Linux-Advocacy Digest #308, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Feb 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
DVD Audio? Bah! (Mike Martinet)
DVD Audio? Bah! (Mike Martinet)
Re: Interesting article ("Tom Wilson")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Richard E.
Silverman)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Which Linux? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Does Code Decay (Charlie Ebert)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DVD Audio? Bah!
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:21:27 -0700
This is really getting out of hand, and this is probably not the
newsgroup for it, but you're the only newsgroup people I sort of know
right now, and I don't want to take the time to hunt down the right NG
and get to know all those idiots, er users...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/2/15/235953/263
http://www.dvd-audio.co.uk/dvda_copyprot.htm
> Until December 1999, DVD-Audio digital copy protection was to be provided by CSS II.
>However, the
> existence of the DeCSS software hack for DVD-Video has meant that a better copy
>protection was
> needed for DVD-Audio to prevent a similar occurrence. Content Protection for
>Pre-recorded Media
> (CPPM) has been developed by 4C (comprising IBM, Intel, MEI and Toshiba) and uses
>56-bit keys,
> instead of the 40-bit keys used for CSS, and the Cryptomeria Cipher (C2) for content
>encryption. It
> allows for a hacked playback device to be revoked using a Media Key Block (MKB). The
>MKB contains
> a very large number of keys. Each licensed decoder model has assigned to it a set of
>unique device
> keys that allow it to obtain the Media Key (used to encrypt the audio content) from
>the MKB and
> decrypt the audio content. Any playback device can be revoked in future discs via
>the MKB. MKBs are
> unique for every DVD-Audio title and new MKBs must be used every three months to
>allow devices to
> be revoked. CPPM was agreed in mid 2000 and is now available for use by licensees.
>The decoding
> process for CPPM protected audio data is illustrated in the diagram below.
Are you going to buy this? The RIAA is freaking DESPERATE to move us
off CDs onto something that has tons of controls built in. I mean, I
can't even *read* the above paragraph. It's entirely too dense with
shit that has nothing to do with me enjoying music that I've bought and
paid for.
Like when 'they' wanted us to buy CDs because they would be cheaper than
vinyl albums. Yeah, right.
Sorry.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DVD Audio? Bah!
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:22:05 -0700
This is really getting out of hand, and this is probably not the
newsgroup for it, but you're the only newsgroup people I sort of know
right now, and I don't want to take the time to hunt down the right NG
and get to know all those idiots, er users...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/2/15/235953/263
http://www.dvd-audio.co.uk/dvda_copyprot.htm
> Until December 1999, DVD-Audio digital copy protection was to be provided by CSS II.
>However, the
> existence of the DeCSS software hack for DVD-Video has meant that a better copy
>protection was
> needed for DVD-Audio to prevent a similar occurrence. Content Protection for
>Pre-recorded Media
> (CPPM) has been developed by 4C (comprising IBM, Intel, MEI and Toshiba) and uses
>56-bit keys,
> instead of the 40-bit keys used for CSS, and the Cryptomeria Cipher (C2) for content
>encryption. It
> allows for a hacked playback device to be revoked using a Media Key Block (MKB). The
>MKB contains
> a very large number of keys. Each licensed decoder model has assigned to it a set of
>unique device
> keys that allow it to obtain the Media Key (used to encrypt the audio content) from
>the MKB and
> decrypt the audio content. Any playback device can be revoked in future discs via
>the MKB. MKBs are
> unique for every DVD-Audio title and new MKBs must be used every three months to
>allow devices to
> be revoked. CPPM was agreed in mid 2000 and is now available for use by licensees.
>The decoding
> process for CPPM protected audio data is illustrated in the diagram below.
Are you going to buy this? The RIAA is freaking DESPERATE to move us
off CDs onto something that has tons of controls built in. I mean, I
can't even *read* the above paragraph. It's entirely too dense with
shit that has nothing to do with me enjoying music that I've bought and
paid for.
Like when 'they' wanted us to buy CDs because they would be cheaper than
vinyl albums. Yeah, right.
Sorry.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:09:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Giuliano Colla"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > We still use telnet
>> >> >
>> >> > What's with the "we" business?
>> >> >
>> >> > perhaps you use telnet, I can't remember when I last used telnet.
>> >>
>> >> You use SSH, I'm sure, which is the same thing, with sugar coating.
>> >> It's still the same 70's technology.
>> >
>> > Which was used, at least up to last year by Microsoft. Whenever you
>> > install TCP/IP protocol, Telnet gets installed, usually among
>> > Accessories. I don't know if it has disappeared from Win2k, and I
>> > don't give a damn, but I bet it's still there.
>>
>> It is and, wonder of wonders, is a console app that is capable of
>> interpreting color attributes and the like. Far better than their last
>> incarnation.
