Slashdot Mirror
OpenSSH Gets Even More Suspicious
If you remotely administer any computers, or need to check your email over an untrusted network, odds are you're already familiar with the wonders of OpenSSH. Markus Friedl yesterday posted a release announcement for the newest version, OpenSSH 3.3. Privilege separation in OpenSSH is now enabled by default, another sign of the entire OpenBSD project's appropriate paranoia.
Gentlemen, the time has come for a serious discussion on whether or not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.
To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune 500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in VB for fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.
C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to more modern languages such as Java and C#. Although the reasons for this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.
Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding, but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called "pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.
Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious) programming language like Java, C# or - even better - Visual Basic that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious speed increase over C.
So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Visual Basic.
Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that VB has the edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by the marketing people at the FSF. Microsoft's "shared source" under which Visual Basic is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the FSF.
I hope to see a switch to VB very soon. I've already spoken with various luminaries in the *nix coding world and most are eager to begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Visual Basic. Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the great Swede himself, Linux Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux to VB/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site. Finally, Dennis Ritchie is excited about the switch!
Thank you for your time. Happy coding.
Egg Troll
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
The Terrors of
"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:49-50).
The doctrine of hell is one of the most neglected doctrines in all of Scripture. When hell is mentioned today, it is generally ridiculed, as if the whole idea of hell were so old-fashioned that only the naive and ignorant would really believe that such a place actually exists. This is not hard to understand. Natural men hate the idea of being held accountable for their lives to a holy God, because they love sin and do not wish to part with it. The carnal mind throws up objection after objection to the idea of hell because it does not want to face the reality of it. Men live their lives thinking that maybe if they ignore a difficulty long enough, it will go away. Even conservative religious leaders are now attacking hell. Let men do what they will, the frivilous objections of the foolish will not do away with hell.
Amid the clamour to annihilate hell, those who believe the Bible to be true must stand and speak. Your consideration of the terrors of hell may be one of the most important things you can do in this life. "Then he who hears the sound of the trumpet, and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head" (Ezekiel 33:4). Please, I implore you, invest the time it takes to read this chapter and book to the end.
Why should we be so concerned about hell? Why should we spend time reading about hell? There are several reasons why it is profitable to do so:
1) Hearing about the terrors of hell may shock your conscience and awaken you out of your false security.
2) Hearing about hell helps to deter men from committing sin. Both the godly and the ungodly are persuaded not to sin as much when they are regularly reminded of the terrors of hell.
3) Hearing about the terrors of hell may help to awaken those among us who may think they are saved because they believe in Christ or the facts of the gospel, but who are not really saved and are on their way to hell, but don't know it.
4) Preaching the doctrine of hell is profitable to both the godly and the ungodly alike, as will be demonstrated.
Why aren't people fearful of hell? There seems to be a real lack of fear today of the reality of hell. This applies to both those who are in the church and those who are in the world. People are not afraid of hell. Why?
You would not be afraid of a lion when it is only painted in a picture upon a wall. Why is this? Because it is only a picture. You know that it is not real. But if you were left alone in a jungle and came face to face with a real lion that growled ferociously at you, you would be terrified. The consciences of men are much like the man who only views the painted lion. We hear of hell in the Bible. We know that the Lord Jesus spoke of hell. In fact, Christ spoke more of hell than anyone else in the Scriptures. Why do men not believe hell is real? Because they do not hear enough about it. We don't study what the Scriptures say about hell. It is not just what we hear which makes up what we believe, it is what we don't hear as well which helps to form our belief system. Only the Spirit of God can present the terrors of hell to our hearts in such a way as to see them alive before us. The doctrine of hell has been used by God more often to the conversion of sinners than any other doctrine in the Scriptures. Pray now that as you read this chapter the Holy Spirit will set hell before you as real indeed.
THE NECESSITY OF HELL
Most who scoff at hell today probably do so for several reasons. Primary among them is a desire to pursue their own paths of sin without having their consciences troubled about the consequences of their actions. They do not want to hear that what they are doing is wrong. They do not want to hear that their sin will be punished. I can hear someone say, "But isn't eternal torment in hell inconsistent with a merciful and loving God? How could a good God punish people in hell forever?" A misunderstanding of the character of God and the nature of sin can easily lead to such questions. Why is hell necessary? Let us examine several reasons for the necessity of hell.
1) The Great Evil in Sin and the Holiness of God. The difficulty most people have in understanding the necessity of hell is related to an incomplete and inadequate understanding of both how awful sin is and how glorious God is. We do not see what a great evil is in the least sin, nor do we understand God's holiness, His justice, and His wrath. If we saw sin as the greatest evil in the world and realized that every sin is a rejection of God's rule over us, a sneering at Him, a shaking of our fist in His face, and a hurling of dung at Him, we would begin to understand a small bit of what our sin is like to God. Every time we sin, we either set ourselves, or a pet lust, up in our hearts as a rival god. Sin rejects the Creator as God and sets up the creature in His place.
If we could comprehend God's holiness and what it means to be holy, pure, perfect, upright, and untainted by the least sin, we would have a better idea of why God hates sin so much. Absolute holiness cannot tolerate the least sin, "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor" (Habakkuk 1:13). If we could understand the glorious holiness and purity of God and also the abominable nature of sin more, then we would have no problem with the absolute necessity of hell.
"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). The human heart is sick. The human heart is wicked. The human heart is deceitful. The corruption in the heart causes us to be deceived about the awfulness of sin as well as many other things.
