Linux-Advocacy Digest #844, Volume #34 Tue, 29 May 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jon
Johansan")
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jon
Johansan")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jon
Johansan")
Re: Opera (flatfish+++)
Re: Opera (flatfish+++)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Chronos Tachyon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:13:09 -0400
Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
>
>
> > Name another *market* where a single *brand* is known to the common
> > consumer. ONLY a single brand, and most people have never even heard of
> > any alternative
>
> Polaroid
>
> --
kodak
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:10:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Terry Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 26 May 2001 02:00:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 25 May 2001 11:19:55 -0500,
> Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><snip of practicle, realistic comments by CE, now just wait
>for the Wintrolls to bite)
>
>> ....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
>> and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
>
>Hahahahahah
>
>Oh yeah XP is a killer OS alright ;-)
Well, NT at one point was supposed to kill Unix. (Somehow, I don't
think it quite succeeded in its objective...)
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but apparently they're still trying -- "99999", anyone?
EAC code #191 29d:21h:14m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always trust monopolistic software.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 29 May 2001 16:11:01 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 28 May 2001 16:50:06 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 27 May 2001 23:11:03 -0500,
> >> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this,
so
> >> >> > Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> >> >>
> >> >> not-so-used?!? SSH is used by huge numbers of people everyday!
> >> >
> >> > because they don't use/have terminal services
> >>
> >> Terminal services doesn't provide even half the functionality of SSH.
> >
> >Oh really - tell us about this.
> >
> >TS lets you have a complete desktop to command. It's essentially like
> >sitting at the console. There is no limit to what you can do (except play
> >DirectX games). Given't that you can do anything that you could do if you
> >were live. Do tell us how SSH could possibly have more functionality?
> >
>
> What happens when I want this sort of access from a non-Windows machine?
> Can I use terminal services if I want to access my home Windows machine,
> in the manner you describe, by using a non-Windows machine? Perhaps
> Solaris, or Irix, or linux...?
You will need to use a client from Citrix. or your IE browser. Otherwise,
who cares...
>
> XP is still beta software. How much will it cost me to get terminal
> services with Windows 2K?
TS is included free with W2K as it is with XP.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 23:14:39 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/19255.html
>
> After all the bleating about IIS, now I see an Apache server has been
> hacked. SourceForge uses SSH... hmmm...
>
> I'll have to see if my sources have 'changed' in any way.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
<quote>
Active subscribers to the site, which is owned by VA Linux, received the
following terse message from its administrators.
"This week, one of our systems was compromised. We have promptly taken
the necessary steps to correct this situation," the message said.
"You have been contacted, because according to our log files, you have
used SourceForge during the past week and may have used the system that
was compromised."
</quote>
Keywords: promptly & log files
This is what separate *nix boxes from the rest. You can fix things
quickly and you have a good idea what went wrong (in detail). For me,
this article just said that the SourceForge admin crew know their stuff.
The mighty M$ was down how long? And how long did it take before they
actually realized there was a problem?
Some people can only wish...
Cheers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 29 May 2001 14:17:36 -0700
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
> >You, sir, are a hypocrite. Or a nutcase.
>
> Wow, you found multipile errors of logic in an Aaron Kookis post.
> <sarcasm> That must have been difficult. </sarcasm>
Ok, I know it is not a fair fight, considering I have a practically
whole set of braincells, and Aaron`s being still in mint condition ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 29 May 2001 16:21:01 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 28 May 2001 16:50:06 -0500,
> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 27 May 2001 23:11:03 -0500,
> >> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this,
so
> >> >> > Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> >> >>
> >> >> not-so-used?!? SSH is used by huge numbers of people everyday!
> >> >
> >> > because they don't use/have terminal services
> >>
> >> Terminal services doesn't provide even half the functionality of SSH.
> >
> > Oh really - tell us about this.
> >
> > TS lets you have a complete desktop to command. It's essentially like
> > sitting at the console. There is no limit to what you can do (except
play
> > DirectX games). Given't that you can do anything that you could do if
you
> > were live. Do tell us how SSH could possibly have more functionality?
> >
>
> 1. RSA based public key authentication. This allows each user to
> create public/private key pairs to protect his or her own acounts. So to
> access my account for example, you must have my 1024 bit secret key
> and you must have the passphrase for the key.