>
> Actually, to connect up to my Linux box from work, I use puTTY for
> Windows. It works very well. It shows colors. You can increase the
> size of the window, and puTTY handles it properly. It's damn good, and
> free, and works well with the secure-shell daemon.
Fortunately, I don't need the telnet client that much anymore since I've
started doing some of my off-hours development from a VMWare/2K session.
I was almost to the point of modifying a small terminal program I wrote
ages ago to utilize sockets and handle the linux terminal type. I may yet
write one that works with ssh and GPL the source for fun.
> Unfortunately, I haven't found a good Windoze X-server that is shareware
> and that can handle tunneling X over ssh. I'm going to give TeraTerm
> and its companion TTSSH at try again, now that I finally understand most
> of the ins-n-outs of ssh.
I share your difficulty in finding an adequate shareware solution. That's
something that's a little too involved to be hacked together like the
above secure telnet/ssh client. I don't need one badly enough to justify
a full-fledged commercial version. I've not even heard of TeraTerm. I'll
fire up Mozilla and take a look at it...who knows.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me in Crimosoft some day put the functionality of
> puTTY into Windoze. Why not? They can afford to pay for any technology
> they need. However, they are probably banking on their own Terminal
> Server to compete with X-Windows and ssh. That's not a bad bet
> actually, if only because of Crimosoft's current monopolistic position
> in the business and consumer market.
I have a feeling that MS's latest attempts at "innovation" are too much,
too little, too late.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Presently lurking in his Linux Partition
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard E. Silverman)
Date: 19 Feb 2001 03:13:49 -0500
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> > > We still use telnet
Chad> >
Chad> > Only if you're really backwards. It's called ssh these days.
Chad> ...
Chad> It's still telnet, just encrypted. I'm not really sure what
Chad> improvement has been made.
The SSH-2 protocol provides:
- confidentiality via strong encryption
- resistance against insertion and replay attacks, via cryptographic
integrity checking
- resistance to man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks and server spoofing, via
server authentication
- user authentication via an extensible set of methods, including
DSA and RSA public key. Where possible, these methods are also
MITM-resistant, providing defense-in-depth against MITM attacks should
the main protection in the transport layer be circumvented.
None of these features are part of Telnet as it is commonly implemented,
and they constitute quite a bit more than "telnet, just encrypted."
Telnet is trivially sniffable and hijackable; SSH is not. If you don't
think these are significant improvements, perhaps you could explain why
not?
Chad> It's still telnet, just with encryption, and shoddy encryption at that!
Shane> We're still waiting for all this evidence about shoddy encryption in SSH
Markus> there is no 'shoddy encryption in SSH'. this looks like FUD.
Chad> Wasn't a huge exploit found in SSH just a few weeks ago?
Chad> Also, according to the trademark holders of "SSH", OpenSSH is using
Chad> an older, less secure version of the SSH protocol which allows
Chad> it to be exploited in several ways.
These are irrelevant non-sequiturs. The claim that SSH uses "shoddy
encryption" requires specific support: what encryption process is
inadequate, and how exactly is it so? Challenged to provide evidence, you
respond with vague allusions to unspecified recent bug reports, and to
weaknesses in the SSH-1 protocol -- without saying how this connects to
your claim. You later list specific references to bug reports, but these
too fail to support your contention; see below.
Chad> They basically took the brain-dead telnet designed and brought it
Chad> into the 1980's, but it's still all ancient technology.
I'm not sure what you mean by the repeated phrase, "it's still telnet."
SSH has very little in common with Telnet as a protocol, save the
fundamental and very broad idea of a remote-login/connection mechanism
with provisions for negotiating session parameters (such as terminal type,
authentication methods, etc.), and for transmitting out-of-band messages.
What, specifically, are the similarities between SSH and Telnet that you
feel make SSH "brain-dead?" If it's "all ancient," what modern features
would you prefer to see, and what advantages would they bring?
Chad> Same difference. Same 70's technologies. This is great, I love
Chad> how you guys think that SSH is some major advancement.
Requried and recommended algorithms in the current SSH protocols include:
- DSA, proposed by NIST as a standard in 1991, presumably designed
by the NSA sometime between 1987 and then.
- Blowfish and Twofish, designed by Schneier et al. in the early and mid
1990's, respectively
- the HMAC keyed-hash construction: M. Bellare, R. Canetti, and
H. Krawczyk, 1996
- MD5, Ron Rivest, 1991
- SHA-1, NIST FIPS-186, 1994
These are not "70's technologies." Besides, a technology's age is not per
se an indictment of its effectiveness or suitability. SSH also uses 3DES
the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and while these were (mostly) designed in
the 70's, they are still accepted for use today. Please specify what
parts of SSH you consider "70's technologies," and what problems this
poses.
