Net Llama wrote inter alia:
> Yea, i hear that apt-get thing is really painful & time consuming.
Well, if you do a complete KDE upgrade with a dial-up connection it can
be a bit time consuming.
As far as "painful" goes, there are some people who might disagree.
--
Leon A. Goldstein
Powered by L
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > From a desktop perspective, everybody uses office. Unfortunately,
> > everybody also uses some other task specific app without which, the job
> > cannot be done. Office functionality is crucial but it as only the
> > first step.
> >
>
> I must agree. T
I use the lexmark z53, too. It is great with linux. However, I haven't seen
any other printers with such specific support for linux. I hope there are
more around.
Joel
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
> Good support for my Lexmark Z53. Lexmark even provides linux ve
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003, Collins Richey wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:09:36 -0700
>Condon Thomas A KPWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> burns wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for
>> >inkjet> printers. An
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:09:36 -0700
Condon Thomas A KPWA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> burns wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
> >
> >> Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for
> >inkjet> printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners.
> >
Quoth burns:
> On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:25, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
>
> >
> > I used to live between the techs wanting neat technology and the execs
> > wanting to not spend money. I was pretty succesful about getting what
> > we needed except on two topics; downtime and time testing patches.
>
burns wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
>
>> Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for inkjet
>> printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners. There
>> is no support for these in linux.
>>
>
> Most medium to large businesses and enterpri
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:25, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
>
> I used to live between the techs wanting neat technology and the execs
> wanting to not spend money. I was pretty succesful about getting what
> we needed except on two topics; downtime and time testing patches.
> Downtime was rare enough
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
> Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for inkjet
> printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners. There is
> no support for these in linux.
>
Most medium to large businesses and enterprise environments don't us
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:16, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
> I actually meant what I said. Most of the initiatives above started
> somewhere other than distribution and have added it so that a checkmark
> could be put on their features list. Building a distribution centered
> application with things
> From a desktop perspective, everybody uses office. Unfortunately,
> everybody also uses some other task specific app without which, the job
> cannot be done. Office functionality is crucial but it as only the
> first step.
>
I must agree. Try getting your new USB PDA to sync with linux.
burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0400
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 19:06, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
every executive I have ever met will spit nails about downtime and the
cost to the company until you tell them how much it will cost to fix it.
Then the executive goes away, until next time
burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 17 Aug 2003 23:56:28 -0400
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:49, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
see that doesn't happen. What busines apps do we have for linux that
make people want to run linux so that they can use that application?
Office? Spice? Photoshop? What do we have that is
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 19:06, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
> every executive I have ever met will spit nails about downtime and the
> cost to the company until you tell them how much it will cost to fix it.
> Then the executive goes away, until next time.
That's the business we're in and I can tell y
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:49, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
> see that doesn't happen. What busines apps do we have for linux that
> make people want to run linux so that they can use that application?
> Office? Spice? Photoshop? What do we have that is close?
>
>
I would hardly classify Photoshop
Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:18:15 -0600
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:42:26 -0500
Alma J Wetzker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ other stuff snipped - see the thread for details ]
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is much harsher. Most
linux apps just aren't up to thei
Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:56:23 -0700
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is much harsher. Most linux
apps just aren't up to their windoze counterparts. This is especially
true for personal productivity apps. The s
On 16 Aug 2003 04:23:29 -0400
burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Code that causes this much disruption of commerce is anything but
> benign. These are more than just the digital equivalent of a rck thrown
> through a window, they suck up huge amounts of bandwidth, both as people
> attempt to deal
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:42:26 -0500
Alma J Wetzker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ other stuff snipped - see the thread for details ]
> >The essential situation is this. Using M$ products is a recipe for
> >disaster (when will the latest worm strike again?), in spite of the
> >fact that some of the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
...
>>There are solutions in most cases, but most users are so locked into the
>>M$ mentality that they won't even make the effort.
>
>I agree with the sentiment but the reality is much harsher. Most linux
>apps just aren't up to their windoze counterpa
Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:21:20 -0600
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:57:12 -0500
"David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers because
some of these patches come with changed EULAs they don't want to
accept.
Unfortun
How about run windows for life?
-- Alma
burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16 Aug 2003 04:23:29 -0400
The people that write and launch these programs in the wild should
caught and forced to do something really unpleasant for a very long
time.
___
Linux-users
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 17:59, Bill Campbell wrote:
Good Grief, Bill. I think we agree.
--
burns
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, burns wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 14:07, Bill Campbell wrote:
>
>> The people who deploy Windows systems on the Internet should be held
>> accountable for endangering their organization's data and systems (not to
>> mention lost productivity while waiting for Windows systems
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 14:07, Bill Campbell wrote:
> The people who deploy Windows systems on the Internet should be held
> accountable for endangering their organization's data and systems (not to
> mention lost productivity while waiting for Windows systems to reboot
> unnecessarily). It's not l
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, burns wrote:
...
>Code that causes this much disruption of commerce is anything but
>benign. These are more than just the digital equivalent of a rck thrown
>through a window, they suck up huge amounts of bandwidth, both as people
>attempt to deal with them and for the fact th
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
>I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public service.
>Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing worms like this.
Microsoft writes the virus. The worms merely take advantage of the myriad
security holes in Windows and the
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports.
I have noticed most scanners tend to do the well known ports if you
scanned every port it would take a long time. so they mostly look at the
we
The usefulness of a site like ShieldsUp is that it gives you the
ability, from inside, to initiatate a test from outside, to see if that
firewall you just put up is working. If there is a better such site
available, I'd sure like to know about it.
I use a shell account on an external box for th
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:57:12 -0500
"David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers because
> some of these patches come with changed EULAs they don't want to
> accept.
