Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Chris Rowson]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Simon Wears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Yes, the first thing I did was check for a BIOS update to solve my
> problems. It currently has 512mb RAM in it, because that's all I have spare
> for it at the moment, but I plan on putting about 4G into it soon, when I
> have time to go buy some. So, I figure its worth installing the 64 bit
> version for now, to save me reinstalling Ubuntu when I get my new RAM.
>
> Cheers for the help =)
>
> Simon
>
>
Hi Simon,

Don't forget that you can run the 4GB with 32bit too should you so choose!
>From discussion here and elsewhere, as I see it you just need to weigh up
the choices...

64bit = a little bit less 'seasoned' than 32bit, some software requiring
more memory to run, less software choice etc.
32bit = a little less use out of your CPU, but less chance of software
problems.

As Tony and I were discussing, you should be able to see your 4GB of RAM
under the 32bit kernel anyway, just as Tony suggested that each process will
able to use a couple of gig (although if you only have 4GB or RAM, you won't
ever be allocating all of that to one process anyway).

Good luck

Chris
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Simon Wears]

Yes, the first thing I did was check for a BIOS update to solve my problems.
It currently has 512mb RAM in it, because that's all I have spare for it at
the moment, but I plan on putting about 4G into it soon, when I have time to
go buy some. So, I figure its worth installing the 64 bit version for now,
to save me reinstalling Ubuntu when I get my new RAM.

Cheers for the help =)

Simon

2008/12/2 Rob Beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Simon Wears wrote:
> > I went down to MicroDirect earlier today, and bought myself a shiny new
> > Intel Quad Core Q6600, clocking at 2.4Ghz per core. I was so happy to be
> > finally replacing my 2.6Ghz Celeron (single core), which struggles to
> > even do 2+2 it seems. I got back into my flat, and replaced the CPU,
> > only to find out that although my motherboard supported Quad Core CPU's,
> > it seemed to support every one but the Q6600. Needless to say, I was
> > very unhappy to have wasted my money.
> >
>
> Have you checked to see if there is a bios update available?  Might be
> worth having a look if you haven't already.  You never know.
>
> > Now, I've put it into a MSI P965 Neo board (which hates linux when you
> > have both SATA and PATA drives plugged in) and it runs incredibly well.
> > My load average is 0.05, 0.06, 0.03. Big shock for me, I'm used to load
> > averages of 2.00+ ! Now, I'm going to install Ubuntu Server on this new
> > machine, and I was wondering what is recommended for this CPU. It's
> > 64-bit, so should I get the 64 bit server, or the 32 bit server? I seem
> > to recall reading that the 64 bit desktop is kinda buggy, but the 64 bit
> > server is fantastic.
> >
>
> How much memory are you running in the server?
>
> > Also, is their any significant difference in the 8.04 and 8.10 servers?
> > I'm more swaying towards the 8.04 Server, since its LTS, but if Intrepid
> > server is more awesomer then I'll go for that.
> >
> > So, long story short:
> >
> > 32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?
> >
> > Cheers, Simon.
> >
>
> Well if it's over about 3.5GB memory in there it'll have to be 64-bit to
> be able to make use of it, otherwise I'd say 32-bit unless you have a
> good reason to go 64-bit.
>
> I'm running Ubuntu Intrepid 64-Bit on my desktop and it runs fine.
> Hardy 64-bit was also fine before that. (My desktop has 4GB memory!).
>
> Rob
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
>
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Chris Rowson]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Tony Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Chris Rowson wrote:
> > [...]
> > I've always used 32bit edition on servers myself. I've heard horror
> > stories about perl scripts using twice as much memory under 64bit etc,
> > etc I've never tested PAE with more than 4GB of RAM - I had heard
> > about the single process limitation, but as I only had 4GB to play with,
> > I've never had the opportunity to hit that limit!
>
> Hello, Chris.
>
> In fact you can only alloc() 2GB in a contiguous block if you have 4GB
> RAM installed. You can get somewhere near 3GB in total per process if
> you don't care about memory fragmentation with 4GB RAM installed.
>
> Things improve quite a lot with 8GB installed, but you still can't get
>  >4GB per process using PAE. For many programs that's not a problem, and
> you're right about 64-bit doubling the size of memory usage in certain
> situations. Actually, I don't think 64-bit is worth it unless you have
> very BIG memory problems to solve. PAE is quite good if you want to run
> multiple instances of programs that have < 4GB memory footprints.
>
> Bye,
>
>Tony.
> --
> Dr. A.J.Travis, University of Aberdeen, Rowett Institute of Nutrition
> and Health, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK
> tel +44(0)1224 712751, fax +44(0)1224 716687, http://www.rowett.ac.uk
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], 
> http://bioinformatics.rri.sari.ac.uk/~ajt
>