Chad> SSH1 implementations may allow remote system, data compromise
Chad> http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/advisory.html?id=3100
Chad> (OpenSSH uses SSH1, SSH corp uses SSH2)
Chad>
Chad> Remote vulnerability in SSH daemon crc32 compensation attack detector
Chad> http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/advisory.html?id=3087
Chad>
Chad> SSH protocol 1.5 session key recovery vulnerability
Chad> http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/advisory.html?id=3093
Chad> (admittedly in ver 1 of SSH.com, but still present in OpenSSH)
Chad>
Chad> Hostile server OpenSSH-agent/X11 forwarding
Chad> http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/advisory.html?id=3022
There is overlap in these references; there are only three issues
represented here:
1) the counter-overflow bug in the compensation attack detector code
2) the client-side X/agent forwarding bug
3) the Bleichenbacher PKCS-1-1.5 key-recovery attack
The first two are simple implementation errors. In the current state of
the art in producing software, bugs happen. They are found, corrected,
and we move on. The existence of a bug is not an argument against the
protocol or technology embodied in the code. If you have a suggestion for
producing perfect and bug-free software the first time around, I'm sure
we'd all love to hear it. Otherwise, I do not see how listing these known
and fixed bugs constitutes a principled objection to SSH.
The third item is an actual protocol vulnerability. However, it applies
only to an old version of the SSH protocol which is known to be
deprecated, and is thus no argument against SSH in general. Since the
vulnerable design was produced in 1995, and Bleichenbacher's attack was
published in 1998, is is also not reasonable to cast doubt on SSH as a
whole by holding this up as an example of sloppy design; the flaw was
unknown at the time. Moreover, the vulnerability -- while real -- is more
theoretical than practical, since it is infeasible to mount an attack
based on it in many common SSH installations. There are also easy,
effective means to reduce the feasibility of this attack still further,
which mitigates the risk to existing SSH-1 installations.
Finally, none of these three issues supports your earlier claim about SSH
using "shoddy encryption:" the first two are software bugs having nothing
to do with encryption, and the last is a usually-impractical attack on an
outdated version of the protocol.
Chad> > Fixed - and it would have been difficult to exploit in any case.
Chad>
Chad> But it is still an exploit, which was my original point. I was
Chad> questioned about the flaws in SSH, this is but one of many.
Actually, your original point was the completely unsupported claim about
shoddy encryption. If you are also making the point that various SSH
implementations have over time been found to have bugs, then this is of
course a true statement, but utterly uninteresting -- what software does
not have bugs? We find and fix them. It's the design that counts.
Chad> In which version? What about all these Linux boxes with record
Chad> uptime of over a year. Are they still operating on this older
Chad> version?
I don't understand your point here. You do not have to reboot a machine
to upgrade its SSH server; uptime implies nothing about the age of its SSH
installation. And if some installations are old and thus vulnerable to
known and fixed implementations bugs, this is a problem with the local
system administration, not with SSH.
--
Richard Silverman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:30:48 GMT
In article <01c09a0b$cb483a40$28ac8bd4@nigel-laptop>, Nigel wrote:
>> Especially when ONE $100 copy of a "professional" grade Linux
>> distribution can be ***LEGALLY*** loaded onto every machine
>> at a 1500 desktop facility.
>>
>
>Can't imagine this actually happening though - more likely that
>each department in the company would get their own copy.
>Can you imagine how hard it will be to find the CD if any machine
>needs re-installing if only 1 copy exists (of course 1 CD-R per
>department all burned from the 1 master is also possible).
If you used your intelligence and saved the $100 for that so called
professional Linux distribution and just ran Debian, you could
easily manage 10 times that many machines with one ftp server mirrored
to ftp.us.debian.org.
I think more companies and individuals should check into Debian.
I've tried the *MAJOR* Linux distributions and the only one I can
settle for is Debian!
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:37:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> mlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> : The BSA may be doing our work for us. In a Linux/GNU environment, the BSA can
>> : go fuck itself. I think the BSA is probably one of the most disgusting
>> : organizations.
>>
>> Ah, the irony of the BSA ending up forcing people to use Linux, that
>> guarenteed legal freeware UNIX.
>>
>> This with the BSA and .NET is utterly disgusting, digital fascism at its
>> worst. I'm way ahead of my time I suppose, having switched to Linux in 1994
>> _becuse of the cost of software_ and no other reason. And I'm not afraid to
>> tell people in real life that I use _UNIX_ at home. (people freak out that I
>> don't use Windows)
>
>When they ask you why, tell them
>
>a) it's EASIER
>b) All the standard home/office software is available.
>b) one $75 Linux backage has so much software that it would cost
>close to $20,000 to buy the equivalents for Windows (and that the
>standard home/office software is PART of each distribution).
