Re: [expert] Virus?
Lets compromise do both On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 21:17, HaywireMac wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:53:18 -0600 > "Charlie M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > You're absolutely correct as far as I can tell. > > > > I guess that means we're in total agreement. (-: > > Motion carried! We nuke Redmond! > > er, that *was* the motion, right? where's the minutes... -- Richard Bown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 22:17, HaywireMac wrote: > Motion carried! We nuke Redmond! Yeah, I second that!! E, what's Redmond?;) Good luck, HarM -- Registered Linux User #197998 FSF Associate Member #901 ICQ #146191606 Mandrake HowTo's & more: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 22, 2003 02:17 pm, HaywireMac wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:53:18 -0600 > > "Charlie M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > You're absolutely correct as far as I can tell. > > > > I guess that means we're in total agreement. (-: > > Motion carried! We nuke Redmond! > > er, that *was* the motion, right? where's the minutes... Close enough for guvmint work isn't it? C. - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.4.22-12.tmb.1mdk 14:32:47 up 22:10, 1 user, load average: 0.42, 0.54, 0.35 "How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lumbG11CaRuZZSIRAgANAJ9j/BN1XL+vp/AGoLPxaqkRPeW1wwCbBldQ seGsAYnygA5zqKLT2vmtX9I= =SXKG -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Star Date Wednesday 22 October 2003 01:17 pm, HaywireMac sent this sub-space message. > Motion carried! We nuke Redmond! > > er, that *was* the motion, right? where's the minutes... Wasnt there a second motion? Something about getting a rope and finding Bill Gates :) Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:53:18 -0600 "Charlie M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > You're absolutely correct as far as I can tell. > > I guess that means we're in total agreement. (-: Motion carried! We nuke Redmond! er, that *was* the motion, right? where's the minutes... -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ If you live long enough, you'll see that every victory turns into a defeat. -- Simone de Beauvoir Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 11:38, Bryan Phinney wrote: ... > > No offense taken here, I was just plugging my .02 pence in to the discussion. > Everytime that I see someone suggesting that open source developers cooperate > with industry more, work with committees, etc., I almost always get visions > of a pack of wolves inviting the sheep in for dinner. Not that I distrust > business, mind you, but traditional corporations' entire business models are > diametrically opposed to what open source is trying to do, so I think that > you have to keep your eyes wide open when they start to make nice. Such > suggestions sound a lot like SCO's recent letter asking open source > developers to let them help monetize Linux. Or Forbes Magazine's dismissal > of open source because the FSF doesn't put a price tag on licensing but > instead demands that Cisco contribute back to the same movement that they > benefited from by releasing its source based on Linux. At a certain point, > you have to just recognize that some people are just never going to "get it." > Move on, do what we do best and let them join in once they realize that > people aren't buying buggy whips because they already bought an automobile > and they simply aren't interested in discussing ways to incorporate buggy > whips into cars. ... well-stated! -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
> Fact is, I personally feel that the unified architecture of centralized > products is a disadvantage when it comes to security. I like the chaotic > nature of current varied distributions of Linux. my .02 is that I concur. Totalitarianism speaks through 1 voice, freedom is the voice of all being heard. The number of voices being hear is linux's strength and protection from the alternative. -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 (936) 715-9339 fax -- - Original Message - From: "Bryan Phinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [expert] Virus? > On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:31 pm, Charlie M. wrote: > > > > I don't know about your own experiences, but everytime I have been > > > involved in a product development effort designed by a committee, I have > > > not been overly impressed with the final results. Again, YMMV. > > > > My own personal experiences with anything involving committees forces me to > > fall back on an old quote: > > > > "A committee is the only lifeform in the known universe with many limbs, > > many eyes, many mouths.. > > > > and no brains." > > > > Sorry but I thought the discussion was becoming too intense. > > > > No offence intended. (-: > > No offense taken here, I was just plugging my .02 pence in to the discussion. > Everytime that I see someone suggesting that open source developers cooperate > with industry more, work with committees, etc., I almost always get visions > of a pack of wolves inviting the sheep in for dinner. Not that I distrust > business, mind you, but traditional corporations' entire business models are > diametrically opposed to what open source is trying to do, so I think that > you have to keep your eyes wide open when they start to make nice. Such > suggestions sound a lot like SCO's recent letter asking open source > developers to let them help monetize Linux. Or Forbes Magazine's dismissal > of open source because the FSF doesn't put a price tag on licensing but > instead demands that Cisco contribute back to the same movement that they > benefited from by releasing its source based on Linux. At a certain point, > you have to just recognize that some people are just never going to "get it." > Move on, do what we do best and let them join in once they realize that > people aren't buying buggy whips because they already bought an automobile > and they simply aren't interested in discussing ways to incorporate buggy > whips into cars. > > > > In my experience, nothing is secure. If you want absolute security, load > > > software on the box, rip out all the disk drives, network connections, > > > external interfaces and the keyboard and you are now secure. I used to > > > have an old XT computer chassis, no disk drives, no keyboard and no > > > working ports, that was a pretty secure box. > > > > I don't disagree with what you say, but I understand Haywire's point. > > Well, if you understand Haywire, then I wouldn't think we would be in > disagreement, my point was that Open Source appears to be secure, it appears > to be more secure than any other source developed with traditional > centralized, from the ground-up models, and until someone provides a > practical example of a superior product that was built using a centralized, > from the ground-up model, I am perfectly willing to take my chances with good > old Linux, open source, disjointed, hacked together as it may be. > > > For > > the average non-technically inclined computer user any GNU/Linux/Open > > Source system is easier to secure and maintain as secure. Simply because > > there are so many ways to work toward the goal and so many available tools > > and layers of defence to use. > > Fact is, I personally feel that the unified architecture of centralized > products is a disadvantage when it comes to security. I like the chaotic > nature of current varied distributions of Linux. > > -- > Bryan Phinney > Software Test Engineer > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 22, 2003 12:38 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > > For > > the average non-technically inclined computer user any GNU/Linux/Open > > Source system is easier to secure and maintain as secure. Simply because > > there are so many ways to work toward the goal and so many available > > tools and layers of defence to use. > > Fact is, I personally feel that the unified architecture of centralized > products is a disadvantage when it comes to security. I like the chaotic > nature of current varied distributions of Linux. You're absolutely correct as far as I can tell. I guess that means we're in total agreement. (-: Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.4.22-12.tmb.1mdk 12:50:26 up 20:28, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.05 Perfect day for scrubbing the floor and other exciting things. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ltIeG11CaRuZZSIRAgJbAJ0Wup8D5VGWFQJtRBx0YnBnYtui5ACfU32r EvKRtwFegpMXT1lFezqggHM= =v8ej -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:31 pm, Charlie M. wrote: > > I don't know about your own experiences, but everytime I have been > > involved in a product development effort designed by a committee, I have > > not been overly impressed with the final results. Again, YMMV. > > My own personal experiences with anything involving committees forces me to > fall back on an old quote: > > "A committee is the only lifeform in the known universe with many limbs, > many eyes, many mouths.. > > and no brains." > > Sorry but I thought the discussion was becoming too intense. > > No offence intended. (-: No offense taken here, I was just plugging my .02 pence in to the discussion. Everytime that I see someone suggesting that open source developers cooperate with industry more, work with committees, etc., I almost always get visions of a pack of wolves inviting the sheep in for dinner. Not that I distrust business, mind you, but traditional corporations' entire business models are diametrically opposed to what open source is trying to do, so I think that you have to keep your eyes wide open when they start to make nice. Such suggestions sound a lot like SCO's recent letter asking open source developers to let them help monetize Linux. Or Forbes Magazine's dismissal of open source because the FSF doesn't put a price tag on licensing but instead demands that Cisco contribute back to the same movement that they benefited from by releasing its source based on Linux. At a certain point, you have to just recognize that some people are just never going to "get it." Move on, do what we do best and let them join in once they realize that people aren't buying buggy whips because they already bought an automobile and they simply aren't interested in discussing ways to incorporate buggy whips into cars. > > In my experience, nothing is secure. If you want absolute security, load > > software on the box, rip out all the disk drives, network connections, > > external interfaces and the keyboard and you are now secure. I used to > > have an old XT computer chassis, no disk drives, no keyboard and no > > working ports, that was a pretty secure box. > > I don't disagree with what you say, but I understand Haywire's point. Well, if you understand Haywire, then I wouldn't think we would be in disagreement, my point was that Open Source appears to be secure, it appears to be more secure than any other source developed with traditional centralized, from the ground-up models, and until someone provides a practical example of a superior product that was built using a centralized, from the ground-up model, I am perfectly willing to take my chances with good old Linux, open source, disjointed, hacked together as it may be. > For > the average non-technically inclined computer user any GNU/Linux/Open > Source system is easier to secure and maintain as secure. Simply because > there are so many ways to work toward the goal and so many available tools > and layers of defence to use. Fact is, I personally feel that the unified architecture of centralized products is a disadvantage when it comes to security. I like the chaotic nature of current varied distributions of Linux. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 22, 2003 06:08 am, Bryan Phinney wrote: And somehow we are led to believe that getting into a room with a bunch of > corporate representatives from various companies will somehow result in a > superior product than the free marketplace of ideas and technical quality? > I don't know about your own experiences, but everytime I have been involved > in a product development effort designed by a committee, I have not been > overly impressed with the final results. Again, YMMV. My own personal experiences with anything involving committees forces me to fall back on an old quote: "A committee is the only lifeform in the known universe with many limbs, many eyes, many mouths.. and no brains." Sorry but I thought the discussion was becoming too intense. No offence intended. (-: > In my experience, nothing is secure. If you want absolute security, load > software on the box, rip out all the disk drives, network connections, > external interfaces and the keyboard and you are now secure. I used to > have an old XT computer chassis, no disk drives, no keyboard and no working > ports, that was a pretty secure box. I don't disagree with what you say, but I understand Haywire's point. For the average non-technically inclined computer user any GNU/Linux/Open Source system is easier to secure and maintain as secure. Simply because there are so many ways to work toward the goal and so many available tools and layers of defence to use. Regards; Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Mandrake 9.2 (Five Stars) 2.4.22-12.tmb.1mdk 10:23:18 up 18:01, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.08, 0.08 weapon, n.: An index of the lack of development of a culture. