Then a better verification system to be created.
well perhaps created is not the right word. but simply make it more convenient?
would that help?
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:24:40 -0500, Paul Anderson wrote:
>I am been around Unix in its variants for over 15 years and have even ported
>it to different platforms (anyone remember the Wang VM IN/ix port?). The
>story does have that 'I do not know what I am writing about' journalistic
>touch, but it also may be a wake up. We are not impervious, and in my best
>"Lone Gunman" conspiracy self, I can only think that the best way to derail
>the growth of an OS would be to find some smart ways to do this kind of
>sabotage. RPM's are the best part of Linux and its Achilles heel. I could
>easily wrap code in an RPM that would subvert a machine. True if you check
>your RPMs you would catch it, but I for one am lazy in that regard. It was
>at least either amusing or interesting or both.
>
>Paul Anderson
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jerry Winegarden
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:16 PM
>To: Redhat-List (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: An interesting virus story...
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Paul Anderson wrote:
>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/reuters20010327_3831.html
>>
>> This is an interesting article about a new, and I think first, virus that
>> affects Linux. This form is nondestructive, but it only takes a script
>> kiddie to change all of that. This is the first I am hearing of it. Does
>> anyone here know any more about the virus?
>>
>> Paul Anderson
>
>Paul, if you believed this even a little bit, you've been HAD!
>
>Whoever put up that story and somehow passed word of it is ROTFLMAO right
>now!
>
>The story included just enough technical sounding terms to make it appear
>as authentic, but if you know ANYTHING about those terms, you would
>immediately see through it - maybe even chuckle yourself that someone
>might believe this!
>
>The key to making people believe this is claiming that it was written in
>"assembly language", as if assembly language was uniform for any operating
>system that might run on an Intel I386 PC. Although "assembly language"
>under MS Win or DOS or whatever and "assembly language" under Linux talk
>to the same hardware/firmware, that is where things stop being "the same".
>No way it could be.
>
>Nice story about "Group 29A" and "Benny"...
>Heh, this company appears to be a net security company, so they must
>have access to such info...
>
>I don't know. Are we supposed to trust such a company with OUR systems
>for security? Sure, they've gotten us to LOOK at their web page, but do
>you REALLY think anyone will go back and look after their hoax is so
>easily exposed?
>
>I don't know.... clowns to the left of me, bozos to the right... :-(
>
>***************************************************************************
>Jerry Winegarden OIT/Technical Support Duke University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-jerry.oit.duke.edu
>***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Redhat-list mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Redhat-list mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
