Linux-Advocacy Digest #262, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Garry Knight)
Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low (PoD)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:58:00 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
>
>>> Try directing your fire extinguisher at the base of the flames. It's
>>> more effective that way. Feel free to count the number of words
>>> posted by Jason, Aaron, and myself to this global warming thread
>>> prior to the time of your complaint. Then tell me why you're
>>> complaining to me and not them.
>
>> I came complaining to you because all that you did was
>> repeat your favorite phrase over and over and over.
>
>Incorrect. I see that you didn't bother to count. No surprise
>there. Here's another "favorite phrase" for you: you just made
>an unsbstantiated claim.
I didn't need to count, because quite honestly I was
bothered by your stupid cut-n-paste tactics.
>
>> I'm sick of seeing you say the same things over and over and
>> over and I've only read a very few of your posts.
>
>See a doctor.
Fucking twit.
>
>> I'm not trying to put out the fire caused by my flames to you,
>
>I was talking about the fire that Jason and Aaron were pouring
>fuel on.
That was an interesting fire to watch. I personally held
no prejudice towards them in this debate, and enjoyed
watching it (even if it wasn't the most productive debate
in the world, it was fun to watch).
>
>> I'm just trying to prevent others from being burned by flames
>> that aren't aimed at them.
>
>Why aren't you trying to put out flames, regardless of who they
>are aimed at? Oh, that's right. You like morons as long as they
>are entertaining, including their flames.
There's a big difference between saying "I don't mind" and
"I like". A really big difference. I would consider a
moron a friend. But I would watch them from a distance
and laugh heartily at their idiotic escapades. Have you
never watched a Jim Carey movie?
>
>> I was not bothered by the conversation between Aaron and
>> Jason because they were at least writing 'something'
>
>Like insults. Interesting that you weren't bothered by that.
Insults can be funny. Aaron is in my killfile, so the
only insults I see from him are the ones that someone
decided to respond to. As far as any other insults, you
take things way to personally to be a part of usenet if
you take every insult as some grand injustice.
>
>> instead of just hitting 'cut-n-paste' a thousand times and
>> trying to pretend that showed how intelligent they were.
>
>Who allegedly did that in the "Global Warming" thread, Nathaniel?
Who alledgedly did that was you moron. Every post you
make is a direct copy of something else (except this one
suprisingly). Oh, why don't you make up some non-sensical
crap name to call me every time you use my name. Here's
one for you:
"Our-guy-that-can't-put-up-with-tholen's-stupidity-any-longer".
Cut-n-paste that a thousand times you fucking moron. I
won't see it. You've joined Aaron in my illustrious
killfile.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:03:30 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Aaron, you cannot call this stuff propaganda and lies and expect it
>to stick just because you say so. You have not yet offered one piece
>of real evidence that this is the case. You haven't even offered any
>real evidence that the people who think there might be a problem are
>even wrong. Your opinion does not suffice as evidence. Your rudeness
>makes it even less so.
>
>Clearly you have no real leg to stand on. All you do is to mentally
>masturbate and proudly display your self-abusing tendencies by
>spraying your logorrheic discharge all over the world via usenet.
Wow, that's one of the coolest things I've seen anybody
say to Aaron since the last "Why is Aaron's
pain-in-the-ass sig so long" thread. Mind if I borrow
that for a sig line?
>Wow, nice display of how not to win friends and influence people.
>You are a spoiled child.
That is definitely one of his strong suits.
[snip valid observation]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:09:29 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:52:59 GMT, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
>
>> > My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>>
>> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
>
>Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
>his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
>the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
>that bad of an idea...
Yet as tholen is immitative (given sufficient repetition and time on
task), he can be trained to add seemingly new material to his
repertoire.
Evidence: when I taught him to question others' reading comprehension.
True, it is easier to get a masturbation-addicted lab monkey to focus
than tholen, but science is about challenges.
MOUL
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:29:06 GMT
Using a Trojan device driver is the simplest way to do it. The hacker
sites show methods that consist of pushing machine code into memory and
then generating a fault that causes the new code to run. This is
possible because some parts of NT bypass the HAL and go directly to I/O.
I don't want to post the exact code here, but those intrested can find
it on many hacker sites and virus analysis sites. It does take quiet a
bit more knowledge and care than the average VB script kiddie has time
for.
Ermine Todd wrote:
>
> I don't believe that what you describe can be done by other than a Trojan
> device driver that has been installed by the user. And even then, the OS
> will complain and issue warnings on NT. Additionally, on Win2k, attempting
> to install such a device driver would result in a warning that the user
> would have to ignore.
>
> There is no way that a user program (running in ring 3) can switch context
> and suddenly have ring 0 privileges on NT - just can't happen. Likewise,
> there is no way that a user program running in ring3 can perform direct
> memory writes to protected memory. What often confuses people is that they
> forget that EVERY application running on an NT system has a VIRTUAL 4GB
> address space (typically 2GB available for the application) and that ANY
> attempt by a user program to write to protected memory generates a fault
> that is caught by the OS which will then kill that process.