2) God's Infinite Nature. In understanding what our sin is really like, we must view it through the eyes of God. God is an infinite, eternal being. Every act of sin is committed against an infinite, holy God. In every act of sin we dethrone God and set ourselves above God. In every sin this question is the issue, "Whose will shall be done, God's will or man's? Now, man by sin sets his own will above the Lord's, and so kicks God as filth under his feet."1 A single act of sin committed against a holy, infinite God deserves infinite punishment. It is an infinite evil to offend an infinite God even once.
3) Divine Justice. Even one sin against God calls for God to vindicate His name and His justice by punishing it as fully as it deserves. God can and will vindicate His justice. He promises to do so in Romans 12:19 where it says, "leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, `Vengence is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" One of the greatest preachers that ever lived, Jonathan Edwards, wrote, "The glory of God is the greatest good; it is that which is the chief end of creation; it is of greater importance than anything else. But this is one way wherein God will glorify Himself, as in the eternal destruction of ungodly men He will glorify His justice. Therein He will appear as a just governor of the world. The vindictive justice of God will appear strict, exact, awful, and terrible, and therefore glorious."2
A DESCRIPTION OF HELL
Hell is a furnace of unquenchable fire, a place of everlasting punishment, where its victims are tormented in both their bodies and their minds in accordance with their sinful natures, their actual sins committed, and the amount of spiritual light given to them, which they rejected. Hell is a place from which God's mercy and goodness have been withdrawn, where God's wrath is revealed as a terrifying, consuming fire, and men live with unfulfilled lusts and desires in torment forever and ever.
In Matthew 13:47-50 the Lord Jesus tells a parable relating to the judgment. In verses 49-50, the Lord describes the fate of the wicked: "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
In examining these words of the Lord Jesus we should first notice that hell is described as being a furnace of fire. Nebuchadnezzar's furnace was heated seven times hotter than normal and is described as "a furnace of blazing fire" (Daniel 3:23). John the Baptist spoke of "unquenchable fire" and Revelation describes hell as "a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Revelation 19:20). Can we really imagine the horror of which these words speak? Imagine every part of your body on fire at the same time, so that every fiber of your being felt the intense torment of being burned. How long could you endure such punishment? Christ tells us that "there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." The lost will wail and gnash their teeth from having to endure the most intense pain and suffering they have ever felt as the flames consume them and constantly burn every part of their bodies. And there will be no relief.
Jonathan Edwards describes in graphic language what the fires of hell will be like: "Some of you have seen buildings on fire; imagine therefore with yourselves, what a poor hand you would make at fighting with the flames, if you were in the midst of so great and fierce a fire. You have often seen a spider or some other noisome insect, when thrown into the midst of a fierce fire, and have observed how immediately it yields to the force of the flames. There is no long struggle, no fighting against the fire, no strength exerted to oppose the heat, or to fly from it; but it immediately stretches forth and yields; and the fire takes possession of it, and at once it becomes full of fire. Here is a little image of what you will be in hell, except you repent and fly to Christ. To encourage yourselves that you will set yourselves to bear hell-torments as well as you can, is just as if a worm, that is about to be thrown into a glowing furnace, should swell and fortify itself, and prepare itself to fight the flames."3
Hell is also described as a place of darkness. The Lord tells us of the guest without wedding clothes who was cast "into outer darkness" (Matthew 22:13). Jude writes of those in hell "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever" (Jude 13). Christopher Love says in his work Hell's Terrors: "darkness is terrible, and men are more apt to fear in the dark then light: hell is therefore set forth in so terrible an expression, to make the hearts of men tremble; not only darkness, but the blackness of darkness".4
Hell is compared to Tophet in Isaiah 30:33. Tophet was the place where the idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to the heathen god Molech by casting them into the fire. Day and night shrieks and howls were heard in that place, as day and night shrieks, howls, and wailing are heard in hell.
Isaiah speaks of "the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone" setting hell ablaze. There is good evidence from the Scriptures that God Himself will be the fire in hell. Hebrews 12:29 says, "Our God is a consuming fire." The ungodly on earth ignorantly dance for joy when they hear pastors speak about the love and mercy of God, but they will be the beneficiaries of neither, unless they repent. To them God will be an all consuming fire. Hebrews 10:30-31 warns: "For we know him who said, `Vengence is Mine, I will repay,' And again, `The Lord will judge His people.' It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." It is a fearful thing, it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God! You shall not escape hell, sinner. God will be your hell and His wrath will consume you and be poured upon you as long as He exists. "Who understands the power of Thine anger?" (Psalm 90:11). It is because God Himself will be the fire in hell that words cannot possibly express the terrors of the damned in hell. "There is no reason to suspect that possibly ministers set forth this matter beyond what it really is, that possibly it is not so dreadful and terrible as it is pretended, and that ministers strain the description of it beyond just bounds...We have rather reason to suppose that after we have said our utmost, all that we have said or thought is but a faint shadow of reality."5
In Luke 16:19-26 Christ tells us of two men. One of them was rich (he has traditionally been called Dives); the other man was poor (his name was Lazarus). Both men died. The poor man was carried by angels to heaven and the rich man went to hell. The rich man did not go to hell because he was rich, nor did the poor man go to heaven simply because he was poor. The Lord shows us through this contrast that our circumstances may change drastically when we pass from time into eternity. We are not to be fooled that just because God may not have dealt harshly with us here, that he will not do so after death. The eternal abiding place of both men resulted from the condition of their hearts before God, while they were on earth. Lazarus was a true follower of God. Dives was not. We want to carefully note what the Scriptures tell us about Dives and his condition, for from that we may learn much about hell. Verses 23-24 indicate to us that Dives is "in torment." What does it mean to be "in torment?" This torment refers to both torment in body and torment in soul as well. As we have seen, men's bodies will be tormented in a furnace of fire. Every part of the body will feel the pain of that fire. Men with severe stomach pains can be in great agony from that alone, but this pain will be far greater. Death from cancer is sometimes said to cause extreme pain in the body, but the pain of hell will be far worse. If your body were afflicted with many different and painful diseases all at the same time, you still would not begin to approach the pain of the damned in hell.
