Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 04:30:29PM +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 11:26:04PM -0400, Jeff Maxson uttered: > > I don't think that was their point. It is not viral in that respect, but > > it is viral in that (from what I understand) anything GPL'ed can't get > > sucked into another program without that other program being required to > > be GPL'ed as well.Thus, everything from then on that uses that > > original code must then be GPL'ed. Is that correct? > > > Yes. > > Trust Microsoft to say that about the GPL, but not the BSD license, as they > steal BSD code and not feel bad for it. Well the BSD license is a completely different animal than the GPL, it really is the ultimate give-away license without GPL's sting in the tail. You cannot steal what is given away ! Cliff
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 11:26:04PM -0400, Jeff Maxson uttered: > I don't think that was their point. It is not viral in that respect, but > it is viral in that (from what I understand) anything GPL'ed can't get > sucked into another program without that other program being required to > be GPL'ed as well.Thus, everything from then on that uses that > original code must then be GPL'ed. Is that correct? > Yes. Trust Microsoft to say that about the GPL, but not the BSD license, as they steal BSD code and not feel bad for it. -- Steve Synthetic Transforming Entity Viable for Exploration and Nocturnal Killing pgps4fFreMDIp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As to linux being viral, I'm guessing that they are assuming the > majority of viruses and worms (or what have you) are being > produced on a linux system. After all, linux has always been a I don't think that was their point. It is not viral in that respect, but it is viral in that (from what I understand) anything GPL'ed can't get sucked into another program without that other program being required to be GPL'ed as well.Thus, everything from then on that uses that original code must then be GPL'ed. Is that correct? Jeff -- Jeff Maxson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Friday 17 August 2001 07:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As to linux being viral, I'm guessing that they are assuming the > majority of viruses and worms (or what have you) are being > produced on a linux system. The term 'viral' in connection with Linux or Open Source software in general has nothing to do with viruses or worms. Someone described GPL code as viral because it 'infects' any software that includes it. The GPL requires that any software which includes GPL'ed code must also be at least as free as the GPL. So any program that includes GPL'ed code must also be Open Source. Which is a Good Thing(TM) to most of us, but a bad thing if your survival depends on keeping your code proprietary. Microsoft is trying to poison the public attitude about Open Source software by associating it with the scary term 'viral'. Typical Microsoft newspeak. -- Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.sirinet.net/~budr All things in moderation. And not too much moderation either.
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On 16 Aug 2001, at 22:01, Allen Wayne Best wrote: > On Wednesday 15 August 2001 21:44, Michael Heldebrant pronounced: > > On 15 Aug 2001 19:48:49 -0500, W. Paul Mills wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Reames) writes: > > > > > > > I seriously doubt Linux or Open Source will be ever outlawed. No > > > > matter what MS does. Too many companies rely on it (whether they > > > > admit it or not). Hotmail is still full of FreeBSD machines. > > > > Besides even Hollywood, one of the biggest industries in the US is > > > > converting. > > > > > > > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/010814/21/tech-linux-hollywood > > > > > > > > Sure the home desktops and office servers run Windows, but where it > > > > counts its either Linux or Unix, and with the slump in the hi-tech > > > > industry - proprietary, expensive Unix's are being replaced with Linux. > > > > > > > > $.02 > > > > > > > > > Even the US Postal Service uses Linux ;-) > > > > My prediction is that Linux will be outlawed in 3 years as a system > > which is legaly declared as "primarily" for copyright circumvention. > > Just wait until MS buys their way out of the lawsuit with the > > republicans. MS will then continue to erode their own users rights in > > favor of the DVDCCA, RIAA and MPAA and whine that linux should be forced > > to as well. I doubt Linux will be implementing these mandatory > > copyright controls and other bunk. Hence 3 years from now the DMCA (I'm > > sure with additional resitrictive changes) will make us all criminals. > > I think we should all move offshore now really. I really hope it > > doesn't happen but I can certainly see it. > > > > --mike > > > > 1984?? > > certainly, mega$#!+ would like for us to believe that. and spreads fud, > despair, and hopelessness to the unassimilated. (see os/2 and the cooperation > provided by ibm!) but handwringing is not for me. > > linux is here to stay - that is, until a better linux comes along. more > likely what will happen in three years is mega$#!+ will learn to play with > linux, *or* they will be assimulated! the latter is my goal! Hi all: Ms in the past has not used law makers (maybe this is why they were hit with the law suit) to take down competing technology. Instead they lie, steal, or cheat some company of what they produce and include their resion with the operating system giving them an unfair advantage. So if they follow their past behaviour, the rest of the computers will be getting linux in their operating system and therfore a more stable system!! As to linux being viral, I'm guessing that they are assuming the majority of viruses and worms (or what have you) are being produced on a linux system. After all, linux has always been a programmers domain. This is the reason us non-progranning nenbers have such a steep learning curve. Manuals and help and help and even advice given by many of the kind debian-user advisors are often programming in nature. So I would further guess that they are guessing that a few of these hard working programmers are motivated to work on tlinux os because they are angry that they have (or did at one time) had to put up with a poor os (ms that is) which they could repair if they could only get a hold of the source code. Would it be surprising if one or two of these so motivated individuals (living in the antarctic say) decided to teach the world how sloppy ms os is by writing a worm exploiting the one or two weaknesses to be found in ms? Well they sould be ashamed to believe such a thing. Dean
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wednesday 15 August 2001 21:44, Michael Heldebrant pronounced: > On 15 Aug 2001 19:48:49 -0500, W. Paul Mills wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Reames) writes: > > > > > I seriously doubt Linux or Open Source will be ever outlawed. No > > > matter what MS does. Too many companies rely on it (whether they > > > admit it or not). Hotmail is still full of FreeBSD machines. > > > Besides even Hollywood, one of the biggest industries in the US is > > > converting. > > > > > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/010814/21/tech-linux-hollywood > > > > > > Sure the home desktops and office servers run Windows, but where it > > > counts its either Linux or Unix, and with the slump in the hi-tech > > > industry - proprietary, expensive Unix's are being replaced with Linux. > > > > > > $.02 > > > > > > Even the US Postal Service uses Linux ;-) > > My prediction is that Linux will be outlawed in 3 years as a system > which is legaly declared as "primarily" for copyright circumvention. > Just wait until MS buys their way out of the lawsuit with the > republicans. MS will then continue to erode their own users rights in > favor of the DVDCCA, RIAA and MPAA and whine that linux should be forced > to as well. I doubt Linux will be implementing these mandatory > copyright controls and other bunk. Hence 3 years from now the DMCA (I'm > sure with additional resitrictive changes) will make us all criminals. > I think we should all move offshore now really. I really hope it > doesn't happen but I can certainly see it. > > --mike > 1984?? certainly, mega$#!+ would like for us to believe that. and spreads fud, despair, and hopelessness to the unassimilated. (see os/2 and the cooperation provided by ibm!) but handwringing is not for me. linux is here to stay - that is, until a better linux comes along. more likely what will happen in three years is mega$#!+ will learn to play with linux, *or* they will be assimulated! the latter is my goal! -- regards, allen wayne best, esq "your friendly neighborhood rambler owner" "my rambler will go from 0 to 105" Current date: 21:50:21::227:2001 Living a mega$#!+ (clean) life!