>
> 2. Port forwarding. This allows users to tunnel any networked
> application or service over the encrypted channel, Thus, you can
> effectivly encrypt *any* network application or service. X11
> applications are just one small part of that.
>
> The above two work really well with an ipchains/ipmasqadm or other
> NAT/port-forwarding firewall. Basically you leave one port open on the
> firewall, and have the firewall forward that port to the SSH port on
> one internal machine. You can then access that SSH port using your RSA
> secret key, and from there access anything in the internal network
> using the SSH tunneling. This gives you complete and unfettered access
> to inside a firewall that can only be intruded by 1) stealing the 1024
> bit RSA secret key and 2) cracking the passphrase.
>
> 3. Remote file tranfser, using the same authentication described
> above. This provides the functionality of both rcp and rsync but with
> secure authentication and encryption.
>
> 4. The ability to securely execute remote commands from a script, i,e the
> functionality of rsh but with secure authentication and encryption.
>
> 5. Choice of encryption algorithms.
>
> 6. Ability to work over a slow modem connection, i.e. not GUI dependant.
>
> 7. Much much more...see the ssh, sshd, slogin, and scp man pages.
>
> >>
> >> >or RPC
> >>
> >> RPC was around in Unix before Windows even existed (ie. before you
> >> were born). It's not a substitute for SSH. Stop pretending you know
> >> something about computers.
> >
> > a) so?
>
> So what does it have to do with SSH??
>
> > b) I'm 37 and used Unix for 13 years before switching (job related) to
> > Windows
>
> Then why are you so oblivious to what you are talking about??
>
> > c) RPC lets you remotely execute any command and route output back to
you
>
> Wrong, RPC lets applications on a client machine make fucntion calls that
> access remote componnets on a server machine. It can be used to run
> remote commands, but it was intended for lower level procedures. For
> example, NFS is done over RPC.
>
> > d) and you don't even know what Terminal Services is/does.
>
> Sure I do, it's a remote means to log into a complete Windows
> desktop. I in fact use TS from time to time over an SSH tunnel as
described
> above to access a Windows machine inside a firewall . This gives me
> complete access to the Win machine without having to expose any of the
> the Win machine's IP ports the Internet, something no one in thier right
> mind would ever do. TS does not at all provide the functionality of SSH.
Look - SSH is, essentially, an encrypted Telnet. yes yes it can do some
other cool things but boiling it all down it's essentially an encrypted
Telnet. (quoting a SSH faq I recently read: "Secure Shell is a program to
log into another computer over a network, to execute commands in a remote
machine, and to move files from one machine to another. It provides strong
authentication and secure communications over unsecure channels. It is
intended as a replacement for telnet, rlogin, rsh, and rcp. For SSH2, there
is a replacement for FTP: sftp." so I'm not alone in that assesment).
Terminal Services can be run with 128 bit encryption, higher if you use
Citrix metaframe. Terminal Services can also run with/over IPSec provided by
Windows 2000. SSH differs from IPSec in that it operates at the application
layer, rather than the network layer. Thus, it will only secure those
specific applications that are sent over an SSH tunnel, whereas all
applications sent via IPSec are tunneled transparently.
So, with IPSec/Terminal services I get a fully encrypted, transparent
complete windows desktop session/login over low bandwidth without giving up
anything. TS doesn't deal with routing ports, that's handled by a different
part of W2K so I won't address that as you shouldn't have. I typically
access TS over an IPSec tunnel.
Again, why SSH on Windows when TS is available. Let me answer for you: so
that unix guys can play at the command line on a windows box (and then
complain when a GUI OS doesn't have as good a CLI as a CLI OS does.. hmm...)
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 29 May 2001 16:21:04 -0500
p.s., there are several free SSH servers available for Windows NT and W2K/XP
by the way. In case you just can't live without the CLI.
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 28 May 2001 16:50:06 -0500,
> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 27 May 2001 23:11:03 -0500,
> >> Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this,
so
> >> >> > Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> >> >>
> >> >> not-so-used?!? SSH is used by huge numbers of people everyday!
> >> >
> >> > because they don't use/have terminal services
> >>
> >> Terminal services doesn't provide even half the functionality of SSH.
> >
> > Oh really - tell us about this.
