Linux-Advocacy Digest #394, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (J.B Moreno)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Ammon)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Sam Morris")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Sam Morris")
Microsoft Antitrust Case & Computer Industry Competition - C-SPAN2 (jtnews)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 22 Feb 2001 02:11:25 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:29:47 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>No...that was the TAX COLLECTOR.
>
>Robin Hood merely returned to the people what was wrongfully stolen
>from them by Little John's tax collectors.
Get it right. It was the Sheriff of Nottingham. Little John was one
of the good guys.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 22 Feb 2001 02:17:50 GMT
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:19:00 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>That's why Bush's plan primarily benefits the richest 1%, right ? And it's
>>also why the democrats are opposing it -- because giving huge tax breaks
>
> ...because the republicans are advocating it.
>
> No other motivation is required really.
Then why have the Democrats been fairly supportive of GWB's education plan?
Even Senator Kennedy, hardly the most non-partisan Democrat, spoke
favourably of the plan.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.B Moreno)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:18:12 -0500
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J.B Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-snip-
> >> I'm saying the person that originally decided to GPL his software owes
> >> nothing to you, don't pretend he does. Project 2 doesn't tank "because"
> >> of GPL, it tanks because the author is unwilling to put forth the effort
> >> to complete it.
> >
> >Right. And if the project 1 requirement is that the author gets to
> >sleep with your sister or you pay a million bucks, or you have to have
> >your balls cut off before you can use project 1 in project 2, then again
> >it isn't the "fault" of project 1, it's simply that the project 2 guy
> >was unwilling to put forth the effort to meet the requirements.
>
> Or you could quit whining, stop making up fantasy reasons why you should
> have unrestricted access to someone else's intellectual property, and
> start coding.
What?!? I'm not whining, I'm agreeing with you -- if the guy wants to
require that you pimp your sister out to him before he'll let you use
his IP then that's his right, if he wants a million dollars to let you
use his IP that is also his right. If he wants to require that you GPL
2000 hours of your hard work if you want to use a library that it took
him 10 hours to develop, then that too is his right. No difference.
See? I agree with you -- it's his IP and he can put any condition upon
it's use that he wants to, including requiring that it only be used with
other GPL'd software.
--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:39:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:59:09 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> . ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> : > Actually, a recent independent study (again, quoted
>> : > by Microsoft Press Corp, but still independently proven)
>> : > has indicated that Microsoft's Win2k servers can regularly
>> : > incur up-time in the '5 9's' range. 99.999%.
>>
>
>This man is lying.
>
>That's 5 9's for a CLUSTER of 5 Lose2k machines.
>
>which is pretty pathetic...it means that with 4 or fewer Lose2k
>machines, it's almost certain that ALL FOUR MACHINES WILL BE
>DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY for at least 5 minutes per year.
>
>Solaris can accomplish this with ONE machine.
>Linux too.
Perspective check: 99.999% = a little more than 5 minutes per year downtime.
(Is this total downtime, or just unscheduled?)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 17d:13h:41m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 22 Feb 2001 02:51:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : I don't think it's going to be that easy to market Linux to the working
: : class. Most users are still techno-geeks, and most of these are middle
: : class (or filthy rich) college kids.
: I have to agree, but the effective death of warez would make non-Linux
: computers useless to the working class. I'm one of the few working class Linux
: users to be found ANYWHERE.
There are tens of millions of Linux users in the Third World whose
living standards do not begin to approach those of working-class people
in the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
Joe
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:56:05 +1300
> >which is pretty pathetic...it means that with 4 or fewer Lose2k
> >machines, it's almost certain that ALL FOUR MACHINES WILL BE
> >DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY for at least 5 minutes per year.
> >
> >Solaris can accomplish this with ONE machine.
> >Linux too.
>
> Perspective check: 99.999% = a little more than 5 minutes per year downtime.
> (Is this total downtime, or just unscheduled?)
Unscheduled downtime... I doubt there are many NT machines out there
that don't need their 'maintenance reboot'.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 22 Feb 2001 02:55:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: If we can't steal copyrighted Windows then must we practice birth control
: too Mr. AK. I'm positive the planet can contain 10 billion people.
If long-term trends hold, it will contain far more than 10 billion
people soon, and most of those people will live more comfortably than
most of the current 6 billion do now.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:57:17 GMT
And you are in denial.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:46:18 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Well it's not exactly gone yet, but it's well on the way.
>>
>>
>http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102211148000244539
>>
>> Flatfish
>> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
>You're an idiot
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 02:59:10 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : here's an example which computes the trapezoid approximation to an
> :> : integral.