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lrD6G11CaRuZZSIRAjVrAJ9/wzX02b1mjvjHusbHwVQn4tMHQQCfekAs YLNApiCp2j6hiNSskNFDE6o= =95ou -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:48 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: > No he didn't do this. What he said was that a piecemeal attempt at > security is not a solution, instead it's a path to death. True security > occurs will all parts are in concert. What good is a firewall if the > chat software allows a rootkit to come down along with a message? His > point is that piecemeal security and patches are a lot like locking a > screen door. Nice idea but eventually someone will figure out how to > cut the screen. Patching the screen may close the hole but it doesn't > increase security. He's right it has to be a ground up decision/effort. Well, given my current profession, I would argue that no matter which way you go, there is no such thing as truly secure software. Whether that effort is built entirely by one supergenius who builds everything himself and knows every inch of code or whether there are a thousand developers developing a thousand components and each overlooking each other's work and offering suggestions, mistakes are a fact of human existence and will never be completely eliminated, not even by the NSA. My professional experience tells me that building software in smaller chunks, limiting functionality to only what is needed and trying to limit the security privileges of each chunk to only what they need to do their job is better than creating a single, extremely complex, integrated application that by definition, has to have complete rights to operate. My experience tells me that developing software designed by an industry committee, each with their own agendas and preferences and biases and faults is not any more conducive to building a better quality or secure product. YMMV. The author's obviously does. However, there are many examples of operating systems, some built by open source developers in the marketplace of ideas, using what works and checking each other's work for flaws and improvements, continually trying to improve their pieces, and those that were built from the ground up, all working in concert, controlled by a highly centralized structure, and none have proven to be perfectly secure. Arguing that one method is superior to another without providing some practical example as proof is the same as arguing religion or politics, it is an article of faith. In the article cited, the author is attempting to explain to some highly skilled and experienced and some clueless developers, that they methods they have chosen to use to develop software over the last 20 years or so are completely wrong, without citing any specific example of a usable and superior product developed by the methods that he advocates. In my opinion, before you tell everyone else that they are wrong, you should be prepared to show them why you are right. I saw nothing in the article to convince me that the open source methodology has been improved on by him to practical advantage. You may have gotten more out of the article. And, one of the better things about the open source movement is that if he really thinks that the TCI is the right way to go, he is free to build an OS through interaction with them and in the free market of ideas, if it is better, it will be embraced by the community. I wish him good luck in convincing hardware manufacturers to support altering standards to support a free operating system. As for the example of the screen door, no matter how thick the door, how layered in armor, or how many deadly traps are set for those that would try to get through, if someone wants in bad enough, they will eventually figure a way to do so. Personally, I would rather not depend on any single measure but build interlocking lines of defense and try to make it so difficult to get anywhere of value that eventually, the bad parties give up and go looking for easier targets. > > To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted > > Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's scary. > > And inline with a harsh reality. And somehow we are led to believe that getting into a room with a bunch of corporate representatives from various companies will somehow result in a superior product than the free marketplace of ideas and technical quality? I don't know about your own experiences, but everytime I have been involved in a product development effort designed by a committee, I have not been overly impressed with the final results. Again, YMMV. > Linux is not secure. It can be made > secure. But in and of itself it isn't. Security comes not from what > the OS is. But on whether or not the tools exist to make that OS > secure. Take a look at NSA linux if you want to see some really neat > stuff about security. In my experience, nothing is secure. If you want absolute security, load software on the box, rip out all the disk drives, network connections, external interfaces and the keyboard and you are now secure. I
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:04:12 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > The largest advantage most users have is that the true experts at > doing things like this... won't because they have to much to lose. That's why I hope you see my point, this guy is applying altogether too much hype to an issue that he understands less than *I* do ;-) > > > > What currently existing or planned chat software would allow a > > rootkit to come down the pipe and be executed? If the user accepts a > > file, makes it executable, and runs it, there's nothing that can be > > done anyway. Education is the key, not more paranoia. > > Current, I know of none. In the past kicq (or any other icq client) > had this bug. (Hey my icq number has 5 digits. been around it for > a while.) However one of the less advertised reason for the recent > switch by yahoo and MSN on their protocols is just this reason. Which > is why older clients are blocked. But an MSN client would be of little threat in this regard running on a Linux platform, no? No one should be connecting to MSN anyway, unless they absolutely have to, for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted > > > > Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's > > > > scary. > > > > > > And inline with a harsh reality. Linux is not secure. It can be > > > made secure. But in and of itself it isn't. Security comes not > > > from what the OS is. But on whether or not the tools exist to > > > make that OS secure. Take a look at NSA linux if you want to see > > > some really neat stuff about security. > > > > It's certainly secure enough to avoid going down the path of tying > > software to hardware. The Trusted Computing Initiative is not to be > > trusted at all. To tell me what software I'm allowed to run on my > > hardware because some l33t h4x0r knows how to patch a running kernel > > is pure paranoia, and it would be the death of open source. > > The most restrictive music in the world is blues. just 12 notes. But > look at all of the music that's been made from it (Jazz, Gospel, Rock, > Rap etc etc etc.) Security isn't a restriction ... well ok I'll admit > that to most "experts" thats what security is. Security is the > outgrowth of Liberty (ask Benjamin Franklin) If all of the pieces > where in concert then you could run anything you want. No sweat. > Most restrictions come from having to block or otherwise thwart an > insecure system. Okay, valid point, but remember who this "Trusted Computing Platform" idea is coming from, and Benny would be spinning in his grave at what MS has planned for their version, I would wager. I have some hope for the future, of course; whatever crap these morons at MS and their cohorts throw out, it is guaranteed not to work, we can take that much for granted. -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ FORTUNE'S RULES TO LIVE BY: #2 Never goose a wolverine. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
Hello HaywireMac, Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 9:36:11 PM, you wrote: H> The Trusted Computing Initiative is not to be trusted at all. Each of us has to convince someone 'new' of this each week (or less). This may be attempted politically, and we will need a LOT of support if that is the case. H> it would be the death of open source. In part, that's the idea. -- rikonamailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 21:36, HaywireMac wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:48:34 -0700 > James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > Not true, I've seen the paper he refers to. It's possible to patch a > > running kernel in order to gain ownership... that's the scary part. > > In theory, and with the expertise of a hacker like Silvio Cesare. Is > this something desktop Linux users should be concerned about? No. The largest advantage most users have is that the true experts at doing things like this... won't because they have to much to lose. > > > > > > > This is hype, pure and simple, another attempt to gain notoriety by > > > pointing out "flaws" in a kernel that has proved itself beyond > > > question more secure than the "other" kernel. > > > > No he didn't do this. What he said was that a piecemeal attempt at > > security is not a solution, instead it's a path to death. True > > security occurs will all parts are in concert. What good is a > > firewall if the chat software allows a rootkit to come down along with > > a message? His point is that piecemeal security and patches are a lot > > like locking a screen door. Nice idea but eventually someone will > > figure out how to cut the screen. Patching the screen may close the > > hole but it doesn't increase security. He's right it has to be a > > ground up decision/effort. > > What currently existing or planned chat software would allow a rootkit > to come down the pipe and be executed? If the user accepts a file, makes > it executable, and runs it, there's nothing that can be done anyway. > Education is the key, not more paranoia. Current, I know of none. In the past kicq (or any other icq client) had this bug. (Hey my icq number has 5 digits. been around it for a while.) However one of the less advertised reason for the recent switch by yahoo and MSN on their protocols is just this reason. Which is why older clients are blocked. > > > > > > > To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted > > > Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's > > > scary. > > > > And inline with a harsh reality. Linux is not secure. It can be made > > secure. But in and of itself it isn't. Security comes not from what > > the OS is. But on whether or not the tools exist to make that OS > > secure. Take a look at NSA linux if you want to see some really neat > > stuff about security. > > It's certainly secure enough to avoid going down the path of tying > software to hardware. The Trusted Computing Initiative is not to be > trusted at all. To tell me what software I'm allowed to run on my > hardware because some l33t h4x0r knows how to patch a running kernel is > pure paranoia, and it would be the death of open source. The most restrictive music in the world is blues. just 12 notes. But look at all of the music that's been made from it (Jazz, Gospel, Rock, Rap etc etc etc.) Security isn't a restriction ... well ok I'll admit that to most "experts" thats what security is. Security is the outgrowth of Liberty (ask Benjamin Franklin) If all of the pieces where in concert then you could run anything you want. No sweat. Most restrictions come from having to block or otherwise thwart an insecure system. James > > I'll take my chances, thank you very much. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:48:34 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Not true, I've seen the paper he refers to. It's possible to patch a > running kernel in order to gain ownership... that's the scary part. In theory, and with the expertise of a hacker like Silvio Cesare. Is this something desktop Linux users should be concerned about? No. > > > > This is hype, pure and simple, another attempt to gain notoriety by > > pointing out "flaws" in a kernel that has proved itself beyond > > question more secure than the "other" kernel. > > No he didn't do this. What he said was that a piecemeal attempt at > security is not a solution, instead it's a path to death. True > security occurs will all parts are in concert. What good is a > firewall if the chat software allows a rootkit to come down along with > a message? His point is that piecemeal security and patches are a lot > like locking a screen door. Nice idea but eventually someone will > figure out how to cut the screen. Patching the screen may close the > hole but it doesn't increase security. He's right it has to be a > ground up decision/effort. What currently existing or planned chat software would allow a rootkit to come down the pipe and be executed? If the user accepts a file, makes it executable, and runs it, there's nothing that can be done anyway. Education is the key, not more paranoia. > > > > To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted > > Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's > > scary. > > And inline with a harsh reality. Linux is not secure. It can be made > secure. But in and of itself it isn't. Security comes not from what > the OS is. But on whether or not the tools exist to make that OS > secure. Take a look at NSA linux if you want to see some really neat > stuff about security. It's certainly secure enough to avoid going down the path of tying software to hardware. The Trusted Computing Initiative is not to be trusted at all. To tell me what software I'm allowed to run on my hardware because some l33t h4x0r knows how to patch a running kernel is pure paranoia, and it would be the death of open source. I'll take my chances, thank you very much. -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ I am not afraid of tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today. -- William Allen White Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 20:21, HaywireMac wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:03:22 -0700 > James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > .in this case a hacker named Silvio Cesare, who proved with > > an alarming degree of success that one can patch a statically compiled > > kernel in memory. As time progresses, this will probably evolve into > > the standard means of putting a backdoor in a Linux system > > What's funny is this guy actually thinks it's relevant, or that he knows > what he's talking about, hence my reference to the "my dad..." comment. > > If someone can gain root access in order to patch a running kernel, yer > already owned. Not true, I've seen the paper he refers to. It's possible to patch a running kernel in order to gain ownership... that's the scary part. > > This is hype, pure and simple, another attempt to gain notoriety by > pointing out "flaws" in a kernel that has proved itself beyond question > more secure than the "other" kernel. No he didn't do this. What he said was that a piecemeal attempt at security is not a solution, instead it's a path to death. True security occurs will all parts are in concert. What good is a firewall if the chat software allows a rootkit to come down along with a message? His point is that piecemeal security and patches are a lot like locking a screen door. Nice idea but eventually someone will figure out how to cut the screen. Patching the screen may close the hole but it doesn't increase security. He's right it has to be a ground up decision/effort. > > To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted > Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's scary. And inline with a harsh reality. Linux is not secure. It can be made secure. But in and of itself it isn't. Security comes not from what the OS is. But on whether or not the tools exist to make that OS secure. Take a look at NSA linux if you want to see some really neat stuff about security. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:03:22 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > .in this case a hacker named Silvio Cesare, who proved with > an alarming degree of success that one can patch a statically compiled > kernel in memory. As time progresses, this will probably evolve into > the standard means of putting a backdoor in a Linux system What's funny is this guy actually thinks it's relevant, or that he knows what he's talking about, hence my reference to the "my dad..." comment. If someone can gain root access in order to patch a running kernel, yer already owned. This is hype, pure and simple, another attempt to gain notoriety by pointing out "flaws" in a kernel that has proved itself beyond question more secure than the "other" kernel. To further claim that Linux needs to go the route of the Trusted Computing initiative...well, yer right, that's not funny, that's scary. -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife - chopping off what's incomplete and saying: "Now it's complete because it's ended here." -- Muad'dib, "Dune" Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We already see the start of this in Lindows. Root by default. I also recall reading something recently about giving macro-running capability to SO/OO ala Office (yeah, I know it has its own macros as it is but my impression was it might be an attempt to make the whole experience as much like Office as possible). This means macro viruses for linux if it is done the windoze way. praedor On Tuesday 21 October 2003 04:44 pm, rikona wrote: > Hello James, > > Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 2:25:06 PM, you wrote: > > JS> as more and more of the windows world enters the world of Unix + > JS> the desire to make it as painless as possible may well increase > JS> the chances of something being haywire. > > I see this as the biggest threat. Especially if > ever-less-computer-literate users demand a better 'user experience.' > This will lead to less default security (interferes with some > operations) and, especially, connect-everything-to-everything designs > (lets the user do anything, from anywhere). The malware writers dream > world. Are we already going down this slippery slope? - -- "Our ship is in the hands of pilots who are steering directly under full sail for a rock. The whole crew may see this course to violate our liberties in full view if they look the right way." - --Samuel Adams, 1771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/la02aKr9sJYeTxgRAklxAJ95b+/oOOCoMPvp6cz67DkPW2KLUgCfQYQN P9CmmdTXYJjkHpE2G+bIMcI= =nSam -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 04:28, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:57:49 -0600 > "Charlie M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > Another misguided attempt by an MS apologist to deflect with smoke and > > > > mirrors, with a leavening of faulty logic, what is widely known: > > You thought *that* guy was a dildo, check this out: > > http://securityfocus.com/columnists/191 > > My favourite part: > > "My Dad could teach the community a lesson " > > ROTFLMAO! .in this case a hacker named Silvio Cesare, who proved with an alarming degree of success that one can patch a statically compiled kernel in memory. As time progresses, this will probably evolve into the standard means of putting a backdoor in a Linux system this is funny? James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
Hello James, Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 2:25:06 PM, you wrote: JS> as more and more of the windows world enters the world of Unix + JS> the desire to make it as painless as possible may well increase JS> the chances of something being haywire. I see this as the biggest threat. Especially if ever-less-computer-literate users demand a better 'user experience.' This will lead to less default security (interferes with some operations) and, especially, connect-everything-to-everything designs (lets the user do anything, from anywhere). The malware writers dream world. Are we already going down this slippery slope? -- rikonamailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:15 +0100 Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > It seemed to me that the point he was making was that linux will be > vulnerable, if not as much as windows, if it is used in the same > sloppy way. And I agree with him. I don't doubt that, but his point, to rebut the article on Security Focus, was faulty. He used "what if?" arguments to counter a simple and unarguable point, that Windows is exploited, as you yourself said, because it is easy to do. It's like arguing Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun because *some* astronomers might be using broken telescopes. -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ When you die, you lose a very important part of your life. -- Brooke Shields Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 04:14, Bryan Phinney wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2003 09:41 pm, Cy Kurtz wrote: > > > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) > > > > no no no wait a minute! > > > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, so > > they are going to go after the most popular OS. > > Every time I see this comparison, I wince. Explain to me how you can compare > a single OS built by a monolithic entity that controls all of the source code > and releases only the information that puts them in the best possible light > with an OS built by literally dozens of different teams, each to their own > specifications that basically share a common kernel but have different > directory structures, package managers, peripheral drivers, etc. > > As much as I think that Linux will become a bigger target eventually, I do NOT > think that anyone can generalize and say that one virus that exploits a > vulnerability on one distribution of Linux will automatically propagate to > every distribution. Ever tried to get a package that was built to be > portable to actually port over to a different distribution? And they are > trying to make it portable and can include code specifically designed to do > so. Viruses have to be small and compact. > > Linux is not the same as Windows and comparisons of this nature only serve to > make people forget WHY MS products have a tendency to be compromised more > often and it has a lot to do with the unified environment, the same thing > that MS is quick to take credit for when it works in their favor, and anxious > to make people forget when you point out that it also works against them. > > I would not go so far as to say that Linux can not be compromised but given > the age of the system, the fact that a lot more businesses run Linux which > makes it a more attractive target for ego purposes, and the fact that with > open source, MS could have been publishing exploits on Linux, if they were > there, instead of funding dubious analyst research on ROI that nobody pays > attention to, I feel pretty confident that Linux is much more secure than > average Windows. > > The fact is that it is MUCH easier to write viruses for Linux, (something that > these "journalists" often overlook) because of the fact that the source code > is published so that virus writers can go through line by line and look for > vulnerabilities. With Windows, they have to decompile and reverse engineer > to find weak points that may end up being dead ends. Given the different > nature of open source, we should be seeing many more viruses written for > Linux than for Windows, if only because it is so much easier to do it. > > As for social engineering, based on my own experience, I would trust a Linux > user to do the smart thing well before trusting the average Windows user, but > hey, that might be just me. I would as well, today, however as more and more of the windows world enters the world of Unix + the desire to make it as painless as possible may well increase the chances of something being haywire. There is little to stop someone from using betty or 123456 as a pasword. Warnings yes. But nothing tells them why it should be otherwise. One of the biggest security holes I've seen of late is the ability to setup auto login. Sine 9 out of 10 hacks are inside jobs gee. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:28:22 +0100 Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Would you feel better if you were compromised the day after instead of > > the day before? Verry funny... ;-) -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ Getting into trouble is easy. -- D. Winkel and F. Prosser Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tuesday 21 Oct 2003 2:41 am, Cy Kurtz wrote: > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install > > of Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any > > antivirus software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > Would you feel better if you were compromised the day after instead of the day before? > no no no wait a minute! > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as > possible, so they are going to go after the most popular OS. > Not entirely true, I think. People write viruses for windows because it is easy to - there are many vulnerabilities in many unpatched boxes and visual basic to write in. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tuesday 21 Oct 2003 3:18 am, Dan Jones wrote: > He did make a couple of valid point, although he doesn't make them > very well, and they don't really rebut the article he's addressing. > One, as Linux becomes more popular on the desktop, the temptation > to "dump it down" becomes very strong. I've never used Lindows, > but I understand that it's default install is quite unsecure and > even uses root as the default user. As I understand it, the original Lindows did, but that was quickly withdrawn and replaced by a version that did not. That does not negate your point though. > (I believe this was mentioned > in the original article.) This doesn't negate the security > advantage Linux has over Windows, but it definitely narrows the > gap. > > Second, patches to fix the vulnerabilities exploited by the recent > worms have been available for quite awhile. Normal users don't > patch their systems. As Linux becomes more common, the number of > unsecure systems out there will increase, which means we will see > an increases in the number of Linux exploits in the wild. They > won't be as numerous as Windows exploits, because the *nix > architecture exposes fewer hooks, but they will come. I see the blind faith that it can't happen to us as the greatest risk. OK, if I'm careful about root usage it's limited in what it can do, but destroying data under my home directory would be devastating enough, and I'm not convinced that that could not be done. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Tuesday 21 Oct 2003 2:18 am, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:04:11 -0400 > > yankl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > Before flaming me read my signature. > > > > Sorry to spoil that bashing of the writer, but he makes a valid > > point. > > No he doesn't. > > > It is not an OS, it is user who use it. 99.% of windblows > > viruses are based on the social engineering in addition to > > software flow. > > No flame, but that's not the point of the article. > > The author is "rebutting" another article which points out that > Windows is quite clearly several times more vulnerable to trivial > exploits. No one is claiming anything is impregnable. > You know, I really did not see it that way you do. It seems to me that he does not deny that linux, properly configured and used, is a great deal more secure. But how often have we had long threads on the newbie list while we patiently try to convince someone that he really should not be running as root all the time, even if he is the only user on the system? It seemed to me that the point he was making was that linux will be vulnerable, if not as much as windows, if it is used in the same sloppy way. And I agree with him. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:57:49 -0600 "Charlie M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Another misguided attempt by an MS apologist to deflect with smoke and > > mirrors, with a leavening of faulty logic, what is widely known: You thought *that* guy was a dildo, check this out: http://securityfocus.com/columnists/191 My favourite part: "My Dad could teach the community a lesson " ROTFLMAO! -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ The Poems, all three hundred of them, may be summed up in one of their phrases: "Let our thoughts be correct". -- Confucius Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Monday 20 October 2003 09:41 pm, Cy Kurtz wrote: > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) > > no no no wait a minute! > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, so > they are going to go after the most popular OS. Every time I see this comparison, I wince. Explain to me how you can compare a single OS built by a monolithic entity that controls all of the source code and releases only the information that puts them in the best possible light with an OS built by literally dozens of different teams, each to their own specifications that basically share a common kernel but have different directory structures, package managers, peripheral drivers, etc. As much as I think that Linux will become a bigger target eventually, I do NOT think that anyone can generalize and say that one virus that exploits a vulnerability on one distribution of Linux will automatically propagate to every distribution. Ever tried to get a package that was built to be portable to actually port over to a different distribution? And they are trying to make it portable and can include code specifically designed to do so. Viruses have to be small and compact. Linux is not the same as Windows and comparisons of this nature only serve to make people forget WHY MS products have a tendency to be compromised more often and it has a lot to do with the unified environment, the same thing that MS is quick to take credit for when it works in their favor, and anxious to make people forget when you point out that it also works against them. I would not go so far as to say that Linux can not be compromised but given the age of the system, the fact that a lot more businesses run Linux which makes it a more attractive target for ego purposes, and the fact that with open source, MS could have been publishing exploits on Linux, if they were there, instead of funding dubious analyst research on ROI that nobody pays attention to, I feel pretty confident that Linux is much more secure than average Windows. The fact is that it is MUCH easier to write viruses for Linux, (something that these "journalists" often overlook) because of the fact that the source code is published so that virus writers can go through line by line and look for vulnerabilities. With Windows, they have to decompile and reverse engineer to find weak points that may end up being dead ends. Given the different nature of open source, we should be seeing many more viruses written for Linux than for Windows, if only because it is so much easier to do it. As for social engineering, based on my own experience, I would trust a Linux user to do the smart thing well before trusting the average Windows user, but hey, that might be just me. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:31:03 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Linux can be easily exploited. Don't believe me. Grab the old > wu-ftpd anon ftp rpms install them get a cup of coffee and come back.. > You will be root-kitted. However distro's like MDK dropping such huge > holes helps a lot here. So I can put you down for 20 bones on the Windows box? ;-) -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Cy Kurtz wrote: > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:54, HaywireMac wrote: > > On 20 Oct 2003 21:41:10 -0400 > > Cy Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > > > no no no wait a minute! > > > > > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > > > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > > > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as > > > possible, so they are going to go after the most popular OS. > > > > That is a myth, thoroughly debunked many many many times. > > > > People write exploits for Windows machines because it is *easy*, not > > because they are numerous. > > > Well, alrighty then, I guess it's very possible that I was wrong. Thank > you for pointing that out to me. I'm going back to read that article > again. Wow. Ya lern sumpin ever day! Another learned opinion(/rant ) on the matter is that of Rick Moen: http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#virus -- Bill Mullen [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA, USA RLU #270075 MDK 8.1 & 9.0 "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to every- body is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'" -- Dave Barry Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:04, Jack Coates wrote: > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 20:54, James Sparenberg wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:32, H.J.Bathoorn wrote: > > > On Monday 20 October 2003 22:54, HaywireMac wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > > > > > > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > > > You may find this interesting: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > Here we go again. > > > > > > > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > > > > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > > > > > > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > > > > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > > > > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > > > > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > > > > > > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > > > > > > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > > > > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > > > > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > > > > common knowledge. > > > > > > > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > > > > > > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > > > > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > > > > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > > > > > > > Anyone care to bet? > > > > > > > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) > > > > > > An acquaintance of mine stuck a newly bought winXP box on the > > > internet...it lasted 15 minutes, after which it was degraded (or should > > > that be upgraded?) to a worm, trojan and virus spreader itself. > > > > > > So...NO, no bet;) > > > > > > Good luck, > > > HarM > > > > The shortest time for a Linux box I've ever seen. 30 minutes till it > > was root kitted. Why. The user had installed wu-ftpd with anon-ftp. > > Yep... they swooped right on in. BTW around the time of 7.0 mdk. > > > > James > > > > > > WU's crud is a good example of the Lindows thing someone mentioned > earlier. No matter how good the basic system, someone can find a way to, > with the best of intentions, shoot themselves in the foot. I've got to give WU a little room. It was written in a day when if you did something the whole of the Net knew it was you and would basically "shut you out" Social pressure was too great. Now... they brag about it in IRC. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 18:54, HaywireMac wrote: > On 20 Oct 2003 21:41:10 -0400 > Cy Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > no no no wait a minute! > > > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, > > so they are going to go after the most popular OS. > > That is a myth, thoroughly debunked many many many times. > > People write exploits for Windows machines because it is *easy*, not > because they are numerous. > > Here's the original article, I hope this will lay this bunch of hooey to > rest once and for all: > > http://securityfocus.com/columnists/188 > > Quote: > > "We've all heard it many times when a new Microsoft virus comes out. In > fact, I've heard it a couple of times this week already. Someone on a > mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long > line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider > Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, > another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How > ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many > viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was > as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for > those platforms!" > > Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this > opinion. Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including > ones who work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product > manager at McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the > OS becomes more common and popular." > > Mr. Clarke is wrong." If the popularity idea was right then why don't you see more iTron Virii? I mean it is installed about 10-1 over M$ and it is networked. Sides it's got to be a lot more "fun" to take over a factory, power station or nuclear power plant than some poor schmo's "innernet box". The real reason windows gets hacked more is simple. It's easy to create "kits" for virus writing, hacking etc. The majority of internet based problems stem around 4 things. 1. The promise of "You don't need to think" If you say that they won't/don't. 2. To much automatic. 100% of the virii of late are running via an automatic "feature" in windows. It's a trade off ease of use vs. exploit prevention. 3. The script kiddie mentality. I am a progamm... er pragro...er programb er ... I write code. 4. A system (the net) that was designed when peer pressure was sufficient to prevent problems. Linux can be easily exploited. Don't believe me. Grab the old wu-ftpd anon ftp rpms install them get a cup of coffee and come back.. You will be root-kitted. However distro's like MDK dropping such huge holes helps a lot here. Linux's weak point. Legacy apps designed for high trust low protection (anon ftp, R-tools) that shouldn't be used anymore. Of course, don't forget the lose nut between the keyboard and the chair. Some estimates have it as high as 70% of all passwords are curse words, family member or pet names, or written on a post-it note on their desk. Social engineering is just as viable in Unix as it is in Winders. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 20:54, James Sparenberg wrote: > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:32, H.J.Bathoorn wrote: > > On Monday 20 October 2003 22:54, HaywireMac wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > > > > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > > You may find this interesting: > > > > > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > Here we go again. > > > > > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > > > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > > > > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > > > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > > > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > > > > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > > > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > > > > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > > > > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > > > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > > > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > > > common knowledge. > > > > > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > > > > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > > > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > > > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > > > > > Anyone care to bet? > > > > > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) > > > > An acquaintance of mine stuck a newly bought winXP box on the > > internet...it lasted 15 minutes, after which it was degraded (or should > > that be upgraded?) to a worm, trojan and virus spreader itself. > > > > So...NO, no bet;) > > > > Good luck, > > HarM > > The shortest time for a Linux box I've ever seen. 30 minutes till it > was root kitted. Why. The user had installed wu-ftpd with anon-ftp. > Yep... they swooped right on in. BTW around the time of 7.0 mdk. > > James > > WU's crud is a good example of the Lindows thing someone mentioned earlier. No matter how good the basic system, someone can find a way to, with the best of intentions, shoot themselves in the foot. -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:32, H.J.Bathoorn wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2003 22:54, HaywireMac wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > You may find this interesting: > > > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > > > Anne > > > > Here we go again. > > > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > > common knowledge. > > > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > > > Anyone care to bet? > > > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) > > An acquaintance of mine stuck a newly bought winXP box on the > internet...it lasted 15 minutes, after which it was degraded (or should > that be upgraded?) to a worm, trojan and virus spreader itself. > > So...NO, no bet;) > > Good luck, > HarM The shortest time for a Linux box I've ever seen. 30 minutes till it was root kitted. Why. The user had installed wu-ftpd with anon-ftp. Yep... they swooped right on in. BTW around the time of 7.0 mdk. James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:49, Charlie M. wrote: > I bash the writer because I see his article as an attack on anyone that holds > the view that Windows is insecure by design, and his alluding to the fact > that those of us stating the opposite about GNU/Linux are idiots. > > While I agree with your analysis that much of the burden is on users, I don't > agree with much else that author wrote. I've never told anyone that GNU/Linux > was invulnerable, one of his "facts;" but I often tell people that it's a > hell of a lot easier to secure, and to keep secure, than Windows has ever > been. > > If you thought the quote from my grandfather was directed strictly at the > author of the "rebuttal" read it again. Specifically in the light of what I > said about users before that quote. > > Other than that I'm forced to respectfully agree to disagree with you that the > author even had a point. > > Other than the ones on his head. (-: He did make a couple of valid point, although he doesn't make them very well, and they don't really rebut the article he's addressing. One, as Linux becomes more popular on the desktop, the temptation to "dump it down" becomes very strong. I've never used Lindows, but I understand that it's default install is quite unsecure and even uses root as the default user. (I believe this was mentioned in the original article.) This doesn't negate the security advantage Linux has over Windows, but it definitely narrows the gap. Second, patches to fix the vulnerabilities exploited by the recent worms have been available for quite awhile. Normal users don't patch their systems. As Linux becomes more common, the number of unsecure systems out there will increase, which means we will see an increases in the number of Linux exploits in the wild. They won't be as numerous as Windows exploits, because the *nix architecture exposes fewer hooks, but they will come. