Linux-Advocacy Digest #348, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Feb 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Incredible developments in Italy regarding business software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Tim Streater)
Re: Linux web pads? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Check out this Windows bug ("Edward Rosten")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Check out this Windows bug (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:30:03 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> 1.) SSH does have flaws which are still present in a large number of
> installations. So SSH isn't really all that great
> 2.) The vast majority of SSH installations are with SSH 1 which is
> "fundamentally flawed" according to the SSH people themselves.
>
Chad, since you are now on your new witchhunt (SSH), I am sure you will
not answer this, but would you please enlighten us which version of SSH
is shipped with W2K, and why the Telnet service of W2K is fundamentally
broken and what to do about that?
Peter
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:20:00 +0100
dev null wrote:
>
> Be careful what you wish for. How will you advocate, er, I mean who are
> you going to smear once MS and its 'lusers' are gone?
>
>
How about Apple ?
Although now they start to use a decent OS underneath, unlike MS
which still puts out crap, and when it is time to update, instead they put
out new crap.
Peter
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Incredible developments in Italy regarding business software
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:53:44 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam
Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the truth is stranger than fiction file:
>
> http://lwn.net/2001/features/siae.php3
>
> Any Italian wanting to distribute software for profit requires an
> authorising stamp or they could face a huge fine or imprisonment:
>
> "Whoever intends to make a profit ...for commercial or business
> purposes,
> from the use of ...computer programs contained on a medium not bearing
> the SIAE stamp, is subject to a penalty of imprisonment from six months
> up to three years and to a fine from 2500 to 15000 Euros."
>
> Since an SIAE stamp is required for the name of the author, publisher,
> producer or copyright holder a single Linux CD could conceivably require
> hundreds of stamps.
Thousands. At least.
> Adam
Distribute Linux at a price which does not cause you to make a profit,
then sell the services. Would that work?
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:49:50 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[flame elided]
> Another factless avoidance post by the Penguinistas.
Penguinista? Me? <snigger>
> Why do you guys continue to avoid the truth and facts?
Why do you never consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and
that your understanding of the facts might be deeply flawed?
The truth about SSH is that it is a mechanism for doing encrypted IP
tunnelling from one machine to another. It happens to support things
like terminal emulation (what you've been calling telnet in your lack
of clue,) remote execution, file transfer, and GUI. The protocol used
in version 1 of the SSH protocol has a few vulnerabilities, though
they are difficult to exploit in practise, and version 2 of the SSH
protocol (which OpenSSH[*] does support, despite FUD to the contrary)
does not suffer from these problems. Furthermore, it is impossible to
deduce from the long uptimes of Unix systems that they are running old
and buggy implementations of the protocol, since upgrading of such
components can be done without restarting the machine.
The key fact in this discussion is that you are a clueless dipstick,
which is demonstrated by the fact that not only have you shown in this
thread that you do not know what you are talking about, but that when
references which explain what is going on are pointed in your direction
by people who *really* know exactly what they are doing, you fail to
take proper notice and research what they have told you, despite the
fact that they've given links.
May your dog not have to suffer another night of your unwanted attentions.
Donal.
[* An implementation of SSH. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Tim Streater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:13:24 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) wrote:
> rampage (as happened at least twice here). The people decided they wanted
> handguns banned, so the government obeyed the will of the people.
Well not really. There was just a kneejerk reaction in the media and the
Govt went OTT (a bit like the Dangerous Dogs Act). The people enjoying
their sport (of shooting guns in ranges at gun-clubs) were then unable
to pursue this sport.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux web pads?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:38:57 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark Styles"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:41:32 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Until they learn to ask simple questions, such as "Why in the fuck would
>>ANYBODY want to stand in front of the refrigerator to compose and E-mail
>>message", they will remain "Popular Adolescent Fantasies".
>
> I saw an episode of Tomorrow's World (brit TV show, could be described
> as 'Popular Science on TV') where they were demonstrating a net enabled
> fridge. The idea was that whenever you find you're out of milk or
> whatever, you run the carton past the barcode scanner before tossing it,
> and it gets added to your shopping list, then the fridge automatically
> sends the list to the supermarket each week and your groceries get
> delivered.
Shurely you want a web enabled bin, since that's where you put all stuff
your throwing away: you can swipe it on its way in to the bin.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Check out this Windows bug
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:44:06 +0000
>> He was attempting to prepare and move files. What's to question?
>
> I can't believe how bad FAT32 is! Damn, is there a worse filesystem out
> there: severe fragmentation, no symlinks, long file names is really a
> hack, reliability is horrid.
