Linux-Advocacy Digest #821, Volume #31 Mon, 29 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14 ("Chad")
Re: Another thing I've noticed. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: C2 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: C2 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: C2 ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Re: C2
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Linux headache ("Andy Walker")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Microsoft is fired.
Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14 (.)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:57:51 GMT
So you are saying that the rh rpm for wu-ftpd still has exposures? Or are
you as useless as your reply appears?
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:954c8i$gu9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have rh 6.2 and recently installed package wu-ftpd-2.6.0-14.6x. My
> > security team says, "Version 2.6.0 still contains security exposures".
They
> > are suggesting to install wu 2.6.1, but I would rather just stick with
the
> > rh rpms. Can someone shed some light on this?
>
> Sure. You're an idiot, do what your security team tells you.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:05:30 -0600
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:41:41 -0600...
> ...and Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
> > >
> > > Blackbox without gnome runs just fine on my 75 megahertz powermac with
32
> > > megs of ram.
> >
> > I'm sure it does. Win2k using Litestep as the shell and turning off
> > services left and right will as well.
>
> Um, yeah. But why bother? I suppose it's much easier to simply install
> some standard Linux distro and use the GUI of your choice than to
> butcher Windows to size, which requires third-party software (Litestep
> does not ship with the Windows CD, or does it?).
I love it. Hacking around in Linux is "configuring", tweaking Windows is
"butchering".
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:08:11 -0600
"Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t1p97t07fol5ab7nnsham3stsdh5ci09i9@news...
> On 24 Jan 2001 16:28:08 -0600, "Conrad Rutherford"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >OK, lesse...
> >
> >W2K:
> >Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
> >install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
> >shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS with a
> >familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock. HTTP,
FTP,
> >Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration of
every
> >device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected monitor
> >and video card and the list goes on. Browser ready, wordpad ready,
> >mediaplayer supporting pretty much every format (and others are a codec
> >autodownload away), graphics editor and viewers, handicapped
accessiblity,
>
> From the sound of your post, you really use that (mentally)
> HANDICAPPED accessibility feature... Hehehhehh.
So tell me, just what support for handicapped people does Linux offer?
How does it handle text to speech?
How does it handle keyboard shift states and mouse emulation?
Does linux fully support unicode? How many languages does it support without
a recompile?
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:10:08 -0600
I'll always admit when I'm wrong - why not?
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Shane for being a better person than the rest...
> >
>
> Probably not a better person. Just more prepared to admit I'm wrong
>
> > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > I've skimmed the document Conrad referred to.
> > > I accept his assertion that C2 applies to the OS only
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:12:11 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 27 Jan 2001 19:18:15 -0600,
> Jan Johanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
> >> >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
> >> >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
> >> >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
> >> >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
> >> >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
> >> >
> >> >-Chad
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
> >>
> >> And now you finally admit it.
> >>
> >> That's a good boy.
> >>
> >
> >Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
>
> incorrect.
Really? OK, prove it.
I find it amusing because if you read right there on the site it's the OS
that's being evaluated and certified, not the hardware. Sure, the tested
hardware is documented but they have an entirely seperate section for
hardware. Read/learn
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:12:14 -0600
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:3a73729a$0$11937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
> >> > >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
> >> > >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
> >> > >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
> >> > >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
> >> > >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
> >> > >
> >> > >-Chad
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
> >> >
> >> > And now you finally admit it.
> >> >
> >> > That's a good boy.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
> >
> >Well, Charlie's assertion earlier was that the OS had nothing
> >to do with it, and that NT wasn't C2 certified, the hardware
> >was.
> >
> >I never denied that hardware was a part, but a very
> >insignificant part of it, contrary to what Charlie would have
> >you believe. Of course, we all know now that Charlie was just
> >FUD'ing to try to obscure the fact that NT has a much more
> >trusted and industry accepted security model than Linux's
> >cheesy permission bits scheme. Maybe they'll learn and put
> >an pervasive DAC implementation in Linux and call it Trusted
> >Linux or something, but that seems unlikely. They seem to be
> >content in arguing that permission bits is somehow more secure
> >or as secure than DAC. Oh well, let them keep their head in
> >the sand.
> >
>
> NT4 got C2 in the UK; but not internationally.
NT4 got C2 in the US because C2 is a US specification.
NT4 got the equivilent of a C2 in the UK because, well, cause it's the UK
and not the US- doh!