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On 15 Aug 2001 12:43:38 -0500, Randy Reames wrote: > Meanwhile, behind the facade of an innocent looking bookstore Michael > Heldebrant wrote: > > > > My prediction is that Linux will be outlawed in 3 years as a system > > which is legally declared as "primarily" for copyright circumvention. > > Just wait until MS buys their way out of the lawsuit with the > > republicans. MS will then continue to erode their own users rights in > > favor of the DVDCCA, RIAA and MPAA and whine that linux should be forced > > to as well. I doubt Linux will be implementing these mandatory > > copyright controls and other bunk. Hence 3 years from now the DMCA (I'm > > sure with additional resitrictive changes) will make us all criminals. > > I think we should all move offshore now really. I really hope it > > doesn't happen but I can certainly see it. > > > > --mike > > > > What?! Too much of the US runs off computers, and too many of those > are running Linux. I am not talking about somebody's home box that > they got some Linux book at the mall and can't figure out how to get > their sound card or winmodem to work. I am talking about the Linux > clusters in the Universities, the servers running the public > transportation systems, the city governments, major companies like > Boeing, the kiosks, embedded systems, the Tivos, etc, fscking etc. > You really think IBM is gonna let the government outlaw something > they've invested a Billion dollars in? No way. > > George Bush is an maroon. He wouldn't know an OS from a bottle of > Jack Daniels. He surrounds himself with smart people like a doughnut > hole surrounds himself with a doughnut (yea I know Dennis Miller). > > Right now the Sklyarov/Adobe case is showing all the flaws in the DMCA > I see the DMCA going away before Linux will ever be outlawed. > > Even MS admits that Linux is their competition. "We can't be a > monopoly, look there's Linux out there." Servers stats say there are > less registered Linux servers than Windows servers, well no shit how > many admins register or even buy their copy of Linux for each server? > But you better sign your soul away for each copy of Windows you put > on a box. Linux is not going away, Windows is not going away. If > anything they both will keep creating better products, at least one > will have to start. Your point is valid. Corporations will still use Linux because they have the lawyers and resources to "hide" Linux or wrap everything in remedial rot13 encryption and then hide behind the DMCA. I somehow doubt an individual will be able to claim DMCA protections on his private property. As an example the FBI records keystrokes to break encryption of criminals. The DMCA SHOULD and MUST be invoked in this case as an absurdity to show the real motives of the anti-circumvention law - it hides criminal activity for corporations but never for private citizens. Much like how the anti-trust laws in the past were used to bust up unions instead of monopolies, the same thing will be done to private users of Linux. Keep in mind this is my dark vision of a dystopia and a worse case scenario. But it's something I'm preparing for in the back of mind. --mike
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (W. Paul Mills) writes: > Even the US Postal Service uses Linux ;-) So that's the secret of Lance Armstrong? Linuxabolica! ;-) SCNR Jan Ulrich -- Heute ist der 3. Oktober! Basta! http://www.sudelbuch.de/1999/19991109.html
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Meanwhile, behind the facade of an innocent looking bookstore Michael Heldebrant wrote: > > My prediction is that Linux will be outlawed in 3 years as a system > which is legally declared as "primarily" for copyright circumvention. > Just wait until MS buys their way out of the lawsuit with the > republicans. MS will then continue to erode their own users rights in > favor of the DVDCCA, RIAA and MPAA and whine that linux should be forced > to as well. I doubt Linux will be implementing these mandatory > copyright controls and other bunk. Hence 3 years from now the DMCA (I'm > sure with additional resitrictive changes) will make us all criminals. > I think we should all move offshore now really. I really hope it > doesn't happen but I can certainly see it. > > --mike > What?! Too much of the US runs off computers, and too many of those are running Linux. I am not talking about somebody's home box that they got some Linux book at the mall and can't figure out how to get their sound card or winmodem to work. I am talking about the Linux clusters in the Universities, the servers running the public transportation systems, the city governments, major companies like Boeing, the kiosks, embedded systems, the Tivos, etc, fscking etc. You really think IBM is gonna let the government outlaw something they've invested a Billion dollars in? No way. George Bush is an maroon. He wouldn't know an OS from a bottle of Jack Daniels. He surrounds himself with smart people like a doughnut hole surrounds himself with a doughnut (yea I know Dennis Miller). Right now the Sklyarov/Adobe case is showing all the flaws in the DMCA I see the DMCA going away before Linux will ever be outlawed. Even MS admits that Linux is their competition. "We can't be a monopoly, look there's Linux out there." Servers stats say there are less registered Linux servers than Windows servers, well no shit how many admins register or even buy their copy of Linux for each server? But you better sign your soul away for each copy of Windows you put on a box. Linux is not going away, Windows is not going away. If anything they both will keep creating better products, at least one will have to start. -- x --- x | Randy Reames | www.reames.org | | Debian User | Web Master | | Sparc/i386| www.unixreview.com | | icq 115272915 | www.sysadminmag.com | x --- x
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On 15 Aug 2001 19:48:49 -0500, W. Paul Mills wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Reames) writes: > > > I seriously doubt Linux or Open Source will be ever outlawed. No > > matter what MS does. Too many companies rely on it (whether they > > admit it or not). Hotmail is still full of FreeBSD machines. > > Besides even Hollywood, one of the biggest industries in the US is > > converting. > > > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/010814/21/tech-linux-hollywood > > > > Sure the home desktops and office servers run Windows, but where it > > counts its either Linux or Unix, and with the slump in the hi-tech > > industry - proprietary, expensive Unix's are being replaced with Linux. > > > > $.02 > > > Even the US Postal Service uses Linux ;-) My prediction is that Linux will be outlawed in 3 years as a system which is legaly declared as "primarily" for copyright circumvention. Just wait until MS buys their way out of the lawsuit with the republicans. MS will then continue to erode their own users rights in favor of the DVDCCA, RIAA and MPAA and whine that linux should be forced to as well. I doubt Linux will be implementing these mandatory copyright controls and other bunk. Hence 3 years from now the DMCA (I'm sure with additional resitrictive changes) will make us all criminals. I think we should all move offshore now really. I really hope it doesn't happen but I can certainly see it. --mike
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Reames) writes: > I seriously doubt Linux or Open Source will be ever outlawed. No > matter what MS does. Too many companies rely on it (whether they > admit it or not). Hotmail is still full of FreeBSD machines. > Besides even Hollywood, one of the biggest industries in the US is > converting. > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/010814/21/tech-linux-hollywood > > Sure the home desktops and office servers run Windows, but where it > counts its either Linux or Unix, and with the slump in the hi-tech > industry - proprietary, expensive Unix's are being replaced with Linux. > > $.02 Even the US Postal Service uses Linux ;-) -- * For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, * * that whoever believes in Him should not perish...John 3:16 *
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Meanwhile, behind the facade of an innocent looking bookstore Allen Linkenhoker wrote: > Matt, regarding the potential outlawing of Linux: > > They can take my install CD when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. > > (with no apologies whatsoever to the NRA and Charlton Heston ;>) > > Given that we've got the ultimate corporate whore in the Oval Office right > now, who knows what could happen! > nip> I seriously doubt Linux or Open Source will be ever outlawed. No matter what MS does. Too many companies rely on it (whether they admit it or not). Hotmail is still full of FreeBSD machines. Besides even Hollywood, one of the biggest industries in the US is converting. http://news.excite.com/news/r/010814/21/tech-linux-hollywood Sure the home desktops and office servers run Windows, but where it counts its either Linux or Unix, and with the slump in the hi-tech industry - proprietary, expensive Unix's are being replaced with Linux. $.02 -- x --- x | Randy Reames | www.reames.org | | Debian User | Web Master | | Sparc/i386| www.unixreview.com | | icq 115272915 | www.sysadminmag.com | x --- x
