloaded as jpeg images, which were
being
> >displayed as broken images of course.
>
> But this does not in itself execute the content.
>
> >But later, a trojan would activate
> >the downloaded content from the cache.
>
> A trojan from where?? A trojan does not just appear from thin air. How
> does this trojan enter the system *and* get executed? Your explaination
> makes no sense at all. Please provide a URL to an account of this bug.
Microsofts security site only seems to go back to 1997. This exploit ws
early in IE3's lifetime in 96 or so.
I don't remember all the details anymore, so i'll drop it.
> >This is what caused MS to make the
> >cache both invisible and randomly named.
>
> And so if you are correct than Microsoft fixed the problem. So why don't
> they fix Outlook?
Microsoft has fixed it. Days ago in fact.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/virus/vbslvltr.asp
The problem is that it takes away a feature that many users like. I see no
way to allow execution of any attachment safely.
> >> >Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
> >>
> >> As long as you don't pass it to the wrong application it is.
> >
> >And how does the application prevent that?
>
> You re-design the email client.
Oh, great. More nebulous "redesigning".
> To do that you *innovate* to find a way to
> implement reasonable level of security with a minimal but finite cost to
> userfreindlyness.
Simply not possible. The only way to prevent the problem (there will be
users that save the attachment and launch it anyways) is to prevent
attachments. That's not going to happen.
> An email client is a entrance way by which foriegn data
> enters a system. You must put security there just as you must lock all of
> the doors and windows to your house. Why is is so hard for you to
> understand that??
Who said it's hard for me to understand. I am simply saying that just about
every suggested "fix" by anyone on this newsgroup isn't a fix. They all
cause other problems or allow the virus to continue in other ways.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
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: 10 May 2000 08:27:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <8fa7e0$490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
>neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
Here's a couple for starters:-
IBM inventors of the IBM PC
IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
--
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: NYC LOCAL: 10 May 2000 GNU/Linux/FreeOS Beginners' Meeting: Alex Khalil will
answer questions
Date: 10 May 2000 04:37:03 -0400
The next GNU/Linux/FreeOS Beginners' Meeting will be on Wednesday,
May 10.
The previously scheduled presentation for this date has been postponed.
Since many have wanted questions answered on a variety of subjects that
might well be of interest to the group as a whole and yet probably
wouldn't otherwise be covered in regular presentations for quite a while
we are setting aside this meeting to give you an opportunity to have more
time for questions and answers. The details of the meeting are as
follows:
Wednesday, May 10
6:30-8:30 Alex Khalil
Full Q&A Session - bring your questions
at CALC/Canterbury, 780 Third Ave. C-1
As usual, the most up-to-date information will be on our web page
http://www.eskimo.com/~lo/linux
A few of the topics likely to be discussed at this meeting are
ppp-setup, minicom, editors, etc.
(A mailto for questions you will want to ask at this meeting may be
added to the webpage section announcing this meeting to allow for
submission of questions in advance.)
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed poC TINC:
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 09:57:02 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your experience is counter to what the evidence suggests. There was a patch
> disk, but it was to fix some bugs in DR-DOS memory management.
>
I have a Windows copy, a DR-DOS copy and a patch disk. What more
evidence do you want? Engraved stone tables?
Here is a list of most of the files the patch disk replaced.
DISPLAY SYS 4752 27/03/92 6:00
GRAPHICS COM 2110 27/03/92 6:00
MEM EXE 11382 27/03/92 6:00
SETUP EXE 81491 27/03/92 6:00
SSTOR EXE 66725 27/03/92 6:00
EMM386 SYS 40522 27/03/92 6:00
HIDOS SYS 21352 27/03/92 6:00
CHKDSK COM 17120 27/03/92 6:00
DELWATCH EXE 10957 27/03/92 6:00
DISKCOMP COM 11655 27/03/92 6:00
DISKCOPY COM 11516 27/03/92 6:00
FDISK COM 18386 27/03/92 6:00
TASKMAX EXE 19186 27/03/92 6:00
UNINSTAL EXE 18925 27/03/92 6:00
LOCK EXE 29696 27/03/92 6:00
LOGIN EXE 15166 27/03/92 6:00
Some of them have to do with memory management, but just about
anything is in that list, so your claim about bugs in DR-DOS is to be
taken for what it's worth.
Please also note the copy date of the files, which should assist the
case of my copy of Windows 3.1 not being a beta (any betas still
around in retail in '92 would have meant serious trouble for
Microsoft's sales figures).
> > The patch-disk replaced a whole bunch of DR-DOS files with "flagged"
> > ones (so I was told) that the Windows copy would no longer recognize
> > as "hostile".
>
> There is no written evidence which supports this. Can you provide some
> links?
>
How do I provide links to a "so I was told" source? The person who
gave me the patch worked at Siemens Belgium at the time; he was
heavily involved in both DR-DOS, OS/2 and UNIX; he knows more than I
do; I repeat what he told me. Remember that all this happened in the
days when there was not yet a "big Bad Microsoft" and Windows was just
another program you could run on top of your operating system (these
days of course it has become a program you _have_ to run on top of
your operating system).
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 09:57:13 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
> neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
>
> Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching about
> Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy, plain and
> simple.
>
True. But most other companies haven't made "We innovate the f*ck out
of you!" their company motto (not unless they can provide some actual
proof of their claim).
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
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 04:14:15 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Office developers have been taking advantage of undocumented API's for
> > > years.
> >
> > They did in the early years. This was proven by Andrew Schulman. But
> > Schulman also proved that the API's used were not advantagous to MS,
since
> > the information was available in other ways.
>
> That is a lie. The one example that I remember best was the API EXCEL
> used to allocate RAM which was much faster and more efficient than the
> public API WINGZ was forced to use. He made it clear that the API gave
> MS an distinct advantage.
>From page 37 of Undocumented Windows (Schulman, Maxey, Pietrek):
Schulman reveals that Excel uses only the following undocumented API's (and
ordinals).
EndMenu (user.187), FillWindow (user.324), Get80x87SaveSize(SYSTEM.7),
GetControlBrush(user.326), GetPhysicalFontHandle(gdi.352),
GetTimerResolution(user.14), InquireSystem(SYSTEM.1),
KillSystemTimer(user.182), LocalNotify(kernel.14),
PatchCodeHandle(kernel.110) and SetSystemTimer(user.11)
None of those functions allocate RAM, much less in a faster or more
efficient way. Furthermore, I don't think Wingz ever existed on the PC, i
think it was Mac and Unix (though I could be wrong on that).
He says in many places that he believes that much of this code is old code
from the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 days when the OS was not as complete. For
instance, EndMenu, FillWindow, and the various GDI functions are all
available from different API's.
PatchCodeHandle was used to allow Microsoft to make Word and Excel
self-compressed executable in the early days. Excel for Windows 3.x and
WinWord 2.0 no longer used this functionality, but the code continued to be
included in the exe.
LocalNotify was documented in Windows 2.x, and serves no real purpose in
Protected mode windows. Again, this seems to be a leftover from Windows 2.x
code that was depricated in Windows 3.0.
On page 38, he states specifically of InquireSystem() "it's hard to see much
use to Draw, Graph and the Dialog Editor. There are documented ways to get
the same information. "
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?" He then
goes on to discuss how simple it is to find this information and how
Microsoft has made no effort to hide the information, especially when using
microsoft supplied tools like CodeView and EXEHDR. His last statement on
this says "The point is merely that that Microsoft really can't be found to
have unfair access when anyone with copies of CVW and EXEHDR has essentially
the same access."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