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 21:54, HaywireMac wrote: > On 20 Oct 2003 21:41:10 -0400 > Cy Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > no no no wait a minute! > > > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, > > so they are going to go after the most popular OS. > > That is a myth, thoroughly debunked many many many times. > > People write exploits for Windows machines because it is *easy*, not > because they are numerous. > Well, alrighty then, I guess it's very possible that I was wrong. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm going back to read that article again. Wow. Ya lern sumpin ever day! Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On 20 Oct 2003 21:41:10 -0400 Cy Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > no no no wait a minute! > > What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people > writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more > numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, > so they are going to go after the most popular OS. That is a myth, thoroughly debunked many many many times. People write exploits for Windows machines because it is *easy*, not because they are numerous. Here's the original article, I hope this will lay this bunch of hooey to rest once and for all: http://securityfocus.com/columnists/188 Quote: "We've all heard it many times when a new Microsoft virus comes out. In fact, I've heard it a couple of times this week already. Someone on a mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!" Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this opinion. Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including ones who work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular." Mr. Clarke is wrong." -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ If the path be beautiful, let us not ask where it leads. -- Anatole France Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 20, 2003 07:04 pm, yankl wrote: > Before flaming me read my signature. Why would I flame you? > Sorry to spoil that bashing of the writer, but he makes a valid point. It > is not an OS, it is user who use it. 99.% of windblows viruses are > based on the social engineering in addition to software flow. I bash the writer because I see his article as an attack on anyone that holds the view that Windows is insecure by design, and his alluding to the fact that those of us stating the opposite about GNU/Linux are idiots. While I agree with your analysis that much of the burden is on users, I don't agree with much else that author wrote. I've never told anyone that GNU/Linux was invulnerable, one of his "facts;" but I often tell people that it's a hell of a lot easier to secure, and to keep secure, than Windows has ever been. If you thought the quote from my grandfather was directed strictly at the author of the "rebuttal" read it again. Specifically in the light of what I said about users before that quote. Other than that I'm forced to respectfully agree to disagree with you that the author even had a point. Other than the ones on his head. (-: I've read and heard far too many similar arguments with zero basis in fact from too many sources over the years. Regards; Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.4.22-10mdk 19:34:18 up 30 days, 8:57, 1 user, load average: 0.19, 0.63, 0.69 Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lJDBG11CaRuZZSIRAn3LAJ9fJbwQAEbl/2QR4Dbc6vFaC489dQCeP7XW e04flGor96wluRXmEQbhct4= =6A+E -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 16:54, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > You may find this interesting: > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > Anne > > Here we go again. > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > common knowledge. > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > Anyone care to bet? > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) no no no wait a minute! What happens when Linux becomes as popular as windows? Most people writing virii are aiming at windows boxen, because they are more numerous. People writing virii want to do as much damage as possible, so they are going to go after the most popular OS. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Linux fan(since 1998(?)), but I think it's important not to forget the sheer numbers of the situation. When Linux is as popular as windows, there will be more virii written for Linux boxen, then we'll see which OS is more secure. By the way, my money's still on Linux, but I don't think we'll continue to see the compromise ratio we're seeing now. Quantity has a quality all its own. -- Joseph Stalin Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:04:11 -0400 yankl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > Before flaming me read my signature. > > Sorry to spoil that bashing of the writer, but he makes a valid point. No he doesn't. > It is not an OS, it is user who use it. 99.% of windblows viruses > are based on the social engineering in addition to software flow. No flame, but that's not the point of the article. The author is "rebutting" another article which points out that Windows is quite clearly several times more vulnerable to trivial exploits. No one is claiming anything is impregnable. Nevertheless, you are incorrect. Given identical users, sit them down in front of a Windows box and a *nix box, the Windows box will be compromised sooner, statistically speaking. It is not just the user, it is the design of the OS. And 99% of Windows viruses have very little if anything to do with social engineering. They require no action on the part of the user to propagate. Merely loading a properly coded web page or running a webserver is exploitable, requiring no "social engineering". If you want to take me up on that bet, lemme know, hell I'll give you 20 to 1 odds on the Windows box ;-) It's really very simple people. Linux is designed secure from the ground up, Windows is not. -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Monday 20 October 2003 06:34 pm, Charlie M. wrote: > October 20, 2003 04:11 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > > > As my maternal grandfather was wont to say "Never underestimate the > > > power of human stupidity. Especially in large groups." > > laughter> > > > > What a smart man. Reminds me of one of my favorites, "never attribute to > > malice that which can be explained by stupidity." > > I knew I had heard another appropriate aphorism somewhere, thanks. > > > > I wonder if he thinks he's being "cool" by calling users "wet ware." If > > > he thinks he's a wit he's (maybe) half right. > > > > Ah give him a break, he's probably fifteen and just read his first Rudy > > Rucker :-) > > You're quite likely correct Jack. > > OK, I'll bite; Rudy Rucker? Never mind, I Googled it, I'll figure it out. > > Charlie Before flaming me read my signature. Sorry to spoil that bashing of the writer, but he makes a valid point. It is not an OS, it is user who use it. 99.% of windblows viruses are based on the social engineering in addition to software flow. -- Yankl Tiny IT guy. 100 % Micro$oft free. Registered linux users 181086 URL: http://yankele.com --- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 20, 2003 04:11 pm, Jack Coates wrote: > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > As my maternal grandfather was wont to say "Never underestimate the power > > of human stupidity. Especially in large groups." > laughter> > > What a smart man. Reminds me of one of my favorites, "never attribute to > malice that which can be explained by stupidity." I knew I had heard another appropriate aphorism somewhere, thanks. > > I wonder if he thinks he's being "cool" by calling users "wet ware." If > > he thinks he's a wit he's (maybe) half right. > > Ah give him a break, he's probably fifteen and just read his first Rudy > Rucker :-) > You're quite likely correct Jack. OK, I'll bite; Rudy Rucker? Never mind, I Googled it, I'll figure it out. Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.4.22-10mdk 16:30:32 up 30 days, 5:53, 1 user, load average: 0.48, 0.48, 0.33 I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lGL1G11CaRuZZSIRAvrSAKCtNw3cU0m3JZarAztbU+gbYBNjbwCfff7Y 5fldTrsCwsGnvCiDeTxvams= =l4Xz -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 14:57, Charlie M. wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > October 20, 2003 02:54 pm, HaywireMac wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > > You may find this interesting: > > > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > Another misguided attempt by an MS apologist to deflect with smoke and > mirrors, with a leavening of faulty logic, what is widely known: > > The average semi technophobic user, especially after being saturation bombed > for years with the official Microsoft party line by "tech journalists", can > leave themselves wide open to anything malicious entities can dream up. The > operating system is irrelevant. It's just takes a whale of a lot more effort, > and can be a lot more difficult, to screw up while using GNU/Linux. > > As my maternal grandfather was wont to say "Never underestimate the power of > human stupidity. Especially in large groups." > What a smart man. Reminds me of one of my favorites, "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." > I wonder if he thinks he's being "cool" by calling users "wet ware." If he > thinks he's a wit he's (maybe) half right. > Ah give him a break, he's probably fifteen and just read his first Rudy Rucker :-) ... -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture... Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 October 20, 2003 02:54 pm, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > You may find this interesting: > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml Another misguided attempt by an MS apologist to deflect with smoke and mirrors, with a leavening of faulty logic, what is widely known: The average semi technophobic user, especially after being saturation bombed for years with the official Microsoft party line by "tech journalists", can leave themselves wide open to anything malicious entities can dream up. The operating system is irrelevant. It's just takes a whale of a lot more effort, and can be a lot more difficult, to screw up while using GNU/Linux. As my maternal grandfather was wont to say "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Especially in large groups." I wonder if he thinks he's being "cool" by calling users "wet ware." If he thinks he's a wit he's (maybe) half right. > > Anne > > Here we go again. > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > common knowledge. > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > Anyone care to bet? > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) According to a page my ISP once displayed in the members area of their site, any Windows system connected to their network is likely to be exploited/infected within 12-24 hours if a default install with no security software is used. Seems they've removed that page or I just don't remember where it was. Probably the former and I wonder why. (-; I wonder who "Pete Sargeant" is when he isn't posting ridiculous crap on web sites. Charlie - -- Edmonton,AB,Canada User 244963 at http://counter.li.org Cooker on kernel 2.4.22-10mdk 15:36:47 up 30 days, 5:00, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.14, 0.14 Your ignorance cramps my conversation. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/lFpdG11CaRuZZSIRAsRGAJ93CCeyOMmuJ7AgMfxgKAfxtuAJHgCfVwzL 7Kb9fQzpF+X+BzG4/2AQGIU= =B/Ci -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Monday 20 October 2003 22:54, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 > > Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > You may find this interesting: > > > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > > > Anne > > Here we go again. > > As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of > journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. > > The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial > exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more > than ten brain cells who disputes this. > > Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible > to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? > > Windows: yes. Linux: no. > > The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly > well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying > their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is > common knowledge. > > Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: > > Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of > Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus > software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. > > Anyone care to bet? > > C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) An acquaintance of mine stuck a newly bought winXP box on the internet...it lasted 15 minutes, after which it was degraded (or should that be upgraded?) to a worm, trojan and virus spreader itself. So...NO, no bet;) Good luck, HarM -- Registered Linux User #197998 FSF Associate Member #901 ICQ #146191606 Mandrake HowTo's & more: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:44 +0100 Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > You may find this interesting: > > http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml > > Anne Here we go again. As has happened many times before, the author of this piece of journalistic tripe is trolling for controversy. The *fact* is that Linux is several times more resistant to trivial exploits than Windows. There is no one in the security field with more than ten brain cells who disputes this. Yes, it is possible to exploit Linux platforms, just like it's possible to exploit any platform. The question is: is it *trivial*? Windows: yes. Linux: no. The article this "journalist" seeks to rebut makes this point fairly well, it's not propaganda, it's not wishful thinking or anyone burying their heads in the sand. It's just an observation of something that is common knowledge. Let's put it this way, as someone on my local LUG list said: Take a default install of any Linux distro, and a default install of Windows, connect them to the internet with no firewall or any antivirus software, and see which one gets compromised 1st. Anyone care to bet? C'mon, I'll give you ten to one on the Windows box... ;-) -- HaywireMac ++ ICQ # 279518458 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all. -- Arthur Balfour Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Virus?
You may find this interesting: http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/granneman.xml Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:05:05 -0700 James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] who prolly was a subscriber and got his ass fired from there just recently... -- HaywireMac Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: nodex.sytes.net ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 19:41, Eric Huff wrote: > > > To: "Expert List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mozilla Aqua theme? > > > Sent: Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > > > > > > > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > > > > > The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this > > > message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the > > > recipient directly to find out the correct address. > > > > > > > > I've had 7 of those in the last 5 hours. Every time I reply to > > something on this list, in fact. It's another blasted bounce > > message, and between this and sms it's driving me crazy. > > > > Anne > > That's weird. I have been plenty verbose the last few days, and i > haven't seen these. > > I did email someone who might be adminning the list (Vincent passed me > his edress). > If it turns out he can kill these, i'll pass this on to him. > > eric gotten a bunch here as well and they are all related to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . James Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
> > To: "Expert List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [expert] Mozilla Aqua theme? > > Sent: Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > > > > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > > > The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this > > message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the > > recipient directly to find out the correct address. > > > > > I've had 7 of those in the last 5 hours. Every time I reply to > something on this list, in fact. It's another blasted bounce > message, and between this and sms it's driving me crazy. > > Anne That's weird. I have been plenty verbose the last few days, and i haven't seen these. I did email someone who might be adminning the list (Vincent passed me his edress). If it turns out he can kill these, i'll pass this on to him. eric -- Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org Join the content organization discussion: http://mandrake.vmlinuz.ca/bin/view/Main/NewIndex Join the General Wiki Development discussion: http://mandrake.vmlinuz.ca/bin/view/Main/DevelopingTheMandrakeCommunity#Discussion Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Friday 05 Sep 2003 7:58 pm, James Sparenberg wrote: > I dunno seems they may be trying to adjust things. I just got > a bounce message from Sympa because one of the addresses the list > goes to is dead. > > > Your message > > To: "Expert List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [expert] Mozilla Aqua theme? > Sent: Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > > did not reach the following recipient(s): > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 > > The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this > message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the > recipient directly to find out the correct address. > > > > I've a feeling that they are doing a lost of 'adjustment' oh > well. I've had 7 of those in the last 5 hours. Every time I reply to something on this list, in fact. It's another blasted bounce message, and between this and sms it's driving me crazy. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 07:19, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Friday 05 Sep 2003 2:51 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > > > > > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server > > > > > > passed this message along! There "are" people who do read > > > > > > this list from within windows. > > > > > > > > > > How Dare They! LOL > > > > > > > > Actually, I'm not. Why help the competition? Would anyone > > > > expect MS antivirus software to protect against Linux viruses? > > > > > > Actually, yes, if they were working with a mixed os group, and > > > Mandrake must know that many received mail at work where they > > > can't choose the os. > > > > Well MS always ignores other OS choices, not sure I blame a Linux > > distributor for following suit. At least they are not trying to > > stifle Windows. > > True - but I was not thinking so much as a distributor, but as a list > server. As for the other statement, you can't expect M$ to take > responsibility for anything - they never have done. > > Anne I dunno seems they may be trying to adjust things. I just got a bounce message from Sympa because one of the addresses the list goes to is dead. Your message To: "Expert List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [expert] Mozilla Aqua theme? Sent: Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 did not reach the following recipient(s): [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri Sep 05 10:08:57 2003 The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address. I've a feeling that they are doing a lost of 'adjustment' oh well. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Friday 05 Sep 2003 2:51 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > > > > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server > > > > > passed this message along! There "are" people who do read > > > > > this list from within windows. > > > > > > > > How Dare They! LOL > > > > > > Actually, I'm not. Why help the competition? Would anyone > > > expect MS antivirus software to protect against Linux viruses? > > > > Actually, yes, if they were working with a mixed os group, and > > Mandrake must know that many received mail at work where they > > can't choose the os. > > Well MS always ignores other OS choices, not sure I blame a Linux > distributor for following suit. At least they are not trying to > stifle Windows. True - but I was not thinking so much as a distributor, but as a list server. As for the other statement, you can't expect M$ to take responsibility for anything - they never have done. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Friday 05 September 2003 08:51 am, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Friday 05 Sep 2003 12:35 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > > > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server > > > > passed this message along! There "are" people who do read this > > > > list from within windows. > > > > > > How Dare They! LOL > > > > Actually, I'm not. Why help the competition? Would anyone expect > > MS antivirus software to protect against Linux viruses? > > Actually, yes, if they were working with a mixed os group, and > Mandrake must know that many received mail at work where they can't > choose the os. Well MS always ignores other OS choices, not sure I blame a Linux distributor for following suit. At least they are not trying to stifle Windows. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Friday 05 Sep 2003 12:35 pm, Bryan Phinney wrote: > > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server > > > passed this message along! There "are" people who do read this > > > list from within windows. > > > > How Dare They! LOL > > Actually, I'm not. Why help the competition? Would anyone expect > MS antivirus software to protect against Linux viruses? Actually, yes, if they were working with a mixed os group, and Mandrake must know that many received mail at work where they can't choose the os. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thursday 04 September 2003 08:06 pm, Charlie wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:57 pm, many eyes noted that Mark wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > See the attached file for details > > > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed this > > message along! There "are" people who do read this list from within > > windows. > > How Dare They! LOL Actually, I'm not. Why help the competition? Would anyone expect MS antivirus software to protect against Linux viruses? -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus guys!
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:34 pm, many eyes noted that David wrote: > If this is you, you need to detach from the internet and clean your > machine! > > You have been infected by Sobig virus. > > David. I have read that some lists deny access to any mail originating from hotmail and similar systems. It does appear rather restrictive. Any restriction means exclusion of some party as in persons of certain thought and economic groups. A bit like spam and virus's if they are blocked or deleted by antispam and virus software, without detection, then the warning gets out more slowly and people infected are either not notified, or notified too late. Charlie > > <---> > Received: from KRIS (ca-dibar-cuda1-c1d-204.anhmca.adelphia.net > [24.48.211.204]) by smtp.mandrax.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id > C8D4556A1D > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:53:10 +0200 > (CEST) > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:38:50 --0700 > X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean > Importance: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. -- I am not afraid of storms, because I am learning to sail my ship. Louise May Alcot. This email is guaranteed to be wholly Linux Mandrake 9.1, Kmail v1.5 and OpenOffice.org1Beta Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:57 pm, many eyes noted that Mark wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > See the attached file for details > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed this > message along! There "are" people who do read this list from within > windows. How Dare They! LOL -- I am not afraid of storms, because I am learning to sail my ship. Louise May Alcot. This email is guaranteed to be wholly Linux Mandrake 9.1, Kmail v1.5 and OpenOffice.org1Beta Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
I got them too, they didn't get past my mail server though, I only know cos it emails me when it catches a virus. very cool. :-) thats about virus 8000 that its caught now.. :-) I love amavis-new. rgds Franki Linux gamez mailing list: htmlfixit.com/mailman/listinfo/mandrake-games HTML help htmlfixit.com Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anne Wilson >Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2003 7:47 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved ) > > >On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 12:57 pm, Mark wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > See the attached file for details >> >> O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed >> this message along! There "are" people who do read this list from >> within windows. > >It is affecting both newbie and expert lists. I have had it on both >this morning. > >Anne >-- >Registered Linux User No.293302 >Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus guys!