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Matt, regarding the potential outlawing of Linux: They can take my install CD when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. (with no apologies whatsoever to the NRA and Charlton Heston ;>) Given that we've got the ultimate corporate whore in the Oval Office right now, who knows what could happen! Allen Linkenhoker From: Matthew Garman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian User's List Subject: Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:24:45PM -0700, Jaye Inabnit ke6sls wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2001 16:33, Matthew Garman wrote: > > I've been particularly mad about all this recently, having just read an > > article about our Redmond boys' new licensing plan. If I read the article > > correctly, it said that on one of Microsoft's new products, their license > > states that you cannot use their product with "viral" software. They > > define viral software as free software with open source licenses (in > > particular, GPL'd software, and software with similar licenses). They > > literally cite Linux and Apache as examples of viral open source software. > > Doesn't anyone else find this outrageous? This is the same as saying you > > can't wear hand-me-down pants with your overpriced Abercrombie & Fitch > > shirt. It's like a violation of your personal freedom. > > I would really like that url or publication name. I am also getting very > irritated with the FUD&M$ camp_terror tactics. I have run across several > articles of late that called linux many silly (completely giggle loaded) > things. Yet, you are the first who has mentioned (yet another stupid) M$ > license where open source is coined as 'viral'. Yup, I figured a lot of folks might want to see that article. Here it is: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2781989,00.html Here's another link to the same article: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2781638,00.html > I realize this is just the tip of the burg. Running linux could soon be > considered a crime in the US. . . Well, if you believe in the increasingly more valid view that U.S. laws are purchased by big business, then Linux could very well become criminal. Given their current behavior, I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft and other software giants set up a huge anti-open source software lobby. It wouldn't be too hard to scare old congressmen by using words such as "viral" and giving contrived examples on why open source software is bad. And I'm sure MS has deep enough pockets to *buy* a few key votes. Enjoy Linux while you can! Matt -- Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around, Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday, Then I'll get on my knees and pray..." -- Pete Townshend/The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
> "Martin" == Martin F Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > can't you install a cygwin version into your > homedirectory??? If by "homedirectory" you mean my configuration space on the win2000 system, yes I can, but there are two complications that make that not so usefull. The first is that there are spaces in the directory name, so cygwin can't handle it. The second is that I'd have to do it separately on every machine as they are set up so that they don't share configuration. I think that the most likely to succeed thing for me will be to lobby the security folks to add ssh and friends to the "campus standard" communications software kit. Then it would someday RSN propagate to all of the campus machines. Thanks, Mike
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 08:24:09PM -0400, D-Man wrote: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 12:34:59AM +0100, Stig Brautaset wrote: > | Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > ray p wrote: > | > > | > > Or better yet get putty. It supports SSH 2 with public key > | > > authentication. And is small enough that you can put a key the > | > > client and the scp and sftp (FTP tunnled through SSH) client on ~2 > | > > floppies It can be run from the floppy and can connect to any SSH > | > > server has a lot of very cool features. Use the devel snapshot to do > | > > SSH 2 with public keys. > | > > | > I *think* you can just put it on a share somewhere, and then map a > | > drive to that share and run putty off of it. I reckon it depends on if > | > you have access to the floppy, to mapping drives, either, or neither. > | > | You can, but you are not (to my experience) able to save any of the > | setup-changes. > > Yeah, I believe that profiles are stored in the registry. Blast the > registry! If you can actually write to the registry, you can save the > options but it would only be for that particular terminal. You can export the registry settings into a file. On any windoze maschine you can double-click on that file and you have all your saved-sessions back (*and* the known-host info). There is even a "putty.exe -cleanup" to remove your traces out of the registry. There is also a ssh-agent, scp and all the goodies you know from the linux version. CU pascal
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 12:34:59AM +0100, Stig Brautaset wrote: | Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > ray p wrote: | > | > > Or better yet get putty. It supports SSH 2 with public key | > > authentication. And is small enough that you can put a key the | > > client and the scp and sftp (FTP tunnled through SSH) client on ~2 | > > floppies It can be run from the floppy and can connect to any SSH | > > server has a lot of very cool features. Use the devel snapshot to do | > > SSH 2 with public keys. | > | > I *think* you can just put it on a share somewhere, and then map a | > drive to that share and run putty off of it. I reckon it depends on if | > you have access to the floppy, to mapping drives, either, or neither. | | You can, but you are not (to my experience) able to save any of the | setup-changes. Yeah, I believe that profiles are stored in the registry. Blast the registry! If you can actually write to the registry, you can save the options but it would only be for that particular terminal. -D
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ray p wrote: > > > Or better yet get putty. It supports SSH 2 with public key > > authentication. And is small enough that you can put a key the > > client and the scp and sftp (FTP tunnled through SSH) client on ~2 > > floppies It can be run from the floppy and can connect to any SSH > > server has a lot of very cool features. Use the devel snapshot to do > > SSH 2 with public keys. > > I *think* you can just put it on a share somewhere, and then map a > drive to that share and run putty off of it. I reckon it depends on if > you have access to the floppy, to mapping drives, either, or neither. You can, but you are not (to my experience) able to save any of the setup-changes. Cheers, Stig -- 00:34:05 up 12 days, 19:14, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
ray p wrote: Or better yet get putty. It supports SSH 2 with public key authentication. And is small enough that you can put a key the client and the scp and sftp (FTP tunnled through SSH) client on ~2 floppies It can be run from the floppy and can connect to any SSH server has a lot of very cool features. Use the devel snapshot to do SSH 2 with public keys. I *think* you can just put it on a share somewhere, and then map a drive to that share and run putty off of it. I reckon it depends on if you have access to the floppy, to mapping drives, either, or neither. Kent On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 08:38:54PM -0400, Jason Healy wrote: At 994979775s since epoch (07/12/01 19:16:15 -0400 UTC), Michael A. Miller wrote: "Haim" == Haim Ashkenazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most > dangerous protocol. use scp instead. Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines in our libraries) Here's a start: http://www.isnetworks.net/ssh/ It's an SSH/SCP applet. If you could load it on your own machine, then you could access it over the web and run SCP through the applet -- no installation necessary. Only problem is, to overcome Java Applet sandbox restrictions, you need to sign the applet (this is done for you), and accept that signature in Netscape (which you probably can't do on a public machine). Anybody want to donate a CA-signed version of this applet that would be trusted by browsers?? Jason -- Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, D-Man wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:22:39AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote: > | also sprach Michael A. Miller (on Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:16:15PM -0500): > | > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not > | > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines > | > in our libraries) > | > | can't you install a cygwin version into your homedirectory??? > > I doubt there is a "home" directory, or even multiple accounts, on the > machines he is referring to. Perhaps they have zip drives or cd > drives. If so then you might be able to put the 'doze client on that > and run it straight from the removable media. pscp from PuTTY will fir on a floppy disk. It you can get a DOS prompt you can run it just like normal scp: C:\>a:\pscp.exe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~tony/file.zip c:\temp Will create a file c:\ but that can be deleted when you're done. Doesn't require any kind of "installing". Yours Tony. /* * "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the * same level of thinking we were at when we created them." * --Albert Einstein */
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:22:39AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote: | also sprach Michael A. Miller (on Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:16:15PM -0500): | > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not | > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines | > in our libraries) | | can't you install a cygwin version into your homedirectory??? I doubt there is a "home" directory, or even multiple accounts, on the machines he is referring to. Perhaps they have zip drives or cd drives. If so then you might be able to put the 'doze client on that and run it straight from the removable media. -D
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Thanks for the tremendous response to my initial question. As many of you suspected, the sysadmin mainly needed to know that I was more than a casual user of linux. I politely, and deferentially, explained that I would only need to run an ssh server, and that I am quite conscientious when it comes to security. I also agreed to give him root access, and agreed that running periodic port scans was a good idea. He was very cool about everything. He actually uses linux himself at home. He explained that his boss, an administrator (the business kind, not the technical kind), was the one being heavy handed about linux. Part of the reason is also because they are a little shell-shocked from a recent barrage of problems with people running MacOS X improperly. Basically, I tried to give him as much information as possible to help him make the case to his boss that my linux box would not be a threat - at least no more than any other computer on the network. It sounds like I will not have to sign the agreement stating my responsibility for any financial loss if my box were hacked. However, this is not yet certain. I have decided, with the advice of many on this group, to refuse to sign if they ask. The sysadmin agreed that it is a foolish thing to do, as even the most secure boxes are never totally secure. Again, it is his boss that is using this as a scare tactic. I think, all things considered, it is a happy ending (or is it just the beginning?). The only thing I am still disappointed about is they won't let me mount unix shares via samba or nfs. He suggested that this is something they will eventually have to change as more people move to linux. I hope so. In any event, thanks to everyone who offered advice and support. You were a great help. Regards, Brian -- Brian J. Stults Doctoral Candidate Department of Sociology University at Albany - SUNY Phone: (518) 442-4652 Fax: (518) 442-4936 Web: http://www.albany.edu/~bs7452