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:14:08 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I didn't read the whole 160-odd pages, but it looks like you're right.
> Orange book C2 is purely access control and logging for the OS on a
standalone
> system. Red book adds networking.
>
> >
> > SO, read and remember - certification is for the OS, NOT the hardware.
> >
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
>
>
> The earlier C2 stuff I saw around the time of the NT 3.5 certification
> and much of the later material indicated that it's the *system*, not the
> OS which is certified. For example, is a dual-boot PC (Linux and NT 4) C2?
> If only *you* have the NT partition's Administrator password and *I* have
> the Linux root password I can reboot the system and read data and/or
> alter any log files.
Not necessarily true. The NTFS partition supports encryption.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:17:07 -0600
"CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> Thanks. DOn't you just love the way they pad reports with lots of stuff
> that has nothing to do with the question at hand? Didn't get to read it
> all, but it looks like a network with only Windows NT Workstation 4.0
> w/service pack 6a and NT Server does qualify : you can have individual
> log in and you can track users and make some resources off limits to
> some users. It would take detailed reading to figure out how to
> configure such a system. 193 pages. Lots of talking about object reuse,
> etc.
You know, you didn't bother reading it and you are obviously overwhelmed by
the detail and still you miss the fact that both WS and Server were
evaluated and certified equally. Actually, WS and Server have exactly the
same files, just slightly different registry configurations.
There is "lots of talking about" cause it's a very precise document and has
to fulfill certain very specific requirments of documentation (they even
document the documentation). If it had less information you'd probably
complain that it was too lightweight.... sigh....
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:17:10 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > The Microsoft EULA specifically prohibits publishing ANY performance
> > > data which shows Microsoft coming behind the competition.
> >
> > Lie.
>
>
> Haven't read the EULA have you, shill.
Yes I have and have it in front of me right now. So, I repeat: Lie.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Ever wonder why the ONLY published competitions which Microsoft wins
are
> > ones
> > > where the MS system has significantly more memory and/or CPU bandwidth
> > and/or
> > > disk drives and/or disk bandwidth.
> >
> > Lie.
>
>
> Haven't read the EULA have you, shill.
Yes I have and have it in front of me right now. So, I repeat: Lie.
...'Course this has little to do with the EULA here...
> >
> > >
> > > Hint: Because on identical equipmnet, Microsoft loses, and the EULA
> > > specifically prohibits publishing the results.
> >
> > Lie.
>
> Haven't read the EULA have you, shill.
Yes I have and have it in front of me right now. So, I repeat: Lie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:17:15 -0000
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:05:30 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:41:41 -0600...
>> ...and Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
>> > >
>> > > Blackbox without gnome runs just fine on my 75 megahertz powermac with
>32
>> > > megs of ram.
>> >
>> > I'm sure it does. Win2k using Litestep as the shell and turning off
>> > services left and right will as well.
>>
>> Um, yeah. But why bother? I suppose it's much easier to simply install
>> some standard Linux distro and use the GUI of your choice than to
>> butcher Windows to size, which requires third-party software (Litestep
>> does not ship with the Windows CD, or does it?).
>
>I love it. Hacking around in Linux is "configuring", tweaking Windows is
>"butchering".
I can rip out my windowmanager and the desktop is still functional.
You can't say the same for WinDOS. That's one of the most annoying
things about the like of LiteStep.
Tweaking WinDOS is "butchering" due to the simple fact that it's
not constructed with certain "tweaks" in mind and you have to
work AROUND Windows to achieve them.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:19:11 -0000
On 29 Jan 2001 13:12:11 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 27 Jan 2001 19:18:15 -0600,
>> Jan Johanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
>> >> >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
>> >> >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
>> >> >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
>> >> >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
>> >> >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
>> >> >
>> >> >-Chad
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
>> >>
>> >> And now you finally admit it.
>> >>
>> >> That's a good boy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
>>
>> incorrect.
>
>Really? OK, prove it.
The C2 reporting documents specify more than just the OS.
Certain rather simple things obviously are required to
keep a machine secure even by University computing lab
standards (nevermind the NSA). Leave those basic things
out and you have holes that you could ride a scud through.
>
>I find it amusing because if you read right there on the site it's the OS
>that's being evaluated and certified, not the hardware. Sure, the tested
>hardware is documented but they have an entirely seperate section for
>hardware. Read/learn
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:12:37 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Where is Linux's support for the disabled? Non-existant.