>
> This isn't to say that there aren't security holes but the fundamental
> design is sound.
>
> --ET--
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Both Unix and NT will be open to attacks via root or administrator. But
> > this is about being able to do it without being administrator. It is
> > about not having to reboot to do it. It is also about System being more
> > powerful than either administrator or root. My code and the code posted
> > on the internet both let anyone, even a MSWord document, get System
> > privileges. The design flaw in NT is that some System functions bypass
> > the HAL and go directly to the hardware. The problem in Unix is that
> > some sys admins are stupid.
> > Linux solves the problem on Intel by having users run at hardware ring3,
> > which disallows many machine instructions, even to root. Any Unix only
> > permits root to change drivers NT however is always running at a
> > (hardware) privileged ring so all you have to do is trick it into
> > running a privileged instruction. It seems the only thing preventing NT
> > from running privileged instructions is that the normal Windows
> > compilers do not generate those instructions. So you just need to hand
> > code them into an obj or .exe file ( or just POKE them into memory).
> > That is the theory. I've tried it with 3.1/95/98. Hackers on the
> > internet claim it works also with NT/2K and Me. A variant will attack
> > Linux via root.
> >
> > I think the NT structure was a compromise by MS to make installation of
> > new software easy. Self booting CDs running under Install Shield and
> > changing System files are certainly more convenient than rebuilding the
> > kernel or going through the trouble to administer variant libraries. Too
> > bad it means surrendering control of your system to anyone who pays MS
> > enough money.
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ermine Todd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The device driver software development kit (DDK) is available for
> NT. When
> > > > > you've actually managed to write a kernel level driver and have it
> installed
> > > > > in the system then you potentially be worth listening to.
> > > > >
> > > > > --ET--
> > > > >
> > > > You miss the point. The point is to *bypass* the OS and therefore the
> > > > DDK. I did a short Google search and came up with dozens of hits of
> > > > people doing just that! Some were even commercial products (things
> that
> > > > wanted to do fast DMA for video, games, large data base copies, etc.).
> > > > For an example of the type (not specific) virus look at
> > > > <http://lunateks.com/lunateks/963717948/>.
> > > > (The 95/98 code I wrote turns out to be an improvement on the
> Chernobyl
> > > > virus. Oh Well. )
> > > > (
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Later : I found the basic code for the NT stuff I was writing at a
> site
> > > > on the web. Real cute. Someone has lots more time than I do. How to
> > > > steal NT Ring0 from NT Ring3. How to use NT Ring0 to jump out of NT
> and
> > > > run your virus and then jump back into NT. How to wipe the CMOS on the
> > > > fly ( Your system is dead ... period). How to get an infected file
> pass
> > > > the basic security checks. The level of technical knowledge required
> to
> > > > do anything with this code is way beyond the normal script kiddy. You
> > > > need to know how to use a hex editor, calculate complex checksums,
> speak
> > > > Russian (or Ukranian).
> > >
> > > lyttlec, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but thinking that, by
> installing
> > > a driver and having that driver bust into NT's kernel and do mean things
> > > is a design flaw in NT simply makes you look like more of an idiot than
> > > you already do.
> > >
> > > Anything running in kernel-mode is trusted on just about any system you
> > > look at (include most Unixes). Once you're in the kernel space you
> > > can pretty much usurp control from the kernel and have free range of
> > > the system. There are kernel "root kits" for Unix, NT, and just about
> > > every other server-class OS. I don't think Windows 2000 yet, but there's
> > > nothing stopping anyone from doing it.
> > >
> > > On trusted-class systems that have something equivalent to B or A class
> > > ratings on the TSEC scale will have trusted kernels that check and
> > > prevent root kits and kernel kits from taking control and replacing
> normal
> > > kernel operation.
> > >
> > > Writing something like this (taking over the system, flashing the BIOS
> with
> > > meaningless junk and jumping back into the kernel) on any
> non-trusted-class
> > > OS wouldn't be particularily difficult for someone who has ever written
> > > a device driver. NT is not alone in this vuleneratbility. OSes in the
> > > same class as NT (non-trusted, such as all windows, dos, Linux, Solaris,
> > > BSD, Tru64 Unix and just about every non-Trusted unix and every other
> OS,
> > > MacOS, etc) allows you to install drivers that could potentially usurp
> > > control of the kernel.
> > >
> > > However, on just about every worth-while system (NT/2K, Unix) that has
> > > any type of security infrastructure doesn't allow anyone but an
> administrative
> > > or root-type user to install devices or their drivers, so this whole
> discussion
> > > is irrelevent.
> > >
> > > Once you get root or admin on a Unix or NT box, you pretty much have
> free reign
> > > to wreak all sorts of havoc, everyone in this group agrees.