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Or better yet get putty. It supports SSH 2 with public key authentication. And is small enough that you can put a key the client and the scp and sftp (FTP tunnled through SSH) client on ~2 floppies It can be run from the floppy and can connect to any SSH server has a lot of very cool features. Use the devel snapshot to do SSH 2 with public keys. On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 08:38:54PM -0400, Jason Healy wrote: > At 994979775s since epoch (07/12/01 19:16:15 -0400 UTC), Michael A. Miller > wrote: > > > "Haim" == Haim Ashkenazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most > > > dangerous protocol. use scp instead. > > > > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not > > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines > > in our libraries) > > Here's a start: > > http://www.isnetworks.net/ssh/ > > It's an SSH/SCP applet. If you could load it on your own machine, > then you could access it over the web and run SCP through the applet > -- no installation necessary. Only problem is, to overcome Java > Applet sandbox restrictions, you need to sign the applet (this is done > for you), and accept that signature in Netscape (which you probably > can't do on a public machine). > > Anybody want to donate a CA-signed version of this applet that would > be trusted by browsers?? > > Jason > > -- > Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] > LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- BOFH excuse #85: Windows 95 undocumented "feature" pgp0vHOqekJmY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
At 994979775s since epoch (07/12/01 19:16:15 -0400 UTC), Michael A. Miller wrote: > > "Haim" == Haim Ashkenazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most > > dangerous protocol. use scp instead. > > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines > in our libraries) Here's a start: http://www.isnetworks.net/ssh/ It's an SSH/SCP applet. If you could load it on your own machine, then you could access it over the web and run SCP through the applet -- no installation necessary. Only problem is, to overcome Java Applet sandbox restrictions, you need to sign the applet (this is done for you), and accept that signature in Netscape (which you probably can't do on a public machine). Anybody want to donate a CA-signed version of this applet that would be trusted by browsers?? Jason -- Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > can't you install a cygwin version into your homedirectory??? If the university computers there are anything like the one at my university, there is no such thing. The only way to do it in that case is to ask whoever maintains the computers (at Creighton it's Client Services) to install it. - -- - -- Phil Brutsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG fingerprint: 9BF9 D84C 37D0 4FA7 1F2D 7E5E FD94 D264 50DE 1CFC GPG key id: 50DE1CFC GPG public key: http://tux.creighton.edu/~pbrutsch/gpg-public-key.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine iD8DBQE7Tj/9/ZTSZFDeHPwRAjieAKDd1MrCOtZJoDI5iyRKw8H8dzXn9gCdFTRE s+IOrDnr67fK6+FEpwAb7p8= =2T8C -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP -scp
hi ya michael > > 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most > > dangerous protocol. use scp instead. > > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines > in our libraries) am assumig you know scp is part of ssh... if you have administrator priviledges on the win98/win2k boxes.. download and install ( free or commercial versions of ) ssh that runs on MS windoze boxes http://www.Linux-Sec.net/SSH ( windoze clients on the bottom ) if you dont have administrator access... you're probably hosed... -- some say look for a new company to work at ... or failing that drastic step... try using https instead for secure web-based transfers - there's always floppys too and there's always secure ftp servers/clients also in the ssh2 package c ya alvin
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
also sprach Michael A. Miller (on Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:16:15PM -0500): > Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not > allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines > in our libraries) can't you install a cygwin version into your homedirectory??? martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "imagine if every thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. this happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- jeff raskin pgpG4cwzCrC8y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
> "Haim" == Haim Ashkenazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most > dangerous protocol. use scp instead. Can anyone suggest a way to scp from a machine where I'm not allowed to install scp? (For example, win98 and win2000 machines in our libraries)
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
* Hall Stevenson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > > They can either let you run linux, or pay for your > > > MCSE courses. > > > > I like these! > > That's reasonable ... as long as they've paid for everyone > else's MCSE course who uses Windows on the campus. Not really, only for those who claim they don't know how to use windows. (OK, I exagerated with MCSE. There's a whole bunch of luser-level Windows, Excel, Word etc. courses -- these are the ones I meant, obviously.) And I have a friend who never used windoze until a couple of years ago: his peecee experience was pre-windows, and he used Macs after that. So claiming you never used windows is not as outrageous as it might seem. Your employer expects you to use $TOOL productively. They can 1) let you use the tool you're familiar with, or 2) train you to use the other tool. It's as simple as that. Dima -- E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home) http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key We're sysadmins. Sanity happens to other people.-- Chris King in asr
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:48:56AM -0400, Rob Ransbottom wrote: > You have gotten a lot of responses, mostly addressing technical > aspects and implying a scorn for an admin who doesn't want linux > on his already hetero network. Hear, hear. It's "their" network after all. Though, if you do not run any services, there is no implied greater risk than if using eg. windows or a mac. But how will the network people know this? They feel that they have sufficient control over their "own" systems, so you will have to make up for that, in a way. You could always make a point of your right to use a pet operating system, after all it is part of your professional toolset, so you do have some valid grounds. In the extreme case, the network people could manage a dedicated "firewall" device/router (those cost very little these days, some of them actually run linux) that secures your linux system. Just think of all the mac users who by pure stubbornness manage to keep clinging on to their apples. How many of those would have kept their stand by virtue of the technical superiority of their arguments over the is department's position? Most of them have to make do with one man band good cop bad cop social engineering, and it works pretty well like that in many situations. After all, the network people just don't want any hassle from you. You don't want any hassle from the network people. Find a way of working with each other that bears a mutual trust in each others intentions. Only when faced with incredibly preoccupied seasoned terrorists or certified clue resistant morons should you consider taking up guerilla networking tactics. Even better is to go look for a another place. Cheers, Joost
Re: [users] Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:15:23AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote: | > > > They can either let you run linux, or pay for your | > > > MCSE courses. | > > | > > That's reasonable ... as long as they've paid for | > > everyone else's MCSE course who uses Windows | > > on the campus. | > | > speaking from experience (oops), the mcse doesn't | > buy you jack. okay, i didn't take courses, but the | > certifications are totally stupid, so i don't figure you | > learn a whole lot more in the training sessions. | > | > a person with an mcse knows how to click pretty | > buttons and how to interpret pretty (?) dialogs, but | > know jack about computers or networks... | | In all honesty, there's a difference between taking | MCSE-related classes and taking "Introduction to Windows | 9x/NT/2000". Cost is a *huge* one. Yeah, the whole point of the request for the course is based on $$ -- it would be cheaper for the admins to let [you] (the OP) run linux than pay for an MCSE course. | An MCSE here at work had the task of fdisking my old Linux box | ;-( Another "admin" had to walk her through booting off a | floppy disk and starting fdisk. She was lost once it started | though. No buttons to click, no wizards to walk her through | the steps, no "Next" buttons... Hehe. -D
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Go to google.com and enter the search "linux site:ufl.edu" -- you get over 2,000 hits, such as http://www.circa.ufl.edu/linux/ -- the University of Florida Linux Page http://www.software.ufl.edu/matlab/ -- site license for MATLAB includes Linux http://wireless.ece.ufl.edu/~jshea/ -- professor who links to Linux scientific applications http://www.stat.ufl.edu/~presnell/linux.html -- looks like statistics faculty http://www.mil.ufl.edu/publications/linux/commandline.html -- machine intelligence lab http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=linux-l&A=1 -- subscribe to the UF's Linux mailing list! Well, you get the idea -- why are you being given the third degree when UF clearly uses Linux all the time? Good luck!
