On Sunday 23 September 2001 21:11 pm, Chang wrote:
> You can use port 23 for SSL... I suppose. :)
>
> >They don't seem to allow SSL from work, so I have no choice.
> >I haven't been cracked because:
> >1. I have ways.
> >2. I am not worth cracking. I mean, what is there to steal?
I think he means
You can use port 23 for SSL... I suppose. :)
>They don't seem to allow SSL from work, so I have no choice.
>I haven't been cracked because:
>1. I have ways.
>2. I am not worth cracking. I mean, what is there to steal?
>
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Well, our CEO forwarded my letter to the head of IS for our system.
I suspect that the response will be to push ahead and get windows XP
installed everywhere ASAP because it must have better security than earlier
versions of windows, right?
Joel
> =
> You allow telnet into your home box? That's a great way to get
> your system cracked.
>
They don't seem to allow SSL from work, so I have no choice.
I haven't been cracked because:
1. I have ways.
2. I am not worth cracking. I mean, what is there to steal?
> I thought @HOME had blocked all inc
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 09:13:29PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
>Well, internet access was down all day at work. Couldn't look up anything
>regarding medical literature for our specimen sign outs. Really a problem.
>My network server went down so no email, internal or external. Of course, I
>just tel
Well, internet access was down all day at work. Couldn't look up anything
regarding medical literature for our specimen sign outs. Really a problem.
My network server went down so no email, internal or external. Of course, I
just telnet home and use my linux box for email, anyway. They stopped
blo
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:12:00 -0400
Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Regarding the response of our IS professionals. They did block all access to
| the internet yesterday and today I still can't browse. I guess they think we
| all use the Explorer.
| I spoke to our lab IS professional toda
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:17:45 -0400
"Wil McGilvery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| One thing that needs to be mentioned is that a large number of IT companies
| make money because MS is so insecure.
Like I said, MS is a jobs program.
Linux better be careful. It may get a reputation as a jobs elimi
Here is part of the response to the worm at my place.
I guess they think that everyone is going to do this. What a joke.
Email from IS:
===
As a follow up to previous communication, Internet access cannot be restored
until we have installed
it is a religionit would be tremendously difficult to twist a
party's religious belief.
>The real kick in the teeth is everyone loves to complain, but when you suggest an
>alternative, it is rejected.
>
>I know lots of network administrators who know a lot less than they should. These
>peo
cc:
Sent by:Subject: Re: fighting the worm (enough
of this already)
linux-users-admi
[EMAI
20, 2001 11:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: fighting the worm (enough of this already)
Would vote a conditional yes. Not so much desktop users as server administrators. By
now they have to be getting pretty fed up with complaints from clients
bothered by Microsoft worm of the week shut/slow dow
:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: fighting the worm (enough of this already)
Here is an email we got today. It actually came as a rich text format, not a
word document, which is surprising. We are a very large multi-hospital
health system
Here is an email we got today. It actually came as a rich text format, not a
word document, which is surprising. We are a very large multi-hospital
health system.
===
This is to advise you that a new computer virus called "Nimda" is prop
e is any alternative. A lot of these
>people don't know that much about their computer and Linux/Unix terrifies them.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chang
> Sent: Wed 9/19/2001 9:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: fighting the worm (enough of this alr
Regarding the response of our IS professionals. They did block all access to
the internet yesterday and today I still can't browse. I guess they think we
all use the Explorer.
I spoke to our lab IS professional today. He wasn't aware of the problem.
He seemed vaguely interested that the Explorer m
g the worm (enough of this already)
no way. worms would merely lure more users to pay more to microsoft so
that she could solve their problems, kind of a "negative" feedback loop.
>Let's take a vote. Does anyone think that current users of windows products
>(server or browser) wil
no way. worms would merely lure more users to pay more to microsoft so
that she could solve their problems, kind of a "negative" feedback loop.
>Let's take a vote. Does anyone think that current users of windows products
>(server or browser) will switch because of this latest worm?
>I vote no,
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 06:06, Jerry McBride babbled:
> Dude... becareful who you show this to... :')
this list is full disclosure. and I didn't advocate using it. I simply made
my thoughts available. It is a nice trick though... ;)
thanks for the warning though.
--
Douglas J. Hunley ([
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:21:40 -0400 "Douglas J. Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I am a bit hesitant to post this, but I know others probably feel the way I
> do, so...
>
Doug,
Dude... becareful who you show this to... :')
You're amongst friends here, no dobt about it... but an idiot from
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:43:01PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
>Let's take a vote. Does anyone think that current users of windows products
>(server or browser) will switch because of this latest worm?
>I vote no, because if they didn't switch after the last worm, they don't
>have the brains or time
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 13:43 pm, Joel Hammer wrote:
> Let's take a vote. Does anyone think that current users of windows products
> (server or browser) will switch because of this latest worm?
> I vote no, because if they didn't switch after the last worm, they don't
> have the brains or t
Let's take a vote. Does anyone think that current users of windows products
(server or browser) will switch because of this latest worm?
I vote no, because if they didn't switch after the last worm, they don't
have the brains or time to make a switch.
It might be time to think whether or not Micro
If the ISP has a clue they have also closed 81 as most servers answer 81 for
admin use.
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 21:33, Joel Hammer wrote:
> This wouldn't be hard to get around. Just register with a company to get
> your own domain name and have them maintain it for you ($35 per year?),
> t
This wouldn't be hard to get around. Just register with a company to get
your own domain name and have them maintain it for you ($35 per year?), then redirect
it to your
home IP to port, say 81, with apache listening to port 81.
Windows users are such a drag. Really. But, they help support the e
The only pausible reason for linux users to do it is because it's
abusing our shared bandwith.
I don't have the resources to counter M$ WTC-class terrorists. Get the
ISP military.
My ISP has baanned port 80 (not good actually) after the first code-red
worm. They haven't lifted the ban yet.
>
"hmm very interesting.." says the wise man..
I concur, (gettin help on the howto of it hehe), that this is enough, I too
would have been hesitant about it(posting) and willr eamin hesitant about the
porkers knockin at my door
Have a good day gents
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 20:21, y
I fought the worm. Virtually all of my hits were coming from 24.0.0.0/8.
So, I just blocked that on my firewall without logging it.
Joel
___
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/l
I am a bit hesitant to post this, but I know others probably feel the way I
do, so...
attached is a quick and simple script that in theory (if one would use it for
this purpose, which I'm not advocating) find everyone that has hammered your
Apache site all day, and would connect to their infec
29 matches
Mail list logo