David wrote: If this is you, you need to detach from the internet and clean your machine! You have been infected by Sobig virus. David. <---> Received: from KRIS (ca-dibar-cuda1-c1d-204.anhmca.adelphia.net [24.48.211.204]) by smtp.mandrax.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D4556A1D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:53:10 +0200 (CEST) From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:38:50 --0700 X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. I wondered about that too David, but then again those might be spoofed hearders. -- Mark "If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?" --- Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R) Linux User Since 1996 Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1 ICQ# 27816299 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
Mark wrote: On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See the attached file for details BFD, it happens. I'm less concerned about spam/viral filtering than I am about replacing Sympa for Mailman. Hell, I'm about ready to volunteer. O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed this message along! There "are" people who do read this list from within windows. *cough* MOZILLA *hack* -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle.Org: Integrating Value, Simians, and Pasta Since 1996. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Virus guys!
If this is you, you need to detach from the internet and clean your machine! You have been infected by Sobig virus. David. <---> Received: from KRIS (ca-dibar-cuda1-c1d-204.anhmca.adelphia.net [24.48.211.204]) by smtp.mandrax.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D4556A1D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:53:10 +0200 (CEST) From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 0:38:50 --0700 X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:46:45 +0100 Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > It is affecting both newbie and expert lists. I have had it on both > this morning. No system is ever 100% effective. Which is a Good Thing, because it works both ways, ya get me? -- HaywireMac Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: nodex.sytes.net ++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org ++ "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -- Gotama Buddha Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thursday 04 Sep 2003 12:57 pm, Mark wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > See the attached file for details > > O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed > this message along! There "are" people who do read this list from > within windows. It is affecting both newbie and expert lists. I have had it on both this morning. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet? Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > See the attached file for details Upon further inspection of the headers it would "appear" that some poor soul that reads this list is infected. Although sadly, they don't read it closely enough cause they're using Outlook Express. Course those headers could be faked. tsk...tsk...tsk... -- Mark "If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?" --- Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R) Linux User Since 1996 Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1 ICQ# 27816299 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] VIRUS!!! ( was Re: Approved )
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > See the attached file for details O, for God's sake! I can't believe the Mandrake list server passed this message along! There "are" people who do read this list from within windows. -- Mark "If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?" --- Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R) Linux User Since 1996 Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1 ICQ# 27816299 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus wall?
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 21:59, Belkie, Dan wrote: > Does anyone know of any way to make a linux box a virus wall? > In a perfect world it would accpt the email scan in, then forward it to the > mail server. > > Anything like this out there for Linux? > Thanks > Dan > > The products Name is MailScanner... and it does just that. James > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Virus wall?
Does anyone know of any way to make a linux box a virus wall? In a perfect world it would accpt the email scan in, then forward it to the mail server. Anything like this out there for Linux? Thanks Dan Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Virus Scanner
For the whole network. Thanks = Dan Belkie Forzani Group LTD System Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 403.717.1400 ext 1642 Mobile: 403.605.6354 http://www.sportchek.ca = "Parts that don't exist can't break." -Original Message- From: Simon Zarate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [expert] File server For Server-Client (Enterprise) or for each PC?. Simon Original Message Follows From: "Belkie, Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [expert] File server Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:54:02 -0700 Good Morning all! Can anyone suggest a product? I'm looking for some sort of virus scan for my network. Something I can install on the firewall or some other inline box that will scan all incoming / outgoing data for viruses. Ideas? = Dan Belkie Forzani Group LTD System Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 403.717.1400 ext 1642 Mobile: 403.605.6354 http://www.sportchek.ca = "Parts that don't exist can't break." Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com _ MSN Photos es la manera más sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: http://photos.latam.msn.com/Support/WorldWide.aspx Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: Fwd: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
ftp://ftp.antivirus.com/products/freetools/
is where you can get it from,, here are my instructions I posted on how to
do it all..
==
I have just swapped to trend viruscan for linux...
I thought I'd mention all the links and stuff, so that people can search the
archives here if they want to know how it is done.
Here is the url to download it,
ftp://ftp.antivirus.com/products/freetools/
(the address listed in the "openantivirus" readme didn't work for me, but
this one did...
download filescanlinux.tar (when you untar it, it has install instructions
and a pdf file)
If the scanner install gives you a message that it wont' install because you
don't have redhat release 6, (and you do have a modern linux)I got that
message with mandrake 7.2, edit /etc/issue (create it if you don't already
have one, go into /etc and type 'touch issue') and put the words "release 6"
in it somewhere, you can delete it after install. (thats how the install
program works out what version of linux you have) pretty lame method thinks
me, but its a good thing that its lame if you don't have redhat.
I have it working flawlessly on Mandrake and I don't think there would be
much problem getting it working on other distro's.
Here is the link to get the latest engine update, (the version I have now is
"Virus Scanner v3.1")
http://www.antivirus.com/download/engines/
Go to the Interscan viruswall table and look in the linux box.
download that tarball.
open the tarball, and copy the file in it into /etc/iscan, overwrite the
file of the same name that's in there.(it might not be a bad idea to backup
the old one in case there are problems.)
thats your engine updated to their latest version.
If for some reason the web manager pattern update feature doesn't work, (it
didn't for me, think its a isp problem, we have a strange proxy.,)
go here: http://www.antivirus.com/download/pattern.asp
choose the linux tarball and you have the latest pattern file.
Thats it,, This is a very comprhensive scanner for a freebie... much better
then the network associates vscan I was using before,,, (admitadly an old
version).
the web interface is an exceptional feature...
Thats it, I have yet to test this with all the virus's that I have on file
for that purpose, and I will post the results when I do, but I am quietly
confident. (I have since done this, and it passed ALL tests I threw at it...
rgds
frank
-Original Message-
From: Vincent A.Primavera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 4:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
Hello,
It is just called Filescan for Linux after all. But, it appears that Trend
took it off
of their website and I can't find it anywhere else :o{
Thank you,
Vincent A. Primavera.
On Friday 21 September 2001 07:48 am, Vincent A.Primavera wrote:
> Hello,
> Trend Micro has many products which one is it exactly that you use?
>
> Thanks again,
> Vincent A. Primavera.
>
> -- Forwarded Message --
>
> Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:36:37 +
> From: Vincent A. Primavera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Nice,
> I'll check that out too!
>
> Thank you,
> Vincent A. Primavera.
>
> P.S. How smooth did the setup procedure go?
>
> On Friday 21 September 2001 08:28 am, you wrote:
> > have you checked out Amavisd?? amavis.org
> >
> > I use them in conjunction with Trend filescan for linux, (free) and
> > Postfix..
> >
> > works fantastic, even caught the nimda virus...
> >
> > excellent and cost me not a thing...
> >
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vincent A.Primavera
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 11:19 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > I will check it out...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Vincent A. Primavera.
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:48 pm, Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro wrote:
> > > go to
> > >
> > > http://www.antivir.de
> > >
> > > they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail
or
> > > postfix).
> > >
> > > it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think
> > >
> > > orlando
> > >
> > > &qu
Re: Fwd: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
Hello,
It is just called Filescan for Linux after all. But, it appears that Trend
took it off
of their website and I can't find it anywhere else :o{
Thank you,
Vincent A. Primavera.
On Friday 21 September 2001 07:48 am, Vincent A.Primavera wrote:
> Hello,
> Trend Micro has many products which one is it exactly that you use?
>
> Thanks again,
> Vincent A. Primavera.
>
> -- Forwarded Message ------
>
> Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:36:37 +
> From: Vincent A. Primavera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Nice,
> I'll check that out too!
>
> Thank you,
> Vincent A. Primavera.
>
> P.S. How smooth did the setup procedure go?
>
> On Friday 21 September 2001 08:28 am, you wrote:
> > have you checked out Amavisd?? amavis.org
> >
> > I use them in conjunction with Trend filescan for linux, (free) and
> > Postfix..
> >
> > works fantastic, even caught the nimda virus...
> >
> > excellent and cost me not a thing...
> >
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vincent A.Primavera
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 11:19 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > I will check it out...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Vincent A. Primavera.
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:48 pm, Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro wrote:
> > > go to
> > >
> > > http://www.antivir.de
> > >
> > > they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail or
> > > postfix).
> > >
> > > it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think
> > >
> > > orlando
> > >
> > > "Vincent A.Primavera" wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > We are currently running an IBM F50 RS/6000 at my company's
> > > > host location that functions as our primary server. We use this for
> > > > ftp,
> >
> > pop3,
> >
> > > > smtp, telnet, etc. Recently we have been hit with several virii over
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > past few months. I need to find some sort of "professional" level
> > > > anti-virus solution. I think a good place to start would be to set
> > > > up a separate E-Mail gateway that would filter/scan messages, for
> > > > obviously this is where the vast majority of virii are contracted.