> Unfortunately, they also can't change over to Linux because so
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:17:09 -0400
Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public
> service. Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing
> worms like this.
>
I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers becau
I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public service.
Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing worms like this.
Joel
>
> The people that write and launch these programs in the wild should
> caught and forced to do something really unpleasant for a very long
> t
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 20:49, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
> These worms are so benign it's pathetic. If only the Windows world realized just
> how much peril they could be in! So far we've only really had worms that
> self-propagate and then did some token act to prove that they weren't gay. But h
These worms are so benign it's pathetic. If only the Windows world realized just how
much peril they could be in! So far we've only really had worms that self-propagate
and then did some token act to prove that they weren't gay. But how many CodeRed and
NIMDA machines could have had a format
I don't think I'm safe... I know :)
By the way. Those were some great pix! It was nice to "meet" someone from the list
face-to-face. Maybe I'll run into you at some event and I'll recognize "that
Hammerguy!"
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:41:21 -0400
Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh well
Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime too
soon.
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:33:30PM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
> On 08/12/03 14:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > Just how does this this thing spread?
> >
> > I have a couple of windows boxes behind my linux firewall. I h
67/tcp closed dhcpserver
68/tcp closed dhcpclient
80/tcp openhttp
84/tcp openctf
113/tcpopenauth
1024/tcp openkdm
1025/tcp closed NFS-or-IIS
.
.
.
.
Perhaps your upstream provider is providing you with "services" of closing
ev
Thanks for the scan. I turned off kdm. I will upgrade my firewall when my
wife gets off aol.
These results are about what I expected. I am surprised that the ShieldsUp
web site told me these ports (113, 80, 84) were "stealth" when they are
open.
I may have missed some attempts to scan ports because
On 08/13/03 15:45, Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password protected.
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password protected.
I have to conclude that ShieldsUp is
Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
> IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
services. You should also block TCP ports 138, 445, 593,
and UDP port 69 (TFTP).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/virus/alerts/msb
I tried this web site. I log just about all activity on my firewall,
and although I got a stealth result for all my ports except 0 from this
web site, I cannot find any attempts to attach to a large number of my
ports in my logs, including 80, which is open, as is port 113. Both were
marked stealth
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:33:30 -0700
"Net Llama!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> port 137, the RPC port. Of course keeping up with M$ security updates will
> help too.
--
Matthew Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/
Enterprise I
If you are in an all-Linux place, you are damn lucky.
We are being bombarded with the Backdoor and Blaster
worms and anyone who hasn't gotten their Microsoft
updates in the last two weeks is being blown away.
It's an epidemic.
My Libranet box is just fine. But its my job to make
sure that all tho
Kurt Wall wrote:
Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
services. You should also block TCP ports 138, 445, 593,
and UDP port 69 (TFTP).
You should block *every* port that doesn't absolutely, positively have
to
On 08/12/03 17:36, Collins Richey wrote:
Not being even an XP lightweight - how does one find out whether ports
are open or blocked on WinXP?
From your linux box, run nmap against it :)
I think win2k & XP also have netstat, but i wouldn't know for sure, nor
would i trust its output.
--
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
> I got a Failed result from this test because my machine responded to a
> ping request. I think I'll leave this in place.
>
> Are these guys serious?
>From a windoze persepective, sure. But its really just a toy. I wouldn't
trust my network to that site.
Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not being even an XP lightweight - how does one find out whether ports
are open or blocked on WinXP?
Quickest way is to go to http://grc.com and run his "Shields Up!" test
against your address. That wi
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 19:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
> It's not bogus. Mr. Gibson is well respected and his site is widely
> used. Dunno why it didn't work properly on your system. I might guess
> that it misidentified your IP address, or perhaps the fact that the
> Internet has been only half work
really is not a bother.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:59:01 -0500 - Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the
following
Re: Re: worms worms worms
>Collins Richey wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
>> Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Not b
I sent the info on this worm to a friend whom I know to be running a mix of
Linux and Windows at home. His response may be of interest to the list:
Yep -- as near as I can tell, only my XP laptop is vulnerable.
I downloaded the patch for it without problem (I thi
You can run nmap against your windows boxes to check out their ports.
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 06:36:17PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
> Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime
> > t
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime
> too soon.
> Joel
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:33:30PM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
> > On 08/12/03 14:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > > Just how does this t
On 08/13/03 16:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks
like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found
anyone
doing this. I
Precisely.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:50:32 -0500
Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kurt Wall wrote:
>
> > Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
> >
> >>IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
> >
> >
> > It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
> > services. You should also block TCP port
Just how does this this thing spread?
I have a couple of windows boxes behind my linux firewall. I have almost all
privileged ports blocked. Will that be enuf?
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:28PM -0700, Gary Wilson wrote:
> If you are in an all-Linux place, you are damn lucky.
>
> We are b
On 08/12/03 14:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Just how does this this thing spread?
I have a couple of windows boxes behind my linux firewall. I have almost all
privileged ports blocked. Will that be enuf?
port 137, the RPC port. Of course keeping up with M$ security updates will
help too.
--
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password protected.
I have to conclud
Burns MacDonald wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 19:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
> We do quite a bit of IT Security work. Shields Up is OK for what it is,
given the parameters it has to work under - it's not bogus, but it is
lightweight.
The usefulness of a site like ShieldsUp is that it gives you the
ab
You could try http://www.pcflank.com/scanner1.htm
It lets you add the ports you want scanned.
I still think programs like nmap are best.
Regards,
Wil McGilvery
Manager
Lynch Digital Media Inc
416-744-7949
416-716-3964 (cell)
1-866-314-4678
416-744-0406 FAX
www.LynchDigital.com
-
60 matches
Mail list logo