Thanks Tony,

As ever you helped expand my mind on the list :-)

Chris
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Tony Travis]

Chris Rowson wrote:
> [...]
> I've always used 32bit edition on servers myself. I've heard horror 
> stories about perl scripts using twice as much memory under 64bit etc, 
> etc I've never tested PAE with more than 4GB of RAM - I had heard 
> about the single process limitation, but as I only had 4GB to play with, 
> I've never had the opportunity to hit that limit!

Hello, Chris.

In fact you can only alloc() 2GB in a contiguous block if you have 4GB 
RAM installed. You can get somewhere near 3GB in total per process if 
you don't care about memory fragmentation with 4GB RAM installed.

Things improve quite a lot with 8GB installed, but you still can't get 
 >4GB per process using PAE. For many programs that's not a problem, and 
you're right about 64-bit doubling the size of memory usage in certain 
situations. Actually, I don't think 64-bit is worth it unless you have 
very BIG memory problems to solve. PAE is quite good if you want to run 
multiple instances of programs that have < 4GB memory footprints.

Bye,

Tony.
-- 
Dr. A.J.Travis, University of Aberdeen, Rowett Institute of Nutrition
and Health, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK
tel +44(0)1224 712751, fax +44(0)1224 716687, http://www.rowett.ac.uk
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://bioinformatics.rri.sari.ac.uk/~ajt

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Chris Rowson]

>
> >  [...]
> > Doesn't the Hardy server kernel have Physical Address Extensions support
> > enabled by default? That'd grant support for up to 64GB RAM on the 32
> > bit version of Ubuntu.
>
> Hello, Chris.
>
> Yes, we're running 8.04.1 LTS with PAE enabled on servers with 8GB RAM
> and I've tested it with 16GB RAM. Works well, but a single process can
> 'only' use 4GB.
>
> Bye,
>
>Tony.


I've always used 32bit edition on servers myself. I've heard horror stories
about perl scripts using twice as much memory under 64bit etc, etc I've
never tested PAE with more than 4GB of RAM - I had heard about the single
process limitation, but as I only had 4GB to play with, I've never had the
opportunity to hit that limit!

Chris
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Tony Travis]

Chris Rowson wrote:
>  [...]
> Doesn't the Hardy server kernel have Physical Address Extensions support 
> enabled by default? That'd grant support for up to 64GB RAM on the 32 
> bit version of Ubuntu.

Hello, Chris.

Yes, we're running 8.04.1 LTS with PAE enabled on servers with 8GB RAM 
and I've tested it with 16GB RAM. Works well, but a single process can 
'only' use 4GB.

Bye,

Tony.
-- 
Dr. A.J.Travis, University of Aberdeen, Rowett Institute of Nutrition
and Health, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK
tel +44(0)1224 712751, fax +44(0)1224 716687, http://www.rowett.ac.uk
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://bioinformatics.rri.sari.ac.uk/~ajt

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Chris Rowson]

>
> > So, long story short:
> >
> > 32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?
>
> Do you want stable (8.04) or something a bit more recent (8.10) ?
>
> How much memory do you have? If you want to use anything more than 4GB
> RAM then you'll need the 64 bit version. For a server I'd probably go
> with 64 bit anyway, whereas for a desktop machine I'd probably go for
> the 32 bit version since I've had problems with the 64 bit version and
> it can have problems with certain apps like java and flash (being
> fixed I know).
>
>
Doesn't the Hardy server kernel have Physical Address Extensions support
enabled by default? That'd grant support for up to 64GB RAM on the 32 bit
version of Ubuntu.