DFS? Found on 180K FM disks. No directory structure, 80 files max. Then
that was abandoned in favour of ADFS about 15 years ago.
> OTOH, I will give FAT credit for one
> thing. Isn't it the best filesystem for very small filesystems, like
> say, for a 1.44 MB floppy, for example?
Nah. ext2 works very well on small floppies, as does ADFS.
> You know, if someone in 1991
> (when I first started using a WinDOS PC) told me 1.44MB floppies would
> still be the norm, I'd never have believed it. Come on - LS120 or some
> equivalent should have long been the standard default floppy drive as of
> 2 years ago. That said, I think LS-120 floppies are too expensive. The
> reason, I believe, is probably due to low volume due to slow sales.
> It's not like magnetic media is going to be around forever anyways.
> Yet, we're still stuck with 1.44MB floppies as the norm. Well, I
> realize you could always install an LS120 later. But, if they were the
> standard, as they should have been, those "super floppy" disks would
> probably cost 1/8 of what they do now.
After 5.25" floppies were standard, it took the brute force of IBM to
force in a new standard. Now noone dominates the market, no new standard
has been forced in. Until a standard is adoptes, sales will remain low.
Whilst sales are low, they will not bw common and therefore not be
standard.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:01:37 GMT
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:01:57 -0700, Mike Martinet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>Thanks for your gracious correction of my obvious ignorance. I'm going
>to go sulk for a while now and nurse my ego back to health.
>
>:)
>
>MjM
It's a common misconception (thinking that NT contains DOS code). The
problem is that Win3.1/9x/ME *does* contain large chunks of DOS, and
there's little cosmetic difference between these OSes and NT. There's
a good history somewhere on the 'net (search google for Dave Cutler;
you're sure to run across it) detailing the history of NT's
development.
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:50:48 GMT
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:40:15 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I don't think IBM ever claimed that you could use DOS and Windows
>> drivers on OS/2.
> IBM was marketing it as a replacement for windows. They misled people
> about the nature of the Windows support.
I disagree. Nobody but the truly cluless thought that OS/2 could use
Windows and DOS drivers. If even they did.
>> DOS and Win3/95 drivers don't seem to work on NT3 or 4. Is that a major
>> flaw in NT, or just a design decision?
>
>Microsoft didn't market NT as a better windows than Windows, and didn't
>market it as a replacement for Windows 3.1.
Yet it had the same UI as Win3, and we were told that it could run most
Win3 applications.
>> > MS made Win32 programs work with existing DOS and windows drivers,
>> > something that OS/2 didn't do. This was important to consumers, as
>> > was the solid look and feel.
>> Of course, Win95 was slower and less reliable (and that's saying
>> something) if you took advantage of this.
>
>Not even, Win95 was much faster than Windows 3.1, and was much more stable
>than 3.1.
I disagree that it was faster. I wil grant that was more stable.
But what I actually meant is that Win95 with DOS drivers was slower and
less stable than Win95 without DOS drivers. I don't recall MS putting
any disclaimers in their marketing material about that. Were they
"misleading" people? You seem to think that IBM was by not saying
"won't use your old drivers" in big bold print at the top of their ads.
>> > The fact that the windows programs had a different look to them
>> > was a constant reminder that they weren't "real" programs
>>
>> You seem to assume that all vendors must conform to Windows to be
>> competitive. Of course, if you start with that assumption, then nothing
>> not from Microsoft can ever be competitive.
>No, I think IBM would have done a lot better if they had made the windows
>programs use the OS/2 look and feel. The problem was that it was very
>different between apps.
That would have been pretty hard to do given the method they used. And
how many apps would break if controls were different sizes or placed
differently or had different message semantics? Sounds to me like you
are trying to say that they should somehow have made their system
identical yet different. MS is the standard to which everyone must
conform. Hogwash.
Even had they been able to do what you suggest, I don't think it would
have made any difference in the long run. In fact, a lot of people
think that too-good Windows compatibility was part of the reason OS/2
failed to attract developer support.
In any case, OS/2 failed because IBM supported it half-heartedly, and
they did that because of MS pressure on the PC company. The GUI had
very little, if anything, to do with it. OS/2 could have been 100%
perfectly Win-compatible and still not been able to make headway due to
"political" factors that were completely out of the control of the
developers.
>> Yes it is. I quoted it up there. You said that Allchin wants Congress
>> to feel that MS is being victimized by kids in garages. The only other
>> way to parse that is that Congress is the one being victimized by kids
>> in garages, but that doesn't make any sense.