> :>
> :> : (defun trapezoid-rule (fn a b n)
> :> : "apply the trapezoid integration rule"
> :> : (let ((h (/ (- b a) n))
> :> : (x a)
> :> : (sum (* 5d-1 (+ (funcall fn a) (funcall fn b)))))
> :> : (loop for i from 1 below n do
> :> : (incf x h)
> :> : (incf sum (funcall fn x)))
> :> : (* h sum)))
> :>
> :> : there is 1) no recursion and 2) no lone parentheses.
> :>
> :> And it demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.
> :> Following it by eye is a pain. Unless I pull it up
> :> into a paren-matching editor, or make pencil-marks
> :> on it, I can't follow what matches to what (I can
> :> guess by the indentation,
> :> but if my purpose was to
> :> find a syntax error (missed a paren), then I can't
> :> rely on the whitespacing.)
>
> : this is why you use an indenting editor. hit a key and it indents
> : for you. then you keep ignoring the parentheses. use the computer,
> : it's right there in front of you.
>
> :> Maybe it's just me. When
> :> I see a repeating pattern, my mind tends to parse that
> :> as one solid object, so when I see ")))))", My low-level
> :> visual processor doesn't catalogue that as "five
> :> parentheses", but as "a block of ascii art with a curvy-
> :> line pattern, made out of parenthesis characters". In
> :> other words, I catalogue it as a single object consisting
> :> of 'several' parenthesis. To force my brain to actually
> :> COUNT them, I have to 'zoom in' my attention so I no longer
> :> think of the pattern. Thus I can't see the big picture and
> :> the little picture at the same time like I can in C. (This is
> :> really hard to try to explain in words. I *liked* the
> :> functional style, as a learning tool, and I use it in C when it
> :> seems to make more sense that way, but the mega-parenthesis
> :> syntax alone is a showstopper for me with Lisp.)
>
> : all i can say is that your approach is not helping you. let the
> : computer count the parens and indent, that way you don't have to.
> : learning lisp is as much about un-learning habits as it is about
> : acquiring new ones.
>
> You're missing the problem, I think. It's not that it's hard to
> compose. It's hard to *look at* for me. I like visual thinking
> more than verbal thinking. I want to be able to SEE the layout
> of the code. Having the computer in front of me doesn't help
> make my vision work any better. I want to be able to parse
> the code quickly with my eyeballs. Tools that make me *do stuff*
> to find the matches don't help in this regard.
once the code is indented, i don't find it hard to read. you don't
have *do* anything, once it has been formatted.
> One thing that would have *greatly* improved Lisp's look without
> really changing a thing about its functionality would have been
> to allow multiple forms of parenthesis: {}, [], ().
you can do that. [] and {} are available for user use. you can
fairly easily hack the lisp reader to accept any of () [] or {} as
parentheses.
> Other
> than having the compiler enforce their matching (can't match
> a '[' with a '}' ), they would be treated no different than
> any other parenthesis. They would merely be a tool the programmer
> could use to help show what matches to what visually at a
> glance, like so: {[(a b) c] d}
>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:12:12 GMT
Said Klaus-Georg Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 Feb 2001 09:03:33
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> However, security products like firewalls, intrusion detectors and SSH,
>> for example, are usually trusted products which are allowed ports in
>> the firewall or are placed in the DMZ or on the Internet itself without
>> any shielding.
>
>Incidentally if you are speaking about firewalls and DMZ: In all sites
>I have worked so far, if you wanted to login to a computer in the DMZ
>coming from either inside or outside, it had to go through a ssh
>connection.
How ironic Chad's trolling turns out to be, then, eh? Ironic that the
majority of these connections were based on the old version of a secure
protocol which was "fundamentally flawed", yet provided almost perfect
security in every case, as none of Chad's "vulnerability alerts" (all,
what, 6 of them for all of 2000?) were exploited as far as anybody
knows.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:13:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> [snip my valid point]
>
> Please explain why, when Florida removed the restriction for LAW-ABIDING
> citizens to carry concealed firearms, that the criminals honed in on
> those with rental cars and foreign accents.
Florida removed the restriction in 1987. By 1989, the number of murders
had increased by 23%. It was only after Florida started implementing
stronger gun control measures, like background checks and enforcing the
waiting period, that the murder rate dropped to its pre-concealed
firearms number.
>
> It couldn't POSSIBLY be because these people would be the least-likely
> to have a concealed weapon....
> No...of course not.
You can argue that law abiding citizens have an inalienable right to
carry a concealed weapon, and that the government does not have any
business taking it away. But don't pretend that permitting concealed
weapons is socially responsible, or that it saves lives. It does just
the opposite.