Chris
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Rob Beard]

Simon Wears wrote:
> Stability is more important for me. The machine currently has only 512mb 
> of RAM (stolen from my desktop) but I'm headed to the shop tomorrow to 
> pick up 1Gb or 2Gb of RAM.
> 

I'd say stick 32-bit on it unless that is you need to run a specific 
application that requires a 64-bit CPU?

Rob

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Rob Beard]

Simon Wears wrote:
> I went down to MicroDirect earlier today, and bought myself a shiny new 
> Intel Quad Core Q6600, clocking at 2.4Ghz per core. I was so happy to be 
> finally replacing my 2.6Ghz Celeron (single core), which struggles to 
> even do 2+2 it seems. I got back into my flat, and replaced the CPU, 
> only to find out that although my motherboard supported Quad Core CPU's, 
> it seemed to support every one but the Q6600. Needless to say, I was 
> very unhappy to have wasted my money.
> 

Have you checked to see if there is a bios update available?  Might be 
worth having a look if you haven't already.  You never know.

> Now, I've put it into a MSI P965 Neo board (which hates linux when you 
> have both SATA and PATA drives plugged in) and it runs incredibly well. 
> My load average is 0.05, 0.06, 0.03. Big shock for me, I'm used to load 
> averages of 2.00+ ! Now, I'm going to install Ubuntu Server on this new 
> machine, and I was wondering what is recommended for this CPU. It's 
> 64-bit, so should I get the 64 bit server, or the 32 bit server? I seem 
> to recall reading that the 64 bit desktop is kinda buggy, but the 64 bit 
> server is fantastic.
> 

How much memory are you running in the server?

> Also, is their any significant difference in the 8.04 and 8.10 servers? 
> I'm more swaying towards the 8.04 Server, since its LTS, but if Intrepid 
> server is more awesomer then I'll go for that.
> 
> So, long story short:
> 
> 32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?
> 
> Cheers, Simon.
> 

Well if it's over about 3.5GB memory in there it'll have to be 64-bit to 
be able to make use of it, otherwise I'd say 32-bit unless you have a 
good reason to go 64-bit.

I'm running Ubuntu Intrepid 64-Bit on my desktop and it runs fine. 
Hardy 64-bit was also fine before that. (My desktop has 4GB memory!).

Rob


-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Simon Wears]

Stability is more important for me. The machine currently has only 512mb of
RAM (stolen from my desktop) but I'm headed to the shop tomorrow to pick up
1Gb or 2Gb of RAM.

2008/12/2 Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/12/2 Simon Wears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So, long story short:
> >
> > 32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?
>
> Do you want stable (8.04) or something a bit more recent (8.10) ?
>
> How much memory do you have? If you want to use anything more than 4GB
> RAM then you'll need the 64 bit version. For a server I'd probably go
> with 64 bit anyway, whereas for a desktop machine I'd probably go for
> the 32 bit version since I've had problems with the 64 bit version and
> it can have problems with certain apps like java and flash (being
> fixed I know).
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
>
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Lucy]

2008/12/2 Simon Wears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, long story short:
>
> 32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?

Do you want stable (8.04) or something a bit more recent (8.10) ?

How much memory do you have? If you want to use anything more than 4GB
RAM then you'll need the 64 bit version. For a server I'd probably go
with 64 bit anyway, whereas for a desktop machine I'd probably go for
the 32 bit version since I've had problems with the 64 bit version and
it can have problems with certain apps like java and flash (being
fixed I know).