Men's consciences shall be in torment in hell as well. Conscience is the worm that will not die which the Scriptures speak of (Mark 9:48; Isaiah 66:24). Dives is told to "remember that during your life." Men will be tormented with extreme pain, but they will also be tormented by their own memories. They will remember hearing of hell and scoffing at it. They will remember being warned and told to repent or told that accepting the blessings of heaven without submitting to Christ as Lord falls short of salvation, but they took no heed to those warnings. They will be tormented by seeing at a distance the glories of heaven (as Dives was able to do), and knowing that for all eternity they will be damned. They will be tormented by unfulfilled desires and unfulfilled lusts (Dives is not able to receive even a drop of water to cool his tongue). They will be tormented by the knowledge that they will never escape from hell (Dives is told that "neither can you pass to us"). They will be tormented by the cries, shrieks, and curses of the damned around them. The most extreme torments a man can experience on earth will be like flea bites compared to the torments of hell.
Jonathan Edwards speaks of men unable to find even a moment of relief in hell in his sermon on The Future Punishment of the Wicked: "Nor will they ever be able to find anything to relieve them in hell. They will never find any resting place there; any secret corner, which will be cooler than the rest, where they may have a little respite, a small abatement of the extremity of their torment. They never will be able to find any cooling stream or fountain, in any part of that world of torment; no, nor so much as a drop of water to cool their tongues. They will find no company to give them any comfort, or do them the least good. They will find no place, where they can remain, and rest, and take breath for one minute: for they will be tormented with fire and brimstone; and they will have no rest day nor night forever and ever."6
THE ETERNITY OF HELL
The most terrifying aspect of all about hell is its length or duration. Hell is eternal. Hell will last forever. Can you comprehend eternity? No mathimatical equation or formula can explain it. Your mind cannot conceive of eternity, but it is none the less real. This aspect of hell alone should cause men to cry out in repentance. It is not surprising that skeptics of all ages have attacked the eternal nature of hell, substituting doctrines like the annihilation of the wicked in its place. Let us look at the Scriptures to verify the eternal nature of hell and to try and understand eternity better. Then we will explore why hell must be eternal.
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). This verse clearly gives us the duration of hell. Hell is forever and ever. How could a stronger, more certain expression be used? If the Spirit of God wanted to communicate the eternal nature of hell to men what could communicate it better than the expression "forever and ever?" The Scripture has no higher expression which is used to denote eternity than "forever and ever" for it is the very phrase used to tell us of the eternal existence of God Himself, as in Revelation 4:9: "to him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever." Does anyone doubt that God will live to all eternity? How then can you doubt that hell will not last to all eternity when the same expression is used for both?
"We can conceive but little of the matter; but to help your conception, imagine yourself to be cast into a fiery oven, or a great furnace, where your pain would be as much greater than that occasioned by accidentally touching a coal of fire, as the heat is greater. Imagine also that your body were to lie there for a quarter of an hour, full of fire, and all the while full of quick sense; what horror would you feel at the entrance of such a furnace! and how long would that quarter of an hour seem to you! And after you had endured it for one minute, how overbearing would it be to you to think that you had to endure the other fourteen! But what would be the effect on your soul, if you knew you must lie there enduring that torment to the full for twenty-four hours...for a whole year...for a thousand years! Oh, then, how would your hearts sink, if you knew, that you must bear it forever and ever! that there would be no end! that after millions of millions of ages, your torment would be no nearer to an end, and that you never, never should be delivered! But your torment in hell will be immensely greater than this illustration represents."7
Christ, describing the great day of judgment, tells of the separation of the wicked and the righteous using these words: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46). Is there anyone who would deny that heaven exists eternally? Will the lives of the blessed in heaven be brought to an end one day? Of course not. But the same Greek word is used here in this verse to speak of the eternal life of the righteous and the everlasting punishment of the wicked. Hell will last as long as heaven does.
In hell there will be different degrees of torment appointed to men as indicated by a number of Scriptures. Luke 12:47-48 says: "And that slave who knew his master's will and die not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." Christ says in Matthew 11:24: "Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you." The verses in Matthew indicate that the people in Capernaum will receive a greater punishment on judgment day than those who had lived in Sodom. The verses in Luke speak of a differentiation in judgment based on the amount of light received: some will receive many stripes and others will receive few.
Those who commit greater sins than others or more sins than others will receive greater punishment in hell (John 19:11). Religious hypocrites, those who profess Christianity but are not real Christians, will be punished more severely than others (Matthew 23:14-15). The Lord said of Judas Iscariot, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). How could any of these things be said to be true if annihilation were what awaited men after death? The presence of different degrees of punishment only makes sense in light of the ability to sensibly feel the torment. Could it be said that it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born if annihilation was all that awaited him? Annihilation is like no punishment at all.