>
As always, Chad is completely without any clue.
You should go back playing with your wintendo-thingy, chaddy-boy.
Mother will later call you for supper.
And don't you dare to tell the grown-ups over there on c.o.l.a any more
lies like non-existant support for disabled, do you hear!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:21:03 -0000
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:54:20 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9549fr$3jj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, the actual data shows that MS software is not very stable no
>> matter what you do to it. Facts are facts. ALL the data that has been
>> coming out about W2K shows that it is less stable than Linux, period.
>
>Which is about as relevant as the price of beer when your Linux + X +
>KDE 2.0 system has just frozen, and none of the usual keypresses rescues
>you.
Then don't run kwm.
You have 20 other options that wouldn't reduce the functionality
of the system in the slightest.
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux headache
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:13:12 -0000
I don't want to start a flame war over this but there is one thing I
want to get off my chest.
Linux is an absolute nightmare to learn.
Now I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert with computers but I'm no
idiot either.
I've owed practically every machine from a ZX81 through to modern PC's and
Mac's but never have I struggled so much in getting to grips with basic
procedures.
A classic example of this is RPM packages. How many times have you had a
failure due to unresolved dependancies and how many times have you finally
loaded it then have no idea how to actually run the bloody program ( let
alone find out where its ended up being installed). I've yet to even find a
program that asks you if you want an option on your tool bar or menu.
Then just to confuse issues you decide to install from source as there is no
pre-compiled version available. Bad idea, all I ever seen to end up with is
a load of obscure errors again.
A classic example occured today. I spent an hour trying to decompress Corel
Paint from a CD-ROM and failing miserably until I realized it was because
the file ended in .GZ instead of .gz . Now alright I know Linux is case
sensitive but for God's sake does it need to be THAT case sensitive!
Now I know a lot of you out there will be sitting there saying how
stupid I am, so save it for someone who cares. As far as I'm concerned, I'm
just an average user who is sick of Micro$oft and I desparately want Linux
to succeed in the market place. However if the companies such as RedHat,
Mandrake etc don't address problems like these, a lot of the momentum will
be lost. All these companies seem to be spending all their time creating
different installers for the O.S. but no one seems to be doing much about
making it more usable. May I be as bold as to suggest someone creates a
standard interface (or Wizard!) for decompressing then building source code,
which preferably involves no obscure commands or syntax, installs the result
and then puts it on the menu bar. Now I know I'm not a programmer and I
wouldn't know where to start with something like this but I know every other
O.S. does have simple to install software and it's about time Linux did as
well.
Hope I haven't upset too many people but it's in all our interests to see
Linux succeed.......
Bye the way, has anyone who isn't a beardy geek (no insult intended)
actually successfully re-compiled their kernel and got exactly the result
they were looking for ???
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:22:10 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > The obvious question is, why isn't Linux on the TPC?
>
> Because no distributions have shipped with the 2.4 kernel yet?
You place a lot on this unproven new release... we'll see... but then
there'll be Whistler...
>
> > Surely,
> > if it was the best, IBM would be looking for any reason to
> > oust MS from #1-#4 on the tpc.
>
> Excellent point - If that's the case, it's just a matter of time.
Yea, we'll see...
>
> > The answer is, Linux isn't
> > anywhere near ready.
>
> You just admitted that Linux smoked windows 2000, as
> well as AIX and all others, in specweb 99 results.
woo hoo, the 99 bench eh? yipee - static content!
>
> How does that translate to "not ready"?
>
> > Likewise, there's no high-caliber database for Linux.
>
> Oracle, DB2, Sybase, Informix, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.
>
> IOW, every database that matters, has a Linux version.
MySQL? PostgreSQL? ahahahahahahahhhhhaaaa
>
> > There's
> > Oracle, but from what I've heard, it doesn't perform anywhere
> > near the way it does on Win2K and Solaris.
>
> Well, you've heard wrong then.
No, he's got it right, Oracle themselves do NOT advise using linux for
anything but the SOHO.
>
>
> > What about a transaction processor? Is there any enterprise-class
> > transaction processor for Linux?
>
> OK, Chad, since you are the acknowledged expert here,
> please explain for us newbies what a transaction processor
> does, and why you think Linux could not run such an app.