>
>No. You said that MS is afraid of these kids. I didn't say that. I said
>MS wants Congress to believe they are being victimized. Two different
>things.
Subtly so. My interpretation is actually more generous, giving them the
benefit of the doubt that they are really afraid. You are saying that
they are liars who will just make stuff up to get benefits from Congress.
>> So you're saying that Allchin is a liar, which is something we can agree
>> on.
>I think he's embellishing, which could be called the same thing. It seems
>to be commonplace today.
Which does not make it right. I don't defend McNeally or Ellison's lies
or and I can't comprehend why you defend Allchin's and Gates'.
How are people, in Congress and out, supposed to make rational decisions
about public policy if it is "ok" for the people involved to just tell
any lie that suits them? That's no way to run a republic. The news
media seem to have abdicated their responsibility to point out when
somebody is lying.
But I digress.
>I'm not condoning it, just saying it happens. Deal with it.
I am dealing with it, by pointing out that he is lying so that other
people can use that information in evaluating the case he makes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:52:45 +0000
>> Trouble is, they're as popular as Hitler was in the 30's. Up another 5%
>> just today, despite Lord Irvine's shenannagins.
>
> Well, look at the opposition. The right wing in the UK at the moment
> tend to give me the impression of being the sort of people who would
> have had two problems with Hitler; that he was head of a party with the
> word "Socialist" in its name, and that he was German.
LOL!
> Crazy xenophobic idiots. I wouldn't put them in charge of organizing a
> piss-up in a brewery...
I agree completely. I think the Lib-Dems are the best bet (ant that's not
saying much). Trouble is, they'll never get in. The only hope is if there
is a hung parliment and the lib-dems form a coalition and exert some kind
of influence.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:54:12 +0000
>> So if someone were to anonamously start mailing ROT13 UUENCODED gifs or
>> other random stuff and entitled it 'SECRET ENCRYPTED BUCKINGHAM BOMB
>> PLANS' to random British (l)users, the random British (l)users could
>> get arrested?
>
> Only if they can't produce decryption keys.
>
> There was a suggestion to mail Jack Straw, the Home Secretary
> responsible for the Act, with encrypted files, then anonymously inform
> the authorities that he was in possession of said files. He couldn't
> produce the keys, so 2 years in the slammer.
>
> Of course, you can't tell anyone about this or you get 5 years.
I don't know what your refering to about the 5 year sentance? I have't
heard of this bit.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Check out this Windows bug
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:04:57 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> He was attempting to prepare and move files. What's to question?
> >
> > I can't believe how bad FAT32 is! Damn, is there a worse filesystem out
> > there: severe fragmentation, no symlinks, long file names is really a
> > hack, reliability is horrid.
>
> DFS? Found on 180K FM disks. No directory structure, 80 files max. Then
> that was abandoned in favour of ADFS about 15 years ago.
>
> > OTOH, I will give FAT credit for one
> > thing. Isn't it the best filesystem for very small filesystems, like
> > say, for a 1.44 MB floppy, for example?
>
> Nah. ext2 works very well on small floppies, as does ADFS.
>
> > You know, if someone in 1991
> > (when I first started using a WinDOS PC) told me 1.44MB floppies would
> > still be the norm, I'd never have believed it. Come on - LS120 or some
> > equivalent should have long been the standard default floppy drive as of
> > 2 years ago. That said, I think LS-120 floppies are too expensive. The
> > reason, I believe, is probably due to low volume due to slow sales.
> > It's not like magnetic media is going to be around forever anyways.
> > Yet, we're still stuck with 1.44MB floppies as the norm. Well, I
> > realize you could always install an LS120 later. But, if they were the
> > standard, as they should have been, those "super floppy" disks would
> > probably cost 1/8 of what they do now.
>
> After 5.25" floppies were standard, it took the brute force of IBM to
> force in a new standard. Now noone dominates the market, no new standard
> has been forced in. Until a standard is adoptes, sales will remain low.
> Whilst sales are low, they will not bw common and therefore not be
> standard.
>
One of the obstacles faced by a new writable media standard is the lack
of need for a replacement. Even a 120mb floppy is puny next to 80gb
hard drives being produced today, which eliminates them as a storage
medium. As far as transfer to another computer, it's easier to use a
NIC. That pretty much relegates the floppy to duty as emergency
backup. For that, 1.4mb is sufficient.
--
Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay
I muck with indices and structs all day
And when it works, I shout hoo-ray
Oh, I am a C programmer and I'm okay
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