-Peter
[snip gigantic sig again]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:15:10 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:33:21
>"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > However, security products like firewalls, intrusion detectors and SSH,
>> > for example, are usually trusted products which are allowed ports in
>> > the firewall or are placed in the DMZ or on the Internet itself without
>> > any shielding.
>>
>> Incidentally if you are speaking about firewalls and DMZ: In all sites
>> I have worked so far, if you wanted to login to a computer in the DMZ
>> coming from either inside or outside, it had to go through a ssh
>> connection.
>
>A "fundamentally flawed" ssh connection.
In theory, perhaps, Chad. The fact is, you've been flogged to death,
and people are going to get bored with you now, and stop responding.
Don't you hate that? What supposedly rational but asinine and
inflammatory thing will you say next in order to generate traffic and
validate your pathetic attempts to attract attention, Chad?
I join what I know is an overwhelming number of Usenet posters in
earnestly hoping that you will heed a recommendation that you seek
psychiatric, or at least psychological, counseling.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 22 Feb 2001 03:17:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
> The "euphoria" that people speak of was the
>euphoria of those interested in the commercialization of a product, and who
>smelled profit and bought into the over-hype.
>
Excellent point?
Was the railway an unviable technology when everyone and their uncle started
one in the 1800s, only to go out of business? Was the personal computer,
despite the failure (or close to thereof) of Sinclair Research, Commodore, and
Kaypro?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:20:41 GMT
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 Feb 2001 13:30:22
>In article <hRFk6.46848$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:96v75r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <f8Ek6.46570$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > I never claimed I did. I just want someone to answer for why there
>> > > are so many vulnerabilities in SSH. I never claimed I was an expert,
>> > > I was merely citing other experts.
>
>> > And when the situation was explained you apologised for the misunderstanding
>> > and went on to other things, right?
>
>> Things were not explained.
>
>That doesn't happen to be true. Three vulnerabilities were identified.
>Two of them were determined to be due to bugs in early attempts to fix
>the first vulnerability... sites that had installed those versions are
>likely to be up to date since only people monitoring security issues
>already would know about them. That leaves the original problem, which
>has been fixed for months, even in SSH1 servers.
>
>Methods of attacking SSH through this vulnerability were discussed. It
>was pointed out that to exploit it you would need to be on the same LAN
>as the server... you couldn't sustain the necessary connection rate over
>a WAN link... and you would probably take down the server in the attempt
>which would make the key you gained useless. And OpenSSH was never vulnerable
>because it doesn't allow massively repeated connection attempts.
Interestingly, if unfortunately, enough, I have learned something from
Chad's trolling, then (in addition to the trivial facts posted and
Chad's urls.)
I think you mentioned it earlier, and I didn't completely understand it
at the time, that in this way, being "fundamentally flawed" is even more
trivial than having a bug. A bug might well more likely lead to
exploits, while a "fundamental flaw", at least this one, probably exists
only in a theoretical manner, when the actual implementation is taken
into account.
God, I wish I could read source code, sometimes.
>So we're talking about an obscure theoretical vulnerability, one which it
>is not clear could ever be used even under ideal circumstances, and which
>has never been a problem for the implementation of SSH in question.
>
>This has all been pointed out, at length, and in more detail than I've gone
>into here. Your apology to Theo would be appreciated.
But empty, if not entirely absent. The worst part about trolls is they
foster the invalid supposition that trolling leads to useful discussion
in some way which is more productive than actual rational intercourse.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:20:47 -0000
> > > > > They are NOT petty attacks. They are documentation of
> > > > > methodologies used in petty attacks against me.
> > > >
> > > > You take yourself far to seriously. Meanwhile you still
> > haven't
> > > > justified your petty attacks.
> > >
> > > False premise.
> > >
> > > Exposing the m.o. of habitual flamers is NOT a petty
attack.
> >
> > "G: Knackos...you're a retard." sounds like a petty attack
to
> > me.
>
> Have you ever read anything he writes?
A Deja search returns results swamped with your bloody signature.
Are you not mature enough just to ignore the retarded things he
posts?
> I've recieved more SUPPORTIVE mail for that single line than
> any other.
One message?
--
Cheers,
Sam
"All your base are belong to us" - Cats
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:21:27 -0000
> > > > > > > The .sig does *NOT* antagonize them into flaming
me.
> > Quite
> > > > the
> > > > > > > opposite...by documenting their behavior, it takes
all
> > the
> > > > fun
> > > > > > > away from them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All it does is cancel out the effect of the remaining
12
> > > > people
> > > > > > who sill only post links to newsgroups rather than
> > attaching
> > > > > > binaries.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > non-sequitor.