Each time the unbeliever sins he is adding to his torment in hell. The person who sins twice as much as another with similar light will receive twice as much punishment. Every day that sinners continue to live and breathe here on earth without repenting, they are adding to their torments in hell. Romans 2:5 tells us: "But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." The Lord Jesus encouraged the righteous to lay up treasures in heaven rather than on earth. The wicked are increasing their future wrath and torment in hell every day by their continued sinning. They add to their punishment daily. In hell men will wish that they had never been born.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said: "In hell there is no hope. They have not even the hope of dying--the hope of being annihilated. They are forever--forever--forever lost! On every chain in hell, there is written "forever". In the fires there, blaze out the words, "forever". Above their heads, they read, "forever". Their eyes are galled and their hearts are pained with the thought that it is "forever". Oh, if I could tell you tonight that hell would one day be burned out, and that those who were lost might be saved, there would be a jubilee in hell at the very thought of it. But it cannot be--it is "forever" they are cast into the outer darkness."8
Christopher Love uses an illustration to try and help us understand what eternity means: "Suppose all the mountains of the earth were mountains of sand, and many more mountains still added thereto, till they reached up to heaven, and a little bird should once in every thousand years take one (grain of) sand of this mountain, there would be an innumerable company of years pass over before that mass of sand would be consumed and taken away, and yet this time would have an end; and it would be happy for man, if hell were no longer than this time; but this is man's misery in hell, he shall be in no more hope of coming out after he hath been there millions of years, then he was when he was first cast in there; for his torments shall be to eternity, without end, because the God that damns him is eternal."9
Earlier we looked at the necessity of hell or why there must be a place like hell. Now we will look at why hell must not only exist, but why it must exist eternally. Why is it necessary that hell be eternal? There are several answers to this which we shall explore briefly.
The first reason we will look at is the one mentioned by Christopher Love in the passage just quoted. The God who damns men is an eternal God. "Ultimately the eternality of hell is based upon the nature of God."10 Is God's Word eternal? Is God's nature eternal? The Scripture tells us: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). "His righteousness endures forever" (Psalm 111:3). "The Word of the Lord abides forever" (I Peter 1:24). If God's Word is eternal, if God's righteousness is eternal, if God Himself is eternal, then why shouldn't His wrath be eternal as well? As eternally existent, all of God's attributes are eternal and immutable; therefore, hell, as an expression of God's wrath, must be eternal.
Hell must be eternal because God's justice could never be satisfied by the punishment of sinners no matter how long it lasts. Christ makes this clear when He speaks about settling with your accuser before you get to court, otherwise you shall be cast into prison and "I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite" (Luke 12:59). Man can do nothing to pay for his sins. No amount of punishment in hell, no matter how long, can ever atone for sins. It is impossible; therefore, hell must be eternal.
Thirdly, hell must be eternal because the Scriptures tell us that the worm which gnaws the conscience of men in hell never dies. "For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24). If the worm never dies, then those being tormented by the worm shall never die.
Lastly, hell will be eternal because men continue to sin in hell. They increase and compound their guilt there. Hell is a place where tormented men curse God, curse themselves, and scream and wail with blasphemous language at their fellow men around them. Wicked men will increase each other's torments as they accuse, blame, and condemn one another. Men will not repent in hell because the character of sinners does not change. They remain sinners. Men will sin to eternity, therefore, God will punish them eternally.
APPLICATION TO BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS
The Old Testament prophets warn us repeatedly of the dangers of hell: "Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isaiah 33:14, KJV). "Who can stand before His indignation? And who can endure the burning of His anger? His wrath is poured out like fire" (Nahum 1:6). Sinner, are you so arrogant as to think you can bear the wrath of God poured out in full measure upon you? You may think that hell is not so hot and that you will be able to bear it quite well. If you believe that you are more than a fool. The terrors of hell cause the devils to tremble and are you so foolish as to be unmoved by them or make light of them?
Do not think that simply because you go to church, or believe in God, or believe intellectually in the truths of Christianity that you will escape hell. The majority of those who regularly attend churches every week, all over the world, will go to hell. Thomas Shepard, pastor and founder of Harvard University, wrote: "Formal professors and carnal gospelers have a thing like faith, and like sorrow, and like true repentance, and like good desires, but yet they be but pictures; they deceive others and themselves too...most of them that live in the church shall perish."11
You who profess to be Christians, but do not read your Bible much and pray little: how shall you escape the damnation of hell? You who are not especially bothered by little sins or troubled by the vain and filthy thoughts which you have: are you ready to go to hell? You who think the kingdom of God consists in a verbal profession of Christ or intellectually believing that Jesus died for your sins, but who are not concerned with living a holy, godly life and give little or no thought to God during the week: are you prepared to endure the torments of hell, day and night, forever and ever? You had better be, because if these things are true of you, you are headed straight for hell, unless you repent. Do not delude yourself! Christianity does not consist in words, or pious statements, or mere intellectual belief, but in a new heart and a new life dedicated to not sinning and living for the glory of God. If your heart and life have not been changed by God, you are still in your sins. If you are living in known disobedience to the word of God and are unconcerned about it, you have no right to assume you are going to heaven: you are on your way to hell! Repent of all your sins and turn to Jesus Christ and surrender to Him as Lord. Listen to the words of Christ: "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell" (Matthew 18:9). "Nothing short of the complete denying of self, the abandoning of the dearest idol, the forsaking of the most cherished sinful course--figuratively represented under the cutting off of a right hand and the plucking out of a right eye--is what He claims from every one who would have true communion with Him."12 But remember, the difficulty involved in forsaking all for Christ is nothing compared to spending eternity in hell.
I do not believe anyone can be scared into heaven, but I do believe they can be scared away from hell, so that they might begin to seek God with all their hearts, and to beg Christ to have mercy on them. Men stand on the brink of the pit of hell and are ready to fall headlong into it and yet they are completely unaware they are in any danger. If hearing about hell can cause otherwise senseless men to consider eternal truths, then preaching about hell is valuable indeed. It is better to view hell now, while you are living, and be terrified by it, than to have to endure hell forever when you die.