> > > > And it would
> >
> > be
> >
> > > > a plus if I could find some way of network virus scanning with the
> > > > same server. I really believe that a Linux based solution would be
> > > > perfect for this considering it is basically immune from the core. I
> > > > would be much appreciative of any leads that anyone has to offer to
> > > > point me in the right direction.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > Vincent A. Primavera
> > >
> > > ---
> > >--
> > >
> > > >--- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>
> ---
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Fwd: Re: [expert] Virus protection...
Hello, Trend Micro has many products which one is it exactly that you use? Thanks again, Vincent A. Primavera. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection... Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:36:37 + From: Vincent A. Primavera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nice, I'll check that out too! Thank you, Vincent A. Primavera. P.S.How smooth did the setup procedure go? On Friday 21 September 2001 08:28 am, you wrote: > have you checked out Amavisd?? amavis.org > > I use them in conjunction with Trend filescan for linux, (free) and > Postfix.. > > works fantastic, even caught the nimda virus... > > excellent and cost me not a thing... > > > rgds > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vincent A.Primavera > Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 11:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection... > > > Hello, > I will check it out... > > Thank you, > Vincent A. Primavera. > > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:48 pm, Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro wrote: > > go to > > > > http://www.antivir.de > > > > they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail or > > postfix). > > > > it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think > > > > orlando > > > > "Vincent A.Primavera" wrote: > > > Hello, > > > We are currently running an IBM F50 RS/6000 at my company's > > > host location that functions as our primary server. We use this for > > > ftp, > > pop3, > > > > smtp, telnet, etc. Recently we have been hit with several virii over > > the > > > > past few months. I need to find some sort of "professional" level > > > anti-virus solution. I think a good place to start would be to set up > > > a separate E-Mail gateway that would filter/scan messages, for > > > obviously this is where the vast majority of virii are contracted. And > > > it would > > be > > > > a plus if I could find some way of network virus scanning with the same > > > server. I really believe that a Linux based solution would be perfect > > > for this considering it is basically immune from the core. I would be > > > much appreciative of any leads that anyone has to offer to point me in > > > the right direction. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Vincent A. Primavera > > > > - > > > > >--- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com --- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus protection...
Nice, I'll check that out too! Thank you, Vincent A. Primavera. P.S.How smooth did the setup procedure go? On Friday 21 September 2001 08:28 am, you wrote: > have you checked out Amavisd?? amavis.org > > I use them in conjunction with Trend filescan for linux, (free) and > Postfix.. > > works fantastic, even caught the nimda virus... > > excellent and cost me not a thing... > > > rgds > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vincent A.Primavera > Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 11:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection... > > > Hello, > I will check it out... > > Thank you, > Vincent A. Primavera. > > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:48 pm, Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro wrote: > > go to > > > > http://www.antivir.de > > > > they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail or > > postfix). > > > > it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think > > > > orlando > > > > "Vincent A.Primavera" wrote: > > > Hello, > > > We are currently running an IBM F50 RS/6000 at my company's > > > host location that functions as our primary server. We use this for > > > ftp, > > pop3, > > > > smtp, telnet, etc. Recently we have been hit with several virii over > > the > > > > past few months. I need to find some sort of "professional" level > > > anti-virus solution. I think a good place to start would be to set up > > > a separate E-Mail gateway that would filter/scan messages, for > > > obviously this is where the vast majority of virii are contracted. And > > > it would > > be > > > > a plus if I could find some way of network virus scanning with the same > > > server. I really believe that a Linux based solution would be perfect > > > for this considering it is basically immune from the core. I would be > > > much appreciative of any leads that anyone has to offer to point me in > > > the right direction. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Vincent A. Primavera > > > > - > > > > >--- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [expert] Virus protection...
have you checked out Amavisd?? amavis.org I use them in conjunction with Trend filescan for linux, (free) and Postfix.. works fantastic, even caught the nimda virus... excellent and cost me not a thing... rgds Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vincent A.Primavera Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2001 11:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] Virus protection... Hello, I will check it out... Thank you, Vincent A. Primavera. On Wednesday 19 September 2001 02:48 pm, Jose Orlando T. Ribeiro wrote: > go to > > http://www.antivir.de > > they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail or > postfix). > > it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think > > orlando > > "Vincent A.Primavera" wrote: > > Hello, > > We are currently running an IBM F50 RS/6000 at my company's host > > location that functions as our primary server. We use this for ftp, pop3, > > smtp, telnet, etc. Recently we have been hit with several virii over the > > past few months. I need to find some sort of "professional" level > > anti-virus solution. I think a good place to start would be to set up a > > separate E-Mail gateway that would filter/scan messages, for obviously > > this is where the vast majority of virii are contracted. And it would be > > a plus if I could find some way of network virus scanning with the same > > server. I really believe that a Linux based solution would be perfect > > for this considering it is basically immune from the core. I would be > > much appreciative of any leads that anyone has to offer to point me in > > the right direction. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Vincent A. Primavera > > > > > > - > >--- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- Thank you, Vincent A. Primavera. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Virus protection...
go to http://www.antivir.de they have a antivirus gateway, very easy to configure (with sendmail or postfix). it´s free for personal use, US$400 for a site license, I think orlando "Vincent A.Primavera" wrote: > > Hello, > We are currently running an IBM F50 RS/6000 at my company's host location >that functions as our primary server. > We use this for ftp, pop3, smtp, telnet, etc. Recently we have been hit with >several virii over the past few months. I need to > find some sort of "professional" level anti-virus solution. I think a good place to >start would be to set up a separate E-Mail > gateway that would filter/scan messages, for obviously this is where the vast >majority of virii are contracted. And it would > be a plus if I could find some way of network virus scanning with the same server. >I really believe that a Linux based > solution would be perfect for this considering it is basically immune from the core. > I would be much appreciative of any > leads that anyone has to offer to point me in the right direction. > > Thanks in advance, > Vincent A. Primavera > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- ,~~v~~,,~~v~~, ,'. .', ,'. .', === + ====== + === / ~ \ / ~ \ /\_m m_/\/\_m m_/\ .\ +--+ /. / ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! \ / +--+ \ `\m/ \m/' `\m/ \m/' Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[expert] Virus detection with postfix and Amavisd rocks!!!
For those of you running mail servers... I have a recomendation. I just started testing a new setup,, I am using the latest amavisd snapshot along with a recent postfix version... and Network Associates Virus scan for linux 4.0.50 anyway, after many problems, (which turned out to be typos on my part) I got it all working on my test box. It is quiet efficient on system resources, (testing on a PPro200 system with 64mb of ram) works fairly quickly and efficiently, and flawlessly I might add. Although amavisd works with sendmail, exim and qmail, I would suggest to you that the postfix install is the cleanest and most efficient. I am usin it with Mandrake 7.2 (you do have to upgrade the postfix version to use content_filtering, which means any postfix newer then Postfix snapshot 2529, but if you watch this list, you would know that we have access to that on this list, and a quick look in rpmfind.net found several rebuildable rpms's that work just fine with mandrake and amavis.. the site for amavisd is amavis.org and they guys on their mailing list are fantastic. Anyway, thats enough from me just thought those of you who run mail servers would like to know this if you didn't already. rgds Frank.
RE: [expert] Virus scanning via postfix
you can try amavis too www.amavis.org Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of goldengull.net administrator Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:30 PM To: mandrake user Subject: RE: [expert] Virus scanning via postfix you're best bet is to search deja news for [EMAIL PROTECTED] i'm on this list, and there is much discussion in the archives. mg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Kenworthy Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 8:33 AM To: Linux-Mandrake - Expert Subject: [expert] Virus scanning via postfix Hi, has anyone been able to get the Mandrake configured postix in 7.2 to virus scan. In particular I am looking at using anomy, then eventally using that to call AVP. I had go at this some months ago and failed, so now I am looking for some hints as to the best way to go about this. Searching the postfix site/anomy/web hasnt helped much. The stup basicly collects mail from one ISP for one user. All other members of the family then access this via imap/netscape which does the actual filtering into appropriate mailboxes. BillK
RE: [expert] Virus scanning via postfix
you're best bet is to search deja news for [EMAIL PROTECTED] i'm on this list, and there is much discussion in the archives. mg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Kenworthy Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 8:33 AM To: Linux-Mandrake - Expert Subject: [expert] Virus scanning via postfix Hi, has anyone been able to get the Mandrake configured postix in 7.2 to virus scan. In particular I am looking at using anomy, then eventally using that to call AVP. I had go at this some months ago and failed, so now I am looking for some hints as to the best way to go about this. Searching the postfix site/anomy/web hasnt helped much. The stup basicly collects mail from one ISP for one user. All other members of the family then access this via imap/netscape which does the actual filtering into appropriate mailboxes. BillK
[expert] Virus scanning via postfix
Hi, has anyone been able to get the Mandrake configured postix in 7.2 to virus scan. In particular I am looking at using anomy, then eventally using that to call AVP. I had go at this some months ago and failed, so now I am looking for some hints as to the best way to go about this. Searching the postfix site/anomy/web hasnt helped much. The stup basicly collects mail from one ISP for one user. All other members of the family then access this via imap/netscape which does the actual filtering into appropriate mailboxes. BillK
[expert] virus scanning and postfix
Hi, I am using the standard postfix/imap setup for Mandrake 7.2 for mail and wish to start virus scanning incoming email (navidad and kak were sent to me recently! - how many passed through wthout being spotted?). How do I get the mail transport in postfix (cyrus according to the config file) to run email through "anomy" which I have, or perhaps "amavis". The postfix website lists procmail instead of cyrus which does not help a lot. BillK