>
>
You know I had to stop and analyze this statement.
I remember counting up packages back in 97 and figuring out that
it would have cost me then $8,000 retail to buy Microsoft replacements
for *EVERY THING* on those CD's then.
Did you realize Woody is rumored to have a target release of July 2001 with
over 6,000 packages this time! Not repeats, but brand new stuff.
I could easily see that it would be $20,000 or more these days.
And the coolest thing about Debian is the CD's are like $12.
And if you download it off the net using your cablemodem, it's free.
How can you beat *FREE*? How can you do that?
It's impossible. And you can copy this software on as many machines
as you like without worrying about somebody sueing you or turning you
into the software police.
It actually runs better than Windows. And it's FREE both in cost and
in license!
>>
>> Linux on my desktop is here to stay. Either that, or some other freeware UNIX.
>>
>> --
>> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
>> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
>> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 19 Feb 2001 08:38:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Which Linux?
You might try Slackware or a distribution-on-a-floppy. Try to avoid the most
recent ones.
5M is very little memory for Linux, especially with X. You'll be happier with
8 or 16. I tried recently Slackware 4.0 (kernel 2.2.5?) on a 386/40 with 8Mb.
X was slow.
Try for something based on kernel 2.0.x.
Alternative: If all you want is command-line UNIX tool familiarization,
consider Minix. Runs off a floppy, installs in <30Mb complete.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
This post is No. 54 056 in a limited edition of 700 000 000. Certificate of
Authenticity attached.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:48:05 GMT
In article <96q2tk$roj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bloody Viking wrote:
>
>Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: When they ask you why, tell them
>
>: a) it's EASIER
>: b) All the standard home/office software is available.
>: b) one $75 Linux package has so much software that it would cost
>: close to $20,000 to buy the equivalents for Windows (and that the
>: standard home/office software is PART of each distribution).
>
>Nice points for sure. A typical distro is if it were Windows would be
>worth a fortune. THAT is why I switched to Linux in the first place. If I
>want, I can make a homebrew LAN by merely assembling a server and installing
>Linux. With Windows, the same thing would be amazingly costly.
>
>Back in 1995, I assembled a LAN, just for fun. Of course, I used Linux,
>Slackware to be exact. I got the thing to work just fine, without too many
>problems, so long as I went Linux-only. I never got Samba to work, but NFS
>worked perfectly out of the box. For a non-techie, that has to be quite an
>achievement, since it was before the time of the popularised home LAN like
>now. The mid-1990s were a formative time for me and Linux and UNIX in general.
>At the time I was attempting to learn computers enough to become a techie but
>my shyness problem prevented my ever becoming a techie.
>
>I alone pointed out that keyboard-wedge barcode scanners are fully
>Linux-compliant. I own one. This discovery is a case of a discovery that can
>be used for business software for Linux. I even coded up a crude cash register
>proggie when I discovered the fact.
>
>--
>FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
>The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
>The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
I can take a high power tool such as WEBMIN and set up an entire lan,
samba, print services, ftp server, users, everything in just 20 minutes.
It's actually quicker than editing the files yourself and you can set up
the entire network from the desk of just one PC. You can manage clusters
of workstations in group.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:50:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Gardner wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:29:33 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>No, critical mass is achieved when you can sustain the reaction, explosions are
>>a side effect of critical mass, not a requirement.
>>
>>
>>--
>Spot on... I was a reactor operator for the US Navy a few years back,
>and Jim is right on this one. You must have a critical mass to have
>an explosion, but an explosion is not the normal (or desired) result
>of having a critical mass. I've seen old submarine reactors where you
>have to pull all of the control rods all of the way out of the core to
>get them to start up, but as long as it can generate a self-sustaining
>fission reaction, you still have a critical mass of fission material
>left in the core, in the proper geometry.
>
>
>Scott Gardner
>
They should have named this thread, can your code get your sued.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:00:09 GMT
In article <HB0k6.53403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > According to the trademark cease-and-desist letter sent to the OpenSSH
>> > folks from the SSH.com people, OpenSSH only uses the SSH1 protocol,
>> > but they may be wrong, I guess.
>>
>> Naw, I wouldn't just call you wrong.
>>
>> I'd go further and call you an argumentative net-kook idiot who can't
>> do his own research before opening his mouth and yammering bullshit.
>
>Well, so far I've posted several links and cited several readily
>available sources.
>
>What have you contributed besides infantile name calling and
>immature profanities?
>
>Do you wish to debate like an adult, or foam at the mouth like an
>idiot?
>
>Post a link refuting my claims. Barring that, shut up and go home.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Well he's right Chad. He's countered your PARAGON with a YAMMERING BULLSHIT!
Looks like a NET-KOOK was thrown in there as well.
I really think you should pack up the PARAGON and go home.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