He didn't say it couldn't run such an app - merely that there are no such
apps for Linux. And considering what it takes/costs to develop one, I doubt
we'll see one unless IBM ponies up the money for it.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:22:13 -0600
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers once wrote:
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance
rankings?
> >>
> >> Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
> >> there are some windows pcs there -
> >>
> >> My prediction is that these windows records will
> >> be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
> >> aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
> >> will not stand.
> >
> >The Unixes had leap frogged for years, then Win2K came
> >in and blew them away. There may be one that takes the
> >lead, but MS will be right back up there before long.
> >
> >As far as Linux on the TPC, please, don't make me laugh.
> >Linux isn't even ON the tpc, ANYWHERE, let alone on the
> >leader board.
> >
>
> Windows 2000 couldn't even reliably server quake 3 for 6
> people for us last night.
Funny - but I've had a W2K Server running Q3A for almost a year now and
never ever gone down a single time, and often had up to 22 people on it. Ran
Bacardi Limon on it for a while, up to 28 people - never exceeded 4% cpu -
yawn...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:22:55 -0000
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:00:40 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > Just because you're not aware of it, doesn't mean it's not documented.
>> > Hell, .lnk is also hidden.
>> >
>> > Scrap files (.shs) is documented in knowledge base entry Q138275. My
>> > January 2000 copy of MSDN shows a last review date of October 31st 1999.
>> > Although it doesn't mention that the extensions for SHS files are
>hidden,
>> > it does mention that they're special OLE shell objects, which if you
>know
>> > anything about the shell, you know that extensions for shell objects are
>> > hidden.
>> >
>> Well, Erik, there you got one which certainly tells all the world how
>right
>> you are.
>> knowledge base entry Q138275
>> Aha.
>> That is something which even the dumbest windows-luser MUST know about.
>
>Why do you people insist on changing the subject? The subject was about
>Virus writers using undocumented features of Windows, presumeably gained
>through viewing stolen Windows source code. This is not about average
>windows users knowledge, but whether something is documented or not.
Those sorts of back doors were widely exploited long before
anyone stole sourcecode from Microsoft. Plus, automated
rootkits have been available for Windows for quite awhile
now.
[deletia]
Once such rootkits are written, you don't have to be an
expert anymore. Thus the genesis of the term "script kiddie".
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: rh 6.2 and wu-ftp 2.6.0-14
Date: 29 Jan 2001 19:22:28 GMT
Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are saying that the rh rpm for wu-ftpd still has exposures? Or are
> you as useless as your reply appears?
First of all, "exposures" is not the proper term. "Exploits" is what
you mean.
Second, it doesnt matter whether you use the RPM, install from source,
or pull it straight out of your colon, 2.6.1 fixes the *severe* hole
present in 2.6.0. Redhat doesnt maintain wu-ftpd.
If you dont fix it, you deserve exactly what you get.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 29 Jan 2001 13:24:07 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LQ7d6.33732$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers once wrote:
> > >
> > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Chad Myers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance
rankings?
> > >>
> > >> Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
> > >> there are some windows pcs there -
> > >>
> > >> My prediction is that these windows records will
> > >> be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
> > >> aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
> > >> will not stand.
> > >
> > >The Unixes had leap frogged for years, then Win2K came
> > >in and blew them away. There may be one that takes the
> > >lead, but MS will be right back up there before long.
> > >
> > >As far as Linux on the TPC, please, don't make me laugh.
> > >Linux isn't even ON the tpc, ANYWHERE, let alone on the
> > >leader board.
> > >
> >
> > Windows 2000 couldn't even reliably server quake 3 for 6
> > people for us last night.
>
> Ah yes, and here we have it folks! Everyone stop buying
> Win2K because Kevin was too incompetent to keep his box
> running. Never mind that we have no idea what hardware he
> was using, what other software he was running, what was
> the exact problem he encountered with Quake3, or the
> fact that Quake3 really isn't all that great of a game
> and tends to crash frequently on any system.
>
No, don't blame Q3. It's quite stable. Blame Kevin for being incompent in
not having a box capable of doing what every 13 year old with a copy of
Win95 running on his uncapped cable modem can do for months on end...
laughable I'll tell you...
We run Q3A in a terminal Service session here, 24x7 with 28 player slots on
a 3mb/s feed. Never gone down ever, even when running beta point releases.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