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
You have gotten a lot of responses, mostly addressing technical aspects and implying a scorn for an admin who doesn't want linux on his already hetero network. On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Brian Stults wrote: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. > Although I have philosphical objections to this kind of policey, I am > willing to sign this if that is what it takes because I am quite > confident about my knowledge of security issues. Only a fool or a security contractor would say such a contract or amendment thereto. You are going to be financially responsible for the possible actions of millions of possibly malicious people. Ludricious, but likely binding if you sign. Most likely you have nothing in writing assuring your use of linux or even of a computer, this leaves you in a weak position if noone recalls your requirement. Don't sign and if they wish to fire you get a lawyer. Someone who runs a network of over 2000 machines is not clueless, just too busy to keep up with all the changes in yet another OS, and realizes the possible problems of not doing so. The auto updating of debian is not something that will endear debian to a SA, this means an changing target coming from some where out there. I wouldn't stress this. > Anyway, here is the reason for this call for help. Tomorrow, I must > talk on the phone with the sysadmin of the College of Liberal Arts and > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. I plan on emphasizing the fact that I disable most > services in inetd. The only servers I run are an ssh server and an ftp > server. I do not allow anonymous ftp, and I tunnel all my ftp transfers > through ssh. I am the only person with an account on my box. I will > also emphasize the fact that security updates are available on a daily > basis through debian's dpkg system. > > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. I cannot imagine how this would happen. The > only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. > If it is "elected", I suppose my machine could force itself to be the > server. I don't know enough about samba, though, to know if this is > possible. However, if I don't run a samba server, it wouldn't be a > problem, right? Can anyone else think of why this might happen? I would not worry about this too much, this sounds a little twisted by being second hand. Since they have Unix up, they should have a good handle on the proper setup of a linux box, though not all of the tools names, etc. Perhaps you can be a test case, they help configure and attack your box, and of course back it up. Be friendly, helpful, insistent on your need, adamant about your right (via assurances at hire). Don't sign. rob Live the dream.
Re: [users] Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
> > > They can either let you run linux, or pay for your > > > MCSE courses. > > > > > > That's reasonable ... as long as they've paid for > > everyone else's MCSE course who uses Windows > > on the campus. > > speaking from experience (oops), the mcse doesn't > buy you jack. okay, i didn't take courses, but the > certifications are totally stupid, so i don't figure you > learn a whole lot more in the training sessions. > > a person with an mcse knows how to click pretty > buttons and how to interpret pretty (?) dialogs, but > know jack about computers or networks... In all honesty, there's a difference between taking MCSE-related classes and taking "Introduction to Windows 9x/NT/2000". Cost is a *huge* one. The "Intro..." classes are the most basic you can get. They are "Computer User 101". Right down to teaching people how to double-click their mouse, drag-n-drop (although 90% of the people who are taught it never use it outside of the class), how to shut Windows down properly, etc, etc. The MCSE classes are a *little* more advanced than that ;-). The market for MCSE certified people has been seriously diluted though. I can see a "guidance counselor" asking a prospective student if they like computers. They reply "Uhhh, kinda... I haven't used 'em much". The counselor responds, "How would you like to make $70,000 a year as an 'MCSE' ??" "Cool, dude... sign me up !!". They then sign up for "Introduction to Windows..." !! An MCSE here at work had the task of fdisking my old Linux box ;-( Another "admin" had to walk her through booting off a floppy disk and starting fdisk. She was lost once it started though. No buttons to click, no wizards to walk her through the steps, no "Next" buttons... Hehe, I need to boot up that box. I don't think the job got finished. Regards Hall
Re: [users] Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
also sprach Hall Stevenson (on Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:22:19AM -0400): > > > They can either let you run linux, or pay for your > > > MCSE courses. > > > > I like these! > > That's reasonable ... as long as they've paid for everyone > else's MCSE course who uses Windows on the campus. speaking from experience (oops), the mcse doesn't buy you jack. okay, i didn't take courses, but the certifications are totally stupid, so i don't figure you learn a whole lot more in the training sessions. a person with an mcse knows how to click pretty buttons and how to interpret pretty (?) dialogs, but know jack about computers or networks... martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "and if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear you shout and no one seems to hear and if the band you're in starts playing different tunes i'll see you on the dark side of the moon." -- pink floyd, 1972 pgpm9NoVapA2e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
> > They can either let you run linux, or pay for your > > MCSE courses. > > I like these! That's reasonable ... as long as they've paid for everyone else's MCSE course who uses Windows on the campus. Hall
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:24:45PM -0700, Jaye Inabnit ke6sls wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2001 16:33, Matthew Garman wrote: > > I've been particularly mad about all this recently, having just read an > > article about our Redmond boys' new licensing plan. If I read the article > > correctly, it said that on one of Microsoft's new products, their license > > states that you cannot use their product with "viral" software. They > > define viral software as free software with open source licenses (in > > particular, GPL'd software, and software with similar licenses). They > > literally cite Linux and Apache as examples of viral open source software. > > Doesn't anyone else find this outrageous? This is the same as saying you > > can't wear hand-me-down pants with your overpriced Abercrombie & Fitch > > shirt. It's like a violation of your personal freedom. > > I would really like that url or publication name. I am also getting very > irritated with the FUD&M$ camp_terror tactics. I have run across several > articles of late that called linux many silly (completely giggle loaded) > things. Yet, you are the first who has mentioned (yet another stupid) M$ > license where open source is coined as 'viral'. Yup, I figured a lot of folks might want to see that article. Here it is: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2781989,00.html Here's another link to the same article: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2781638,00.html > I realize this is just the tip of the burg. Running linux could soon be > considered a crime in the US. . . Well, if you believe in the increasingly more valid view that U.S. laws are purchased by big business, then Linux could very well become criminal. Given their current behavior, I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft and other software giants set up a huge anti-open source software lobby. It wouldn't be too hard to scare old congressmen by using words such as "viral" and giving contrived examples on why open source software is bad. And I'm sure MS has deep enough pockets to *buy* a few key votes. Enjoy Linux while you can! Matt -- Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around, Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday, Then I'll get on my knees and pray..." -- Pete Townshend/The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >DvB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The only other similar problem I can think of is vmware related. > >There's also the possibility that they're thinking about DHCP. A >number of admins can tell stories of the time someone was trying to >set up a DHCP server for one of their interfaces, and they >misconfigured it so that it served DHCP addresses on the external >interface, thus breaking things. Yes, that happened here at Cistron a couple of times. The master SMB browser takeover or whatever it's called is also something we've seen on the local LAN. However, in all cases these were wrongly configured *windows* machines. We've never had any trouble with any Linux clients on the network. Mike. -- "dselect has a user interface which scares small children" -- Theodore Tso, on debian-devel
RE: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
FWIW, sendmail can only run in "non-daemon" mode. It can be invoked locally by other applications when needed, but doesn't need to run as a daemon and bind to port 25/TCP. j. -- Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Original Message- From: D-Man [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:06 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 01:51:03AM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote: | 4. disable exim/postfix/sendmail. this will mean that you won't be able |to send mail locally (some applications like mutt rely on local MTA |to send their mail). If you use ssmtp instead of exim/other_complete_MTA you can still send mail out, but that is all ssmtp does. It is not a deamon either, it runs when it is called then terminates. I use it on my cygwin (win2k) box at work so I can use mutt. -D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wednesday 11 July 2001 16:33, Matthew Garman wrote: > I've been particularly mad about all this recently, having just read an > article about our Redmond boys' new licensing plan. If I read the article > correctly, it said that on one of Microsoft's new products, their license > states that you cannot use their product with "viral" software. They > define viral software as free software with open source licenses (in > particular, GPL'd software, and software with similar licenses). They > literally cite Linux and Apache as examples of viral open source software. > Doesn't anyone else find this outrageous? This is the same as saying you > can't wear hand-me-down pants with your overpriced Abercrombie & Fitch > shirt. It's like a violation of your personal freedom. > > Sorry, just had to rant a bit. > Matt Mat, I would really like that url or publication name. I am also getting very irritated with the FUD&M$ camp_terror tactics. I have run across several articles of late that called linux many silly (completely giggle loaded) things. Yet, you are the first who has mentioned (yet another stupid) M$ license where open source is coined as 'viral'. I realize this is just the tip of the burg. Running linux could soon be considered a crime in the US. . . Thanks. -- Jaye Inabnit\ARS ke6sls\/A GNU-Debian linux user \/ http://www.qsl.net/ke6sls If it's stupid, but works, it ain't stupid. SHOUT JUST FOR FUN. Free software, in a free world, for a free spirit. Please Support freedom!