> >
> > TS lets you have a complete desktop to command. It's essentially like
> > sitting at the console. There is no limit to what you can do (except
play
> > DirectX games). Given't that you can do anything that you could do if
you
> > were live. Do tell us how SSH could possibly have more functionality?
> >
>
> 1. RSA based public key authentication. This allows each user to
> create public/private key pairs to protect his or her own acounts. So to
> access my account for example, you must have my 1024 bit secret key
> and you must have the passphrase for the key.
>
> 2. Port forwarding. This allows users to tunnel any networked
> application or service over the encrypted channel, Thus, you can
> effectivly encrypt *any* network application or service. X11
> applications are just one small part of that.
>
> The above two work really well with an ipchains/ipmasqadm or other
> NAT/port-forwarding firewall. Basically you leave one port open on the
> firewall, and have the firewall forward that port to the SSH port on
> one internal machine. You can then access that SSH port using your RSA
> secret key, and from there access anything in the internal network
> using the SSH tunneling. This gives you complete and unfettered access
> to inside a firewall that can only be intruded by 1) stealing the 1024
> bit RSA secret key and 2) cracking the passphrase.
>
> 3. Remote file tranfser, using the same authentication described
> above. This provides the functionality of both rcp and rsync but with
> secure authentication and encryption.
>
> 4. The ability to securely execute remote commands from a script, i,e the
> functionality of rsh but with secure authentication and encryption.
>
> 5. Choice of encryption algorithms.
>
> 6. Ability to work over a slow modem connection, i.e. not GUI dependant.
>
> 7. Much much more...see the ssh, sshd, slogin, and scp man pages.
>
> >>
> >> >or RPC
> >>
> >> RPC was around in Unix before Windows even existed (ie. before you
> >> were born). It's not a substitute for SSH. Stop pretending you know
> >> something about computers.
> >
> > a) so?
>
> So what does it have to do with SSH??
>
> > b) I'm 37 and used Unix for 13 years before switching (job related) to
> > Windows
>
> Then why are you so oblivious to what you are talking about??
>
> > c) RPC lets you remotely execute any command and route output back to
you
>
> Wrong, RPC lets applications on a client machine make fucntion calls that
> access remote componnets on a server machine. It can be used to run
> remote commands, but it was intended for lower level procedures. For
> example, NFS is done over RPC.
>
> > d) and you don't even know what Terminal Services is/does.
>
> Sure I do, it's a remote means to log into a complete Windows
> desktop. I in fact use TS from time to time over an SSH tunnel as
described
> above to access a Windows machine inside a firewall . This gives me
> complete access to the Win machine without having to expose any of the
> the Win machine's IP ports the Internet, something no one in thier right
> mind would ever do. TS does not at all provide the functionality of SSH.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:33:45 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:20 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't know, but then again I've cracked it.
Doubtful.......
More than likely a Google Search
Opera+crack
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:36:08 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:24 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Name a better browser than Opera.
IE 5.0...
I don't like MS nor it's tactics any more than any other semi sane
person but they make the best browser no contest.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:08:30 GMT
On Tue 29 May 2001 01:00, Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
>> Also, I fail to understand how you could possibly have installed Win2K
>> without repartitioning and reformatting as NTFS. In that respect
>> (destroying existing data), Linux and WinNT/2K are on equal footing. Be
>> warned, if you installed to a FAT32 partition, you had better keep the
>> machine behind a very tight firewall...
>
> Sorry, mine IS behind a tight firewall, and I only use it for
> videogames, as I do everything else with SuSE 7.1, so I won't claim I'm
> a Windows expert - but why the difference in security between the 2
> filesystems?
> If you think it's OT here, would you please send me an email? I'm really
> curious.
>
> Thanks
>
> Eugenio
>
> P.S. SP2 fucked my system *totally*
>
Basically, it all boils down to one thing: if you're running WinNT over
FAT32, then any running program can alter C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32 to its heart's
content, which is an instant security compromise -- you might as well be
running Win9x. If you decide to share a directory, the default share
permissions are that Everyone has Full Control, based on the (in this case,
false) premise that the underlying permissions are already sane. Large
parts of NT's security infrastructure was designed with filesystem-level
security in mind, and FAT32 just doesn't support it.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