I would not have you to be more afraid of hell than of sin. Sin is your real enemy. Sin is worse than hell because sin gave birth to hell. Would you be willing to go to hell for all eternity for the enjoyment of a little pleasure and lust here on earth? Flee from sin! Flee from living for self and self-pleasing to Jesus Christ. When you die it will be to late. All opportunity to repent ends at death.
This doctrine is useful to the godly as well as the ungodly. The doctrine of hell should stir up within the righteous a fear of God. A godly fear is useful in many ways. The one who has a fear of God in his heart has a greater respect for the commandments of God. He who truly fears God will not fear men and would rather displease men than God (Isaiah 8:12-13). This doctrine should increase your faithfulness and joy in Christ that you have been delivered from the torments of hell and should likewise increase your love for Christ who endured the wrath of God upon the cross for you.
The doctrine of hell should stir up within you a fear of sin. It should cause us to fear even little sins and be careful to confess and forsake sins of the heart and thought life also. Let the doctrine of hell keep you from the practice of sin.
The doctrine of hell should help the godly to be patient under all outward, temporary afflictions which come to them. No matter how great your afflictions are in this world, they are far less than the torments of hell from which the Lord has freed the godly. You may have to undergo lessor torments while on earth, but remember they are only temporary and you have been freed from the greatest of all torments so you may rejoice even in a time of affliction.
This doctrine is useful to motivate you to tell others of the message of Christ. Eryl Davies wrote in his book The Wrath of God: "The eternity of hell's sufferings should make us the more zealous and eager to tell people of the only One who is able to rescue them. Do we shrink from declaring these solemn truths? Does the thought of hell displease us? Remember that God will be glorified even through the eternal sufferings of unbelievers in hell. His injured majesty will be vindicated...What is supreme in the purpose of God in the election and reprobation of men is His own glory, and hell also will glorify the justice, power, and wrath of God throughout eternity. In the meantime it is our responsibility to pray and work for the salvation of sinners before such awful punishment overtakes them."13
I cannot leave without one final word to those who think they are converted, but are not; and also, to those who know themselves to be unconverted. Can you conceive of eternity? Stop now and try to imagine being tormented unceasingly, forever, without end. Does this not terrify you? Never a chance for a moment's rest. Never a drop of water to cool your parched throat. Think again of how long eternity is. Try to imagine it: day and night, forever and ever, burned with fire like a spider in a furnace of flames. Shrieking, howling, wailing, cursing the day you were born, and being cursed by the devils and damned souls around you eternally. Remembering, forever remembering, how you were warned on earth and how you ignored those warnings: self-satisfied and self-deceived that all was well with your soul. Job's wife told him to curse God and die. Unless you repent and flee to Jesus Christ, who is your only hope, you shall curse God eternally and be tormented by Him in His presence in the awful fullness of His wrath, and you shall never die. You shall never die. You shall never die! Eternity is forever!
1 Thomas Shepard, The Works of Thomas Shepard, Volume 1, (New York: AMS Press, 1967), p. 94.
2 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974) p. 87.
3 Ibid, p. 82.
4 Christopher Love, Hell's Terrors, (London: T. M., 1653), p. 19.
5 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974) p. 884.
6 Ibid, p.80.
7 Ibid, p. 81.
8 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 1, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), p. 308.
9 Christopher Love, Hell's Terrors, (London: T. M., 1653), pp. 54-55.
10 John Gerstner, Heaven and Hell, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 77.
11 Thomas Shepard, The Works of Thomas Shepard, Volume 1, (New York: AMS Press, 1967), p. 58.
12 A. W. Pink, Studies in the Scriptures, January 1932, p. 18.
13 Eyrl Davies, The Wrath of God, (Mid Glamorgan, Wales: Evangelical Press of Wales, 1984), p. 59.
The Terrors of Hell is copyrighted 1992 by William C. Nichols. You may download this text for your own personal use. Should you desire additional printed copies of The Terrors of Hell you may obtain them from: International Outreach, Inc., P. O. Box 1286, Ames, Iowa 50014 for $25/100 copies+ $5 postage. We also have other tracts and books available. Also please visit our other sites The Torments of Hell, The Narrow Way, Revival Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, The Glory of Heaven, and Suicide: Gateway to Peace?
International Outreach, Inc.
P. O. Box 1286, Ames, Iowa 50014 USA
e-mail: wnichint@aol.com
God ... don't we wish we were all this lame...
to bad that its not default on EVERY **nix
keanmarine.com
Open misshapen asshole
Netcraft has now confirmed: *BSD is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraftsurvey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying . Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are 7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet
posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead,
its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at
this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BSD is dying
[ Reply to This ]
1st Official Slashdot to English Translator-matic
"Me and a bunch of people got drunk, thought we could code, submitted the idea and produced a fancy web page. It's now two years later and the project has no files to download and is STILL on Stage 1, Planning."
"I've been reading UNIX in a Nutshell for SVR4 and fuck knows what any of this flags stuff is about"
"I can install Red Hat from a bootable CD. The machine is not connected to a network and all I do all day is type ps, pwd and ls. I'm so l33t."
"My folks are rich enough to send me off for further education. I am now in an uber-elite crowd of know-it-alls and I am here to belittle you. Fear me."
"I've spent the last two years being subjected to biased slashdot propaganda. I couldn't hack into a properly configured windows system if my life depended on it."
"I've spent far too much time absorbing bullshit ideals from anarchists. The truth of the matter is, I just don't want to pay for anything whatsoever. Britney CDs should be free because I think that somehow the constitution protects my illegal copying and distribution under some freedom of speech law or fair use act. Even though I don't have to go out and buy luxury items, I'm gonna whinge and bitch anyway"
"I've only been using it for a week, and now my hardcore wannabe techno friends think I'm a guru. I now recommend it to everybody based upon what I've read at slashdot."