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Brian Stults wrote: > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. You might try mentioning that any of the security concerns brought up in this thread (dhcp, samba, etc), can all be exploited from windows too if one tries hard enough (all you need after all is the ability to send raw data out a network socket). And of course, a windows user who has _not_ been pulled in for the grilling they have singled you out for, and who is not security concious, will have their windows system vulnerable to many holes which attackers could use to get in and then do the above. -- see shy jo
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Jason Healy wrote: > They might be referring to using Samba and setting it up as a domain > master. This is stupid, because a) it doesn't come configured that > way, and b) any organization worth its salt will run a backup domain > controller to ensure that nobody can hijack control of the domain (for > a while, all Win 95 boxes were factory set to try to elect themselves > as the browse master for a domain, so they should have solved this There's a difference between the domain controller and the master browser. Win9x can only be the master browser, Samba and NT can be either or both. Samba does like to be the master browser, but it doesn't really matter who is the master browser; in fact, having it be a Samba system is probably *better* since it is more likely to be stable, cutting down on the number of elections and improving performance overall :} On the other hand if Samba wants to be the domain controller you will cause havoc, similar to if you were claiming to be the NIS master server. Some distributions at least did for a time have Samba by default being the domain controller. I don't think this is the case with current Debian (but then, I don't use Samba any more...)
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Brian Stults <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > happy to hear them. I plan on emphasizing the fact that I disable most > services in inetd. The only servers I run are an ssh server and an ftp > server. I do not allow anonymous ftp, and I tunnel all my ftp transfers > through ssh. I am the only person with an account on my box. I will Why then are you using ftp at all? scp can do recursive copy you know. Cheers, Stig -- 00:15:00 up 11 days, 17:42, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.06, 0.02
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 05:05:42PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | Do windoze lusers also sign that? If not, you could yell "discrimination". | Because it's _your_ desktop. Because you don't know shit about winders. | They can either let you run linux, or pay for your MCSE courses. I like these! -D
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 01:51:03AM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote: | 4. disable exim/postfix/sendmail. this will mean that you won't be able |to send mail locally (some applications like mutt rely on local MTA |to send their mail). If you use ssmtp instead of exim/other_complete_MTA you can still send mail out, but that is all ssmtp does. It is not a deamon either, it runs when it is called then terminates. I use it on my cygwin (win2k) box at work so I can use mutt. -D
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
At 994908313s since epoch (07/11/01 22:25:13 -0400 UTC), George C. Marshall wrote: > Samba does like to be the master browser, but it doesn't really matter who > is the master browser; in fact, having it be a Samba system is probably > *better* since it is more likely to be stable, cutting down on the number > of elections and improving performance overall :} > > On the other hand if Samba wants to be the domain controller you will > cause havoc, similar to if you were claiming to be the NIS master server. Thanks for the correction; I was getting my stories confused. I meant PDC, though I mixed in some browse master stories there... Don't (try to) make your machine the PDC, that's what I meant. As for Browse Master, it can be a problem on a large network. On our college lan, before they segmented it, all ~1000 windows boxes would participate in browse master elections. The PDC would always win, since it had backup NT boxes to vote for it, but the election itself was a killer on the network. The IT staff asked everyone to turn off browse master on their win 9x boxes to prevent all the yapping on the network. While this probably isn't important, I'd set my linux box to lose elections... Jason -- Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 03:50:18PM -0400, Brian Stults wrote: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. > Although I have philosphical objections to this kind of policey, I am > willing to sign this if that is what it takes because I am quite > confident about my knowledge of security issues. I would think twice before signing an agreement like that. not arguing your knowledge, every(!!) system is breakeable. > > Anyway, here is the reason for this call for help. Tomorrow, I must > talk on the phone with the sysadmin of the College of Liberal Arts and > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. I plan on emphasizing the fact that I disable most > services in inetd. The only servers I run are an ssh server and an ftp > server. I do not allow anonymous ftp, and I tunnel all my ftp transfers > through ssh. I am the only person with an account on my box. I will > also emphasize the fact that security updates are available on a daily > basis through debian's dpkg system. there are many things you have to remember to disable (except for the stuff in inetd). 1. as many people stated, DON"T use ftp. it's the most dangerous protocol. use scp instead. 2. remember to close dhcp (don't install it) because if there are 2 dhcp servers on a network neither one will work. 3. remember that almost everything in unix is client/server basis, so remember to give access only to localhost to some servers that surely run on your computer (for example X server - opens a few ports besides 6000). 4. disable exim/postfix/sendmail. this will mean that you won't be able to send mail locally (some applications like mutt rely on local MTA to send their mail). another option is to close port 25 (sendmail also uses another port, I don't remember which) from the outside using ipchains/iptables. 5. run nmap (or some other monitoring tool) from the outside. remember not to use the default scanning but a more thorough one (you'll need root access to do that). consult the nmap manpage (e.g.using the -sS switch). > > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. I cannot imagine how this would happen. The > only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. > If it is "elected", I suppose my machine could force itself to be the > server. I don't know enough about samba, though, to know if this is > possible. However, if I don't run a samba server, it wouldn't be a > problem, right? Can anyone else think of why this might happen? you can easily disable your samba server from participating in the elections with these options domain master = no local master = no you can also give a very low os level (20). > > Thanks and sorry this message was so long, > Brian > -- > > Brian J. Stults > Doctoral Candidate > Department of Sociology > University at Albany - SUNY > Phone: (518) 442-4652 Fax: (518) 442-4936 > Web: http://www.albany.edu/~bs7452 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good Luck -- Haim >
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
SuSe Linux has a version of linux that you can run from the cd. If you are using a FAT filesystem, it will create two files on your computer for you to store your settings and personal data. If you are using a NTFS filesystem, you have to run though the setup, it only takes 2 min. It does not repartition your drive or change any windows settings. You can even run kde/gnome! Go to suse's ftp site (ftp.suse.com) and download the live file system iso. Burn it to cd, and you can run linux off of it without repartition your drive or making any changes to windows. David [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Brian Stults wrote: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. > Although I have philosphical objections to this kind of policey, I am > willing to sign this if that is what it takes because I am quite > confident about my knowledge of security issues. > > Anyway, here is the reason for this call for help. Tomorrow, I must > talk on the phone with the sysadmin of the College of Liberal Arts and > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. I plan on emphasizing the fact that I disable most > services in inetd. The only servers I run are an ssh server and an ftp > server. I do not allow anonymous ftp, and I tunnel all my ftp transfers > through ssh. I am the only person with an account on my box. I will > also emphasize the fact that security updates are available on a daily > basis through debian's dpkg system. > > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. I cannot imagine how this would happen. The > only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. > If it is "elected", I suppose my machine could force itself to be the > server. I don't know enough about samba, though, to know if this is > possible. However, if I don't run a samba server, it wouldn't be a > problem, right? Can anyone else think of why this might happen? > > Thanks and sorry this message was so long, > Brian > -- > > Brian J. Stults > Doctoral Candidate > Department of Sociology > University at Albany - SUNY > Phone: (518) 442-4652 Fax: (518) 442-4936 > Web: http://www.albany.edu/~bs7452 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 03:50:18PM -0400, Brian Stults wrote: > talk on the