> > > >
> > > > These people save bandwidth. You waste it. Meanwhile, you
> > still
> > > > haven't justified the petty attacks.
> > >
> > > False premise.
> > >
> > > Describing the modious operendi of these habitual flamers
> > > is *NOT* a petty attack.
> >
> > Illogical, given that these "habitual flamers" never actually
> > seem to reply to you. I doubt it's because of your .sig's
> > mystical powers of deterrance. Your .sig *IS* full of petty
> > attacks, and you didn't reply to the fact that you waste
> > bandwidth.
>
> Give it up, you're starting to sound like Tholen's siamese
twin.
Nice dodge.
--
Cheers,
Sam
"All your base are belong to us" - Cats
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case & Computer Industry Competition - C-SPAN2
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:16:51 GMT
Microsoft Antitrust Case & Computer Industry Competition - C-SPAN2
What do you think of the ideas presented in this broadcast?
--
My U.S. Federal Gov't Budget Proposal for 2001 and Beyond
http://geocities.com/jtnews_bellatlantic_net/budget.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:26:34 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:43:44
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:43:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Chad's idiocy aside, I am still myself partially ignorant in this
>>regard. I presume Mr. de Raadt is the author of the open source version
>>of ssh?
>
>You can look it up.
Yes, I realize that. At any moment while on-line, I could whip open a
search widget and enter "de Raadt" and probably learn the details within
a few moments. Still, I was hoping to spur someone to a more coherent
and possibly even artistic description, to provide entertainment value
to my otherwise crushingly depressing day.
>From the OpenSSH 2.3.0p1 CREDITS file:
>
>---------
>Tatu Ylonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Creator of SSH
>
>Aaron Campbell, Bob Beck, Markus Friedl, Niels Provos,
>Theo de Raadt, and Dug Song - Creators of OpenSSH
>---------
>
>Then there's a whole slew of other people listed who contributed docs,
>bug fixes, etc.
>
>So our Chad has been holding forth on the flaws of OpenSSH to at least
>two of the authors of the program, plus one person who co-wrote a book
>about it (R. E. Silverman). One would think that in such company he
>would at least try to educate himself before posting, but that's Chad
>for you.
Adequately done, sir. Thank you.
>Followups redirected to Chad's usual home.
That's not fair. What point is there in posting this response if the
mentioned parties (other than troll-boy) are not going to see it?
In the spirit of things, as Mr. Myer's responses were motivated by being
at least an MS fan, if not a sock puppet, I've added a cross-post to
adm.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:29:30 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:53:28
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:43:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Chad's idiocy aside, I am still myself partially ignorant in this
>> >regard. I presume Mr. de Raadt is the author of the open source version
>> >of ssh?
>>
>> You can look it up. From the OpenSSH 2.3.0p1 CREDITS file:
>>
>> ---------
>> Tatu Ylonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Creator of SSH
>>
>> Aaron Campbell, Bob Beck, Markus Friedl, Niels Provos,
>> Theo de Raadt, and Dug Song - Creators of OpenSSH
>> ---------
>>
>> Then there's a whole slew of other people listed who contributed docs,
>> bug fixes, etc.
>>
>> So our Chad has been holding forth on the flaws of OpenSSH to at least
>> two of the authors of the program, plus one person who co-wrote a book
>> about it (R. E. Silverman). One would think that in such company he
>> would at least try to educate himself before posting, but that's Chad
>> for you.
>>
>> Followups redirected to Chad's usual home.
>
>Creators of OpenSSH which is based, in part on the "fundamentally flawed"
>protocol.
Safe from the massive crosspost (but continuing my xpost to adm), I'll
mention, Chad, that people who understand theses things find it
entertaining (I actually giggled, but I've had a couple beers) when you
show the depth of your lack of understanding of the term. For it is a
technical term, "fundamentally flawed", and you do not understand it,
obviously.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:35:24 +1300
> >>Chad's idiocy aside, I am still myself partially ignorant in this
> >>regard. I presume Mr. de Raadt is the author of the open source version
> >>of ssh?
> >
> >You can look it up.
>
> Yes, I realize that. At any moment while on-line, I could whip open a
> search widget and enter "de Raadt" and probably learn the details within
> a few moments. Still, I was hoping to spur someone to a more coherent
> and possibly even artistic description, to provide entertainment value
> to my otherwise crushingly depressing day.
Theo de Raadt is the principal founder of OpenBSD. He has done work on
OpenSSH and hundreds of other projects, mostly in the security audits.
I guess I could go look up some more details on him, but fuck that ;)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