"Somebody please shoot me several times in the head. I am fucking clueless."
"I'm too fucking dense to realise that this has been going on for over 15 years already, and I've just finished reading 1984. Go figure."
One of the primary tenets of OpenBSD and NetBSD is security, correct? This is just another little bit of bytecode that improves security even more...
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Making heap overflows as easy as possible in the default install!
Great work there.
It is 10pm. Do you know where your karma is?
Right! Let us get started... In order to get maximum karma from Slashdot posting, you can follow a few simple guidelines.
- The University you go to. Regardless of where you actually study, saying that you're at MIT automagically gains you +2. Slashdot, like the glorified student notice board that it is, has a special place in its heart for anything from MIT - whether it be a teddy bear stuffed with a switch, or some wankers wrapping a yellow banner with elvish text around the main dome. Even if you didn't go to university, qualify every comment with a "My professor told me" to bask in the warm fuzzy glow of +2, Insightful.
- Linux. The basis of the "Slashdot Experience". Claiming you run Linux also gets you +1, Interesting. It doesn't really matter if you've never actually installed it, or your Red Hat box still doesn't have PPP running after 2 years of reading FAQs. The important bit is - You're part of the community. You can bathe in the refelected glory of years of shoddy, buggy code. You are exempt from the Microsoft penalty (see below) as, of course, your Win 98 install is only used for playing games. And reading Slashdot. And using MS Word. And Photoshop. And....
- Microsoft. Slashbots and the editors hate Microsoft. Period. Use of a $ symbol in every iteration of their trademarks gets you a +4, Funny. Even though it is far from original, it still manages to raise a grin in those people reading Slashdot between episodes of Cowboy Bebop. You will get a -1, Flamebait or Troll for any post even hinting that Microsoft products are any good / useful / intuitive / user friendly. You will also quickly be shot down with replies about how good GNOME and KDE are, which will then in turn erupt into a flame war.
- Freedom / Privacy / YRO. The bread and butter of Slashdot. It fits in sublimely with the whole "Linux" thing. You'll get a +3, Informative for any post containing the Ben Franklin quote about sacrificing essential liberty. It makes no difference that the quote is totally irrelevant in the modern world - Hey, you've got karma! Mis-credting the quote will not end up in a karma penalty, as has been demonstrated countless times. You will gain extra karma if you make reference to your experiences of being wire-tapped by the NSA, and throwing in a vague link to Echelon, black helicopters or Tin Foil Hat Linux. Include a link to the First Amendment for a +1, Interesting mod. Give yourself a pat on the back if you manage to include some extra raging paranoia with no evidence to back it up. Nice!
- BSD. If you use it, don't mention it on Slashdot. Most of the Linux-using friendless wonders that inhabit Slashdot wouldn't know quality and stability if it strolled up and kicked them in the throat with a size 13 HiTec Magnum boot. Any mention of how a Firewall running OpenBSD with pf is far superior to Linux's pathetic offering will soon see you as -1, Troll. Much like the post you're reading now.
- Yearning for yester-year. Although most comments are written by first year "wannabe-CS-guru" students or links to goatse.cx, there is still the fallout dregs of the dot com boom lurking around slashdot. You can get +5, Insightful for telling how you were so badly treated after the bubble burst. Whining about the lack of jobs where you get paid to fire foam darts at colleagues is a good start. Don't forget to mention how you've now been out of work for months - It starts a "I'm about to graduate and there's nothing going" fuckfest which can spill over into hundreds of comments. Although all the staff who were any good simply got hired into another company, it makes "Good Karma Sense"® to hide the fact that your passing familiarity with Perl and C simply can't get you a job. This is also a prime opportunity to show your egregious personality, as Slashdot rewards arrogance and elitism.
DON'T FORGET TO MOD ME DOWN!The way I read the headline, "OpenSSH Gets Even More Suspicious", it sounded like we're supposed to be more suspicious of OpenSSH.
:P
What has the world come to, where we can't even trust OpenSSH?
Oh, OpenSSH is more suspicious of its environment! That makes more sense!
Open Source software continues to impress me after so many years. This again proves, how much better software can be, if you remove management, lawyers, sales department etc. and make good programmers work together without short-term profit in mind.
Marxism has now confirmed: Capitalism is dying.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered bourgeoisie when
Das Kapital confirmed that the rate of profit tends to fall
leading to crisis, war and the ultimate destruction of the capitalism
system. Coming on the heels of the latest economic data showing that
the US is entering a deep recession, this news serves to reinforce
what we've know all along. Capitalism is collapsing in complete disarray,
as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Lenin to predict capitalism's future. The hand
writing is on the wall: capitalism faces a bleak future. In fact there
won't be any future at for capitalism because capitalism is dying. Things
are looking very bad for capitalism. As many of us are already aware
surplus value (S) is redistributed among individual capitals by
competition leading to an average rate of profit (r) relative to the
organic composition of capital. In order to improve their position
individual capitalism must increase their production of surplus value;
either by increasing the length of working day, but this has
physiological limits or by increasing the constant capital used but
this leads to a fall in the average rate of profit.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Capitalist leader George W Bush states that there 7000 capitalists.
How about members of the proletariat are there? Let's see. The number
of proletariats in America is roughly 200 million. Therefore
there are about 100000 workers which for each person with an
interest in capitalism. A recent article put the petty bourgeoisie at
a rapidly declining proportion of the population. This is consistent
with the predictions of the communist manifesto.
Due to the troubles of British imperialism, two world wars and so on,
European capitalism went out of business and was taken over by Yankee
imperialism who were also in trouble. Now US imperialism is also dead,
its venality and corruption exposed by its own creation, radical
Islam.