phone with the sysadmin of the College of Liberal Arts and > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If Let me first re-iterate what others have said: be polite when dealing with these people; show that you know what you're doing (but don't deliberately talk over their heads); clearly say that you will disable all services except SSH and FTP; and consider running *only* SSH, and using scp rather than FTP. You might also want to use both tcpwrappers and a firewall to limit who can use SSH, as well as configure how your computer reacts to network traffic, and also (with iptables) have the ability to log network activity. With this and strong passwords, your computer will probably be one of the most secure computers on the network. Now let me vent a little bit: I don't think it's fair that you should even have to talk to the sysadmin, unless *everyone* with a PC (regardless of OS) has to talk to him. The sysadmin either doesn't know anything about Linux or thinks *you* don't know what you're doing. If he doesn't know anything about Linux, then he probably subscribes to the "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" propaganda that our favorite monopoly broadcasts. Now that Microsoft has labeled open source software "viral," there will be a lot more people afraid of Linux, before they've even given it a chance. Of course you can come up with many contrived technical examples why open source software is subpar, dangerous or a security risk. But for the folks who don't understand the tech talk, all they have to hear is that it's "viral" and they immediately think it's dangerous. Of course it could just be the latter case, i.e., that your sysadmin is quite Linux knowledgeable, but is concerned that you aren't. It could just be that someone came along, set up an unsecured Linux box, and opened the door to some trouble. However, since they think that Linux can "trick the network" I'd bet they don't have a lot of personal Linux knowledge or experience (in which case it's unfair that you have to answer to him). When I first went to college---in 1997---and moved into the dorms, I was running Linux. In those dorms, if both roommates had a computer, they gave you a hub to share the dorm's ethernet access. Shortly after we moved in and got our networks going, we had some problem, and our network access wouldn't work. The technicians *insisted* that our problems were rooted in the fact that I was running Linux. So it took weeks of me calling them, trying to convince them that Linux wasn't screwing up our network connection. Finally, they figured out that my roommate's network card was buggy, and confusing the main switch! (And all the while that we were without a net connection, I ran ethernet cable into the adjacent room to "borrow" his :) It's the same principle as what you might be up against, though: fear of the unknown. I've been particularly mad about all this recently, having just read an article about our Redmond boys' new licensing plan. If I read the article correctly, it said that on one of Microsoft's new products, their license states that you cannot use their product with "viral" software. They define viral software as free software with open source licenses (in particular, GPL'd software, and software with similar licenses). They literally cite Linux and Apache as examples of viral open source software. Doesn't anyone else find this outrageous? This is the same as saying you can't wear hand-me-down pants with your overpriced Abercrombie & Fitch shirt. It's like a violation of your personal freedom. I think the whole fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics are pretty low in the first place. It's like Cambles going after soup kitchens because they cut into profits. It's like JCPenny giving the Salvation Army. Sorry, just had to rant a bit. Matt -- Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around, Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday, Then I'll get on my knees and pray..." -- Pete Townshend/The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
hi ya i donno for sure but i would suspect getting into an NT or windows box and sniffing from there would be easier than getting into a patched linux box and havign somebody sniff passwd rememboer all theose widnows box are basically "root" anyway ( okay...administrator ) and those users can isntall those sniffers tooo as can those from the outside... if the outside world can come into local PC machines...they've got a major firewall issue... = == == if they are running stuff that has cleartext passwds... == they cannot use the argument that they are security concious... == = - if they claim security is an issue... even if they running cleartext passwd ( ftp, pop, telnet ... ) then i'd be heading out the door at that point... - those insecure stuff should be on a insecure network... sniff it all they like... give um root on a linux box... but no other damage will occur to the rest of the LAN === === windoze boxes and linux boxes must be "hardened"... === if not...both are equally susceptable to any kind of additional === attacks locally or to the outside Bank-of-Arctic-Circle NTSA === c ya alvin On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Jason Healy wrote: > At 994884618s since epoch (07/11/01 15:50:18 -0400 UTC), Brian Stults wrote: > > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > > happy to hear them. > > Our IT department was wary (though not afraid) of linux users, because > once you've rooted a linux box, password sniffing is only a short > distance away. However, with all those fun windoze tools out there, > taking over windows machines is just as easy, and just as devastating > for the network. > > Emphasize that you're probably safer running linux than windows. You > won't be using Outlook (a major plus ), and you actually know how > to secure a linux machine. You won't be running a public webserver, > etc, etc. Offer to let them try to hack your box... =) > > > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > > system of over 2000 users. > > They might be referring to using Samba and setting it up as a domain > master. This is stupid, because a) it doesn't come configured that > way, and b) any organization worth its salt will run a backup domain > controller to ensure that nobody can hijack control of the domain (for > a while, all Win 95 boxes were factory set to try to elect themselves > as the browse master for a domain, so they should have solved this > problem anyway). > > They might also be referring to other misconfigurations... since linux > lets you tweak so much, it is possible to make dumb mistakes (I once > advertised myself as the shortest path to all appletalk devices. You > can imagine the warm reception I got from IT on that one when all the > printers fell into a Black Hole of Routing.) > > While linux makes this stuff possible, it doesn't mean that you're > automatically going to do it. Also, it is possible to do some of this > stuff even if you have windows, so it's not really fair to assume that > you'll do anything wrong (is this 'OS profiling'?). If they're > assuming that you're malicious, then that's their problem; if you > really want to screw the network you can do it hundreds of ways > without needing linux. > > Just talk to them and try to show that you have a clue (but aren't > pompous), and if they have any sense they'll warm up to you. My > college's IT department was cold and unfriendly, until you get to know > them. After some friendly chats, they'll let you do whatever you want. > > Jason > -- > Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] > LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
* Brian Stults ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. Do windoze lusers also sign that? If not, you could yell "discrimination". > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; Because it's _your_ desktop. Because you don't know shit about winders. They can either let you run linux, or pay for your MCSE courses. > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. Find out if you're talking to someone with a clue. If they're clueless, get them to tell you what exactly they mean by "security issues" and address each in turn. Shouldn't be too difficult. Otherwise it is usually enough to demonstrate that you have a clue, too. > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. Hmm... that doesn't sound good (clue-wise). I cannot imagine how this would happen. The > only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. >... Can anyone else think of why this might happen? Samba or DHCP could do this. (I suppose there's lots of things that could bring down a windoze notwork of 2000 users. Like connecting a real OS to it.) Dima -- E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home) http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key We're sysadmins. Sanity happens to other people.-- Chris King in asr
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