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

[ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu Servers

[Simon Wears]

I went down to MicroDirect earlier today, and bought myself a shiny new
Intel Quad Core Q6600, clocking at 2.4Ghz per core. I was so happy to be
finally replacing my 2.6Ghz Celeron (single core), which struggles to even
do 2+2 it seems. I got back into my flat, and replaced the CPU, only to find
out that although my motherboard supported Quad Core CPU's, it seemed to
support every one but the Q6600. Needless to say, I was very unhappy to have
wasted my money.

Now, I've put it into a MSI P965 Neo board (which hates linux when you have
both SATA and PATA drives plugged in) and it runs incredibly well. My load
average is 0.05, 0.06, 0.03. Big shock for me, I'm used to load averages of
2.00+ ! Now, I'm going to install Ubuntu Server on this new machine, and I
was wondering what is recommended for this CPU. It's 64-bit, so should I get
the 64 bit server, or the 32 bit server? I seem to recall reading that the
64 bit desktop is kinda buggy, but the 64 bit server is fantastic.

Also, is their any significant difference in the 8.04 and 8.10 servers? I'm
more swaying towards the 8.04 Server, since its LTS, but if Intrepid server
is more awesomer then I'll go for that.

So, long story short:

32 bit or 64 bit server, and 8.04 or 8.10?

Cheers, Simon.
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Tony Arnold]

Chris,

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:31 +0100, Chris Jones wrote:

> Tony Arnold wrote:
> > Sad indeed, but I'd like to know how these machines were compromised. In
> 
> In case you'd not seen it linked to elsewhere:
> 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2007-August/001510.html

Thanks, no I had not seen this summary. If I was to guess, I'd put my
money on phpbb being the culprit, especially if it was an old version.
We have had no end of trouble with that package here.

Regards,
Tony.
-- 
Tony Arnold, IT Security Coordinator, University of Manchester,
IT Services Division, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL.
T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED], H: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold


-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Chris Jones]

Hi

Tony Arnold wrote:
> Sad indeed, but I'd like to know how these machines were compromised. In

In case you'd not seen it linked to elsewhere:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2007-August/001510.html

The machines were not owned or managed by Canonical, just paid for.

(I speak here for myself, not my employer)

Cheers,
-- 
Chris Jones
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   www.canonical.com

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Matthew East]

On 16/08/07, alan c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Press fodder. Set them up high and then knock 'em down. It makes news
> on the way up, and also on the way down.
> As Ubuntu gets higher profiles as I am sure It will, it is going to
> happen much more. A tribute to growing fame. I would be a bit happier
> if the marketing list showed a little more awareness of what publicity
> can do. Perhaps I expect to much.

That's a pretty unwarranted dig at the marketing list, I think. If it
is a reference to your recent post about an article which included
criticism of Ubuntu, with respect I think your post was taken
seriously: yes, a few people (rightly) pointed out that the article
was deficient from a technical perspective, and others (myself
included) suggested that ideas be put forward about how to respond to
the article. You're welcome to contribute to that.

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[alan c]

Chris Rowson wrote:
>> alan c wrote:
>> >   Ubuntu Servers Hacked
>> > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
>> >
>> >
>> > If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for
>> > confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!
>>
> 
> I think that too much is being made of the 'Ubuntu' bit.

Press fodder. Set them up high and then knock 'em down. It makes news 
on the way up, and also on the way down.
As Ubuntu gets higher profiles as I am sure It will, it is going to 
happen much more. A tribute to growing fame. I would be a bit happier 
if the marketing list showed a little more awareness of what publicity 
can do. Perhaps I expect to much.
-- 
alan cocks
Kubuntu user#10391

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Chris Rowson]

> alan c wrote:
> >   Ubuntu Servers Hacked
> > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
> >
> >
> > If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for
> > confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!
>

I think that too much is being made of the 'Ubuntu' bit.

I don't think it's as much a case of Ubuntu servers hacked, more one
of poor systems administrators being hacked ;-)

Chris

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Tony Arnold]

Alan,

alan c wrote:
>   Ubuntu Servers Hacked
> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
> 
> 
> If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for 
> confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!