> > >
> > > So just give it up, this isn't some "l33t NT hax0r" or anything.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > > Ermine Todd III wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted"
> partners.
> > > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > > > you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do
> replace
> > > > > SYSTEM
> > > > > > > > > > functionality.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the
> normal
> > > > > > > > > mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take
> effect. In
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and
> started on a
> > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and
> puts a new
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No
> need for
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BZZZT Wrong. If you have full system priveleges (Ring0 on the
> Pentium)
> > > > > > > > you can do anything, including modifying running programs,
> and have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > changes take effect immediately. Pentium Ring 0 Changes do not
> require
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > reboot. Root and Administrator are demigods. Kernel is GOD.
> Kernel can
> > > > > > > > change your program while it is running. Kernel can make
> Administrator
> > > > > > > > cease to exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sigh, have you ever installed a Service Pack on NT, if you had,
> you'd
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > just how wrong you are about the installation process and what
> Microsoft
> > > > > > > does. But of course you clearly not one to let a few facts get
> in the
> > > > > way of
> > > > > > > an arguement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, at least you make a distinction between Nt and operating
> > > > > systems.
> > > > > > > > Personaly I have built a half dozen or so operating systems.
> How many
> > > > > > > > have you built?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As an RV at Bell Labs in the 80s I worked on early System V and
> have
> > > > > quite a
> > > > > > > lot of experience, just what experience do you have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > So why don't you know the differnce between "root" and "System"? I
> do
> > > > > > agree that System V, Linux, and other Unix variants do make it
> difficult
> > > > > > for any mere mortal to get System privileges. NT, OTH, does not.
> Unless
> > > > > > you show that the code in ring0.exe published by MS in its code
> base
> > > > > > doesn't work.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:48:30 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) wrote:
>
>> Your opinion. I am sure that many W2K developers would say the same
>> thing about MacOS.
>>
>> Still the opinion of ONE developer is NOT going to get me to switch
>> systems!
>
>You don't get it, it's not that ONE developer likes MacOS X, it's that
>THIS one developer likes MacOS X. Both Wintrolls and Linutix were
>triumphant when Carmack said "MacOS sux" 2-3 years ago, because his word
>was gospell.
>
I agree. I think people underestimate how much influence that little
game company has over the personal computer industry. Operating
systems and productivity applications have been seeing diminishing
returns from hardware upgrades for years now. The hardware market is
now driven almost entirely by games, and id Software in my opinion has
more clout than all the rest combined.
Personally, I'd love for MacOS X to be a huge success. Win2K needs the
competition.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:49:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Brian V. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <eNqy5.27045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:writes:
: |> In comp.os.linux.misc Brian V. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: |> : Really? Which ones were those that came with the source code?
: |> BSD
: |> Perhaps the original AT&T UNIX as well?
: I think you had to pay as well as sign a non-disclosure agreement
: to get the AT&T (then Bell Labs) Unix sources.
I believe you're right, but you still got the source code.
--
Jeff Gentry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"You're one of those condescending UNIX users! ...."
"Here's a nickel kid ... get yourself a real computer."
------------------------------
From: Garry Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:38:34 +0100
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, chrisv wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:44:05 +0100, Garry Knight
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I remember sitting in my local launderette building a Forth-based OS for the
>>Spectrum by writing opcodes into a pocket notebook (which, of course, in those
>>days was made of paper). Ah, the good ol' days... :o)
>
>You think that's bad,
I don't, actually. I loved every minute of it. And there's been no hope for me
ever since... :o)
>in tech school (early 80's) we each had to build
>a simple Z80 computer. Programming this computer was done via direct
>machine-code (of course). The really bad part was that loading the
>program into memory consisted of flipping switches on a 8-position DIP
>switch for each byte, followed by a press of a button to load that
>byte in. Talk about stupid!
Looks like we're headed for another re-run of Monty Python's "Three
Yorkshiremen" sketch. "Luxury! When I were a lad we 'ad to bite code in't ROM
wi' ower teeth!"...
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: PoD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 02:25:43 +0930
I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 19:01:01 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >*You're* the one with your knickers in a bunch, not me. That makes it your
> >problem.
> I am? You're the one whining because I won't explain it to you, so
> it's pretty obvious it's your problem, CLund.
You're the one who keeps accusing me of being ignorant. But when you're so
very incapable of producing any kind of information on your own (re the
difference between W98 and W2K), it would seem you're just as ignorant as
I am.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:09:03 +0100
"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, except that the C: drive is hidden. We can only save
> files to a couple of network volumes, storing the physical data on a
> server, or we can save to a floppy. The only thing that can touch the
> C: drive is W2K, which seems to have a habit of slowly chewing up the
> disk.
With what exactly? Presumably if it's filling up the drive you can find out
what it is?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