hi brian... dont mention that you use ftp if its tunneled thru ssh ... its not an issue... ??? if you use ssh, use scp instead of ftp anyway... if you dont have anonymous ftp... you dont need ftp at all if you turned off stuff you dont use... you have a reasonable box if you have also applied the lastest patches if their in house admin gets annoying..ask him to break into your box... and/or apply all the scripts to try to gain access... and than do the same to all the NTs/Win98/Win95/Suns/HPs/IBMs etc..etc.. - there's a hole already there... adding your linux box is not gonna make it any worst?? all boxes can be broken into if one wanted too... but... how much time and $$ does one want to spend and what would one gain ??? you can also run nmap on their network to see how many other linux boxes is on the network... not just yours - - i would NOT tell um its linux and let it go... - bring in a laptop w/ linux too and check their network for linux - boxes already there.. that they dont know about ?? ... - == == == if a [cr/h]acker does get into your PC from the outside... == they have a major firewall issue... not that you have a linux box... == == have fun alvin On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Brian Stults wrote: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. > Although I have philosphical objections to this kind of policey, I am > willing to sign this if that is what it takes because I am quite > confident about my knowledge of security issues. > > Anyway, here is the reason for this call for help. Tomorrow, I must > talk on the phone with the sysadmin of the College of Liberal Arts and > Sciences and explain two things: 1) they want to know why I need linux > instead of using their unix system and having MS Windows on the desktop; > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. I plan on emphasizing the fact that I disable most > services in inetd. The only servers I run are an ssh server and an ftp > server. I do not allow anonymous ftp, and I tunnel all my ftp transfers > through ssh. I am the only person with an account on my box. I will > also emphasize the fact that security updates are available on a daily > basis through debian's dpkg system. > > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. I cannot imagine how this would happen. The > only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. > If it is "elected", I suppose my machine could force itself to be the > server. I don't know enough about samba, though, to know if this is > possible. However, if I don't run a samba server, it wouldn't be a > problem, right? Can anyone else think of why this might happen? > > Thanks and sorry this message was so long, > Brian > -- > > Brian J. Stults > Doctoral Candidate > Department of Sociology > University at Albany - SUNY > Phone: (518) 442-4652 Fax: (518) 442-4936 > Web: http://www.albany.edu/~bs7452 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
At 994884618s since epoch (07/11/01 15:50:18 -0400 UTC), Brian Stults wrote: > and 2) they want to know that I am conscious of security issues. If > anyone has any suggestions for the kinds of things to stress, I would be > happy to hear them. Our IT department was wary (though not afraid) of linux users, because once you've rooted a linux box, password sniffing is only a short distance away. However, with all those fun windoze tools out there, taking over windows machines is just as easy, and just as devastating for the network. Emphasize that you're probably safer running linux than windows. You won't be using Outlook (a major plus ), and you actually know how to secure a linux machine. You won't be running a public webserver, etc, etc. Offer to let them try to hack your box... =) > Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They > said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into > thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a > system of over 2000 users. They might be referring to using Samba and setting it up as a domain master. This is stupid, because a) it doesn't come configured that way, and b) any organization worth its salt will run a backup domain controller to ensure that nobody can hijack control of the domain (for a while, all Win 95 boxes were factory set to try to elect themselves as the browse master for a domain, so they should have solved this problem anyway). They might also be referring to other misconfigurations... since linux lets you tweak so much, it is possible to make dumb mistakes (I once advertised myself as the shortest path to all appletalk devices. You can imagine the warm reception I got from IT on that one when all the printers fell into a Black Hole of Routing.) While linux makes this stuff possible, it doesn't mean that you're automatically going to do it. Also, it is possible to do some of this stuff even if you have windows, so it's not really fair to assume that you'll do anything wrong (is this 'OS profiling'?). If they're assuming that you're malicious, then that's their problem; if you really want to screw the network you can do it hundreds of ways without needing linux. Just talk to them and try to show that you have a clue (but aren't pompous), and if they have any sense they'll warm up to you. My college's IT department was cold and unfriendly, until you get to know them. After some friendly chats, they'll let you do whatever you want. Jason -- Jason Healy| [EMAIL PROTECTED] LogN Systems | http://www.logn.net/
Re: [users] Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
also sprach DvB (on Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:40:00PM -0500): > I'm willing to be that's exactly what they're talking about. There was > quite a to do about this a year or so ago when it happened at some large > company which then banned linux. I believe you have to explicitly tell > samba in the config file to become the master browser though... I don't > think being elected is a problem. However, I'm not a samba expert either... redhat's samba has this on by default. debian's doesn't. election priorities are on a scale between 0-20 (this is all from memory, don't flame me if i am wrong). now tell me *why*, just *why* did these clowns in redmond decide on *7* for their domain server? because they wanted to have an additional 6 priorities that could always steal the master browser position and screw around? another case of micro$oft can't even copy the others correctly (did micro$oft *ever* do anything *original*, or did they *ever* copy something *right*?) martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a nce jb in th prgrmng indstry pgp7WowlLOrzR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [users] Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
also sprach Chuck Stickelman (on Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:39:42PM -0400): > Do they make their Windows users sign the same document? Can these > "attached conditions" be binding if you've already assigned your contract? hehe. do they *know* what security is if they are windoze based? just had a long chat with a colleague, and given that we're in the network security training and consulting business, we established that the only good thing about micro$oft is that as long as they exist, we will have a job! martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- be nice to your kids. they'll choose your nursing home. pgpmbd0JCEPZ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
DvB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The only other similar problem I can think of is vmware related. There's also the possibility that they're thinking about DHCP. A number of admins can tell stories of the time someone was trying to set up a DHCP server for one of their interfaces, and they misconfigured it so that it served DHCP addresses on the external interface, thus breaking things. In general, if you aren't running a service, there's no way you can confuse the rest of the network that you're the authoritative server for that service. If you keep it to ssh and ftp[1], you shouldn't have problems. Footnotes: [1] I'd ditch ftp, if possible, and use scp. Since you're not doing anon-ftp, I don't see any reason to leave it open... it tends to give more security problems. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! Good news. Ten weeks from Friday will be a pretty good day.
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Brian Stults wrote: > Hello, > > In the fall, I will be starting a new position as Professor of Sociology > at the University of Florida. When I interviewed, one of my > requirements was that I be allowed to run linux on my office computer. > They said it would not be a problem. However, now that I have signed > the contract and am soon to arrive, they have attached some conditions. > The most serious condition is that I must sign a document stating that I > am financially responsible for any cost incurred by the University if > someone hacks into my computer and causes damage to their network. > Although I have philosphical objections to this kind of policey, I am > willing to sign this if that is what it takes because I am quite > confident about my knowledge of security issues. Do they make their Windows users sign the same document? Can these "attached conditions" be binding if you've already assigned your contract? Chuck
Re: sysadmin won't allow linux - PLEASE HELP
Brian Stults wrote: Here is one concern of theirs, though, that I don't understand. They said one problem with linux is that it will trick their network into thinking that my linux box is the main server, thus bringing down a system of over 2000 users. I cannot imagine how this would happen. The only thing I can think of is the issue of the master browser in samba. If it is "elected", I suppose my machine could force itself to be the server. I don't know enough about samba, though, to know if this is possible. However, if I don't run a samba server, it wouldn't be a problem, right? Can anyone else think of why this might happen? I'm willing to be that's exactly what they're talking about. There was quite a to do about this a year or so ago when it happened at some large company which then banned linux. I believe you have to explicitly tell samba in the config file to become the master browser though... I don't think being elected is a problem. However, I'm not a samba expert either... The only other similar problem I can think of is vmware related. At one point, I was running vmware on a Mandrake 6.0 (or 6.1?) box and it caused a packet storm while I was on vacation (probably my fault for leaving vmware running while I was on vacation). I never figured out for sure what the problem was but I'm pretty sure it was vmware's fault (vmware 1.x).