Sad indeed, but I'd like to know how these machines were compromised. In
my experience, Linux/Unix machines are usually compromised because a
user name/password has been discovered by a hacker (sorry, cracker!).
And quite often, the discovery has been through a compromised Windows box!

So if this was a user name compromise, then we can put that down to
operational error, or security flaws in some other system.

If it was an exploit of a vulnerability in Ubuntu, then that, to me, is
a little more worrying. If so it shows the importance of keeping up to
date with security patches.

Regards,
Tony.
-- 
Tony Arnold, IT Security Coordinator, University of Manchester,
IT Services Division, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL.
T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED], H: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[alan c]

Jim Kissel wrote:
> 
> alan c wrote:
>>   Ubuntu Servers Hacked
>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
>> 
>> 
>> If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for 
>> confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!
> 
> It was a case of self inflected injuries.  Using FTP instead of sFTP or 
> SCP.  Not keeping their machines up to date.
> 
> The only redeeming aspect is non of the machines that were compromised 
> were repositories!
> 
>> 
>> I was recently trying to reduce my ignorance about security by asking 
>> questions about security, and on the ubuntu forums I had asked a 
>> couple of questions about security which were apparently so tiresome 
>> that they were immediately sidelined into a dead thread!
> 
> What questions?

Very similar to the questions I floated past yourself last week. How 
to come to terms with sudo compromise, or avoid or harden against it. 
Or in fact how to discover it has happened.  Logically the questions 
would have led to an assessment of risk of 'trusted' software - 
repositories etc, although it was cut short as 'flogging a dead horse' 
  :-)

The comments and answers you kindly offered (thanks!) were excellent 
in addressing various actions for an increasing level of assurance of 
security, should one wish it.

I am attracted to the idea of at some time, posting on the same forum 
an edited version of your comments as an answer to my satisfied needs 
fro knowledge, because it seemed to me that a number of others similar 
uncertainties.

The standard answers of 'use only trusted software' is a good initial 
answer but even novices know life is not so simple, and knowledge of 
further courses of action helps, to set a perspective.
-- 
alan cocks
Kubuntu user#10391

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[Jim Kissel]

alan c wrote:
>   Ubuntu Servers Hacked
> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224
> 
> 
> If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for 
> confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!

It was a case of self inflected injuries.  Using FTP instead of sFTP or 
SCP.  Not keeping their machines up to date.

The only redeeming aspect is non of the machines that were compromised 
were repositories!

> 
> I was recently trying to reduce my ignorance about security by asking 
> questions about security, and on the ubuntu forums I had asked a 
> couple of questions about security which were apparently so tiresome 
> that they were immediately sidelined into a dead thread!

What questions?

> 
> I posted a request for reinstatement in the resolution forum, but have 
> not heard anything yet.
> 
> In the few days since I was totally ignorant, I have become slightly 
> better informed, and maybe an appropriate question for the forums 
> should now be about the story of th eking and his new clothes?
> 
> The off-handedness (of presumably the admin/s) in the ubuntu forums I 
> stumbled into is ironic indeed in the circumstances.

-- 
Simple effective migration to Open Source based computing

Jim Kissel
Open Source Migrations Limited
w: http://www.osml.eu
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p: +44(0) 8703 301044
m: +44(0) 7976 411 679

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/

[ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu servers hacked?

[alan c]

  Ubuntu Servers Hacked
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1341224


If this is true it is pretty sad. It will take some time for 
confidence to be regained. What a gift (or a result?) for the opposition!

I was recently trying to reduce my ignorance about security by asking 
questions about security, and on the ubuntu forums I had asked a 
couple of questions about security which were apparently so tiresome 
that they were immediately sidelined into a dead thread!

I posted a request for reinstatement in the resolution forum, but have 
not heard anything yet.

In the few days since I was totally ignorant, I have become slightly 
better informed, and maybe an appropriate question for the forums 
should now be about the story of th eking and his new clothes?

The off-handedness (of presumably the admin/s) in the ubuntu forums I 
stumbled into is ironic indeed in the circumstances.
-- 
alan cocks
Kubuntu user#10391

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/