All major surveys show that capitalism has steadily declined in credibility.
Capitalism is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very
dim. If capitalism is to survive at all it will be as a fascist
dictatorship. Capitalism continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could
save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, capitalism is
dead.
Capitalism is dying
This is the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in a long time...after my own posts, of course.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Previously any corruption in the sshd could lead to an immediate remote root compromise if it happened before authentication, and to local root compromise if it happend after authentication. Privilege Separation will make such compromise very difficult if not impossible.
Open Secure Shell? Is that like Passive Agression?
HEY KIDS!!
Avoid wasting time typing out "Ask Slashdot" questions. Select one of the framework questions from below and modify as necessary! Sweet!
- I'm researching a paper on fluid dynamics. I haven't done any work all semester as I have been playing Quake on my Windows ME machine and watching Cowboy Bebop on Cartoon Network. My paper is due in tomorrow. Could any Slashdot readers shed some light onto a topic which I clearly know nothing about.
- I have just installed Linux in my company. It took months of pestering and annoying senior managers for them to let me do it. Seeing as I've only ever installed Red Hat from a bootable CD and X won't start, I feel that this is the right solution for my company as they are using evil MS products now. Could anybody please come over and help me install this because now I'm in a really embarassing situation. Thank you.
- Hi! I've recently been using Linux. I've used Red Hat and Debian. Which distribution is better? In fact, I've even been considering which O/S is better out of Linux and FreeBSD. Could anybody out there in slashdot land offer some advice? Your thoughts on emacs and vi are also appreciated.
- Greetings fellow slashdotters. I'v recently just graduated from university. I reckon I know everything about computers and unix and micro$oft (tee hee funny dollar symbol!), and now I'm going to ask you a question. Not because I really want help or advice, but because I want to show off. Me and a buddy just got huge paying jobs with some pissy little startup that'll be bust in a year, and now we're in over our heads 'cos we told them we could do programming in C.
- I'm really interested in kernel hacking. I'm not going to tell you which kernel, because you will all assume I mean Linux. I've never done any programming, I'm not quite sure what a CPU is and I don't know if I'm going to have time as it's my 13th birthday next week. Can any slashdot readers advise me of the way to go?
- I've just been assigned a task to secure all communications between our fleet of oil tankers. I'm going to use Linux but I'm not sure how. Can anyone offer some thoughts or experiences of computers, RF, cryptography or being on a boat. God only knows how I got this job.
And there you have it! Please post suggestions or requests below, and moderate me down for wasting your time. Thank you.You've heard of the recent apache bug. Apparently, the OpenBSD team is announcing it as a "possible remote crash".
Since a remote exploit already exists, shouldn't they detail the severity on their front page?
Nothing against the OpenBSD team... I believe they do excellent work, but heck, people, PLEASE patch up those systems! It's only a matter of days before someone is going to drop a new worm! This is horribly serious!
-Charles
When I first started using linux, I was absolutely blown away by telnet, and the capabilities for remote administration.
Then came SSH... Not only is the grade of encryption absolute phenomenal, but the extras above and beyond remote shell's are astounding!
X Forwarding, SCP, FTPs, etc... they all rock! I can't remember the last time I coped a file over any protocol other than SSH's scp command. WinSCP has replaced puTTY as my favorite WIN32 application, and combined with puTTY and secure shells it's now wonder how I've managed to keep my home router/server up for 180 days w/o even having a monitor plugged into it!
Thanks OpenSSH team!
dmarien
I'm a fan of anything that promises to reduce the susceptibility of Unix/Unix workalikes to worms.
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all knw *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting glom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
Other than the tty and authentication seperation, this doesn't sound a whole lot different than running sshd out of inetd. Or have I been smoking crack again without my knowledge?
use tera term dude
Wouldn't you rather get an e-mail sent to you when a patch is out instead of constantly checking the OpenBSD homepage for patch info?
BTW, the exploit was published after the patch, that's why it's listed as "possible"
by Peter J. Stephens, M.D., and Mark L. Taff, M.D.
from the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 8(2):179-182, 1987.
This article describes an unusual rectal foreign body resulting from homosexual anal erotic activities. The patient had used an enema containing a concrete mix which became impacted and required surgical removal. The use, abuse, and complications of enemas are reviewed.
During the last 20 years, sexual habits have changed in western society. Homosexuals have shown an increasing interest in anal erotic practices, including the use of enemas for sexual enjoyment. We report a case of a klismaphiliac who had an impacted foreign body in his rectum followin an enema with a concrete mix.
CASE REPORT
A 20-year-old man presented to the emergency room complaining of rectal pain. A well-nourished, well-developed man without signs of intoxication was admitted in no apparent distress. Digital examination of the rectum revealed a stony hard mass. Abdominal plain films showed a vertically oriented, low-lying radiopaque object in the rectum. A spherical radiolucency was noted in the upper pole of the mass. A blood alcohol level was negative. No other drug testing was performed.
Upon further questioning, the patient said that approximately 4 hrs earlier he and his boyfriend had been "fooling around." After stirring a batch of concrete mix, the patient laid on his back with his feet against the wall at a 45-degree angle while his boyfriend poured the mixture through a funnel into his rectum. After the concrete mass hardened, it became so painful that he sought medical care.
Under general anesthesia, the anus was dilated and two Foley catheters were inserted alongside the rectal mass to relieve suction. A concrete case of the rectum was delivered without incident. The rectal mucosa was intact with a hyperemic and edematous appearance.
The patient was kept overnight and discharged uneventfully the following morning. The attending physician recommended a psychiatric consultation, but the patient declined.
PATHOLOGIC EXAMINATION
Examination of the specimen revealed a perfect concrete cast of the rectum, measuring 12 X 7 X 5 cm and weighing 275 g. A thin layer of feces coated the surface and crevices. Grooves in the mass were consistent with rectal mucosal folds. A layer of concrete was chipped off the upper part of the specimen and revealed a white plastic ping-pong ball. This corresponded to the radiolucency observed in the abdominal x-ray.
For those of us without much experience in the encryption and networking fields, anyone mind explaining exactly what this does? I read the page but I'm not sure I understand exactly what's going on.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
At my school we use SSH for accessing our UNIX accounts. I have always been impressed by the security offered by SSH. I just hope that the network administrators at my school decide to upgrade to OpenSSH.
...interesting if true.
keep m coming :]
I'm far from an expert on either system, but this seems similar to the system Keberos uses, 3rd party authentication... Am I totally misunderstanding the linked explanation?
Thanks
On related news, a basic security flaw in the SSH protocol was recently analyzed by Mihir Bellare et al.
The attack requires a carefully timed chosen-plaintext attack, but seems quite realistic in the setting of IP-over-SSH tunneling. Changes in the SSH protocol appear necessary.
I rate this post at +5, it is amazingly insightful.
Is there a tool that allows you to force the switch to forward ethernet frames so they can be sniffed without switch administrator access? Please offer some information on how this is done as I'd like to have a better understanding on how this works. What platforms does the tool run on, and on what switch platforms would it work against?
-Pat (a CCNP and MCSE)
Blowfish is inherently insecure, ANY FILE LARGER THAN 1024KB YOU TRANSFER CAN BE DECRYPTED BY ANY 13 YEAR OLD WITH A POCKET CALCULATOR!
Everyone should know better than to accept advice from random slashdot comments!
There is also a tool to permit packet sniffing, see ettercap on Sourceforge.
Ettercap is actively being used by the "black hat" community, and has been found on compromised systems on switched LAN segments "in the wild".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
EVERY THING SAID IN THE PARENT POST IS COMPLETELY TRUE. I SWEAR ON THE PREVIOUS POSTER'S MOTHER'S GRAVE.
THANKS.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
--
Mamma look!
One issue with password cracking and sniffing is that it is critical to have a unique password for every site you have accounts at.
Under SSH, I can set up systems so that password logins only work on the physical console, not over the network. I can create a strong private key (passphrase protected) and install my public key on the remote servers, using the same key for many different servers without the security issues that come from using the same password across disparate sites.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
The parent post is so insightful that I shit my pants. Furthermore, it is so insightful that I would like to reward its author with the most prestigious award that the Mississippi Ghostse Redneck Goat-Fucking SUV-Driving Wanker Society has the authority bestow: a bumperdumper link
Now the aforementioned may bask in the opulent and blindingly exhuberant beauty of our dear Uncle Booger.
Thank you. Goodnight.
--
Mamma look!
It is Timothy that we don't trust.
This post deserves the summit of all accolades: My Mississippi Ghostse Story. Here goes:
A professor at the University of Mississippi is giving a
lecture on the supernatural. To get a feel for his
audience, he asks: "How many people here believe in
ghostses?" About 90 students raise their hands.
"Well, that's a good start. Out of those of you who
believe in ghostses, do any of you think you've ever seen
a ghostse?" About 40 students raise their hands.
"That's really good. Has anyone here ever talked to a
ghostse?" 15 students raise their hands.
"That's great. Has anyone here ever touched a ghostse?" 3
students raise their hands.
"That's fantastic. But let me ask you one question
further... Have any of you ever made love to a ghostse?"
One student way in the back raises his hand.
The professor is astonished and says, "Son, all the
years I've been giving this lecture, no one has ever
claimed to have slept with a ghostse. You've got to come
up here and tell us about your experience."
The redneck student replies with a nod and a grin, and
begins to make his way up to the podium. The professor
says, "Well, tell us what it's like to have sex with
ghostse."
The student replies, "Ghostse?!? From ah-way back there ah
thought yuh said "goatse."
--
Mamma look!
When a request comes in, it hands it to a subroutine that handles requests for the server to do different functions, including authentication.
For some services, such as SSH and FTP, the server may set up multiple connections for things like transferring files, etc.You can write a server like this as one big single-threaded process, or as one big process with multiple threads if your operating system and programming environment support it, but it's more common, especially on Unix, for the main process to spin off several child processes to do the work and go back to listening for new incoming requests. In this case, it spins of one process to handle the control channel communications and that process spins off other processes to handle specific tasks like file transfers, after checking that the connection and the request are authenticated. In a simple-minded implementation, the control channel process runs as root, and any task channel processes start off as root, and maybe change their privileges to an individual user's privileges if they need to (for instance if you're using SSH to log in to a remote system.)
The problem with this is that if there are any bugs that let a remote connection send messages with unexpected data in ways that break or take over the server process, the server is running as root so it can do anything it wants, however evil or dangerous (or if it's a minor bug that doesn't lead to a complete takeover, it may still be able to burn critical resources and stall the system or do some other denial of service attack.) Two popular kinds of attacks are sending a message that overflows a field (the result of bad protection in the C language combined with careless programming), or sending a message that asks the process to do something that the programmer didn't expect and protect against, such as setting permissions on a system file or making a user's program privileged, so that it can be exploited later, either by another communication from the attacker or by routine activities by the system or the user.
What the new OpenSSH implementation does is takes the bottom two server processes (the control channel server and the task servers) and splits each of them into two parts that communicate with each other. One part of each processes is a master, that keeps running privileged if it needs to, and the other is a slave process that runs as a non-privileged user (either the user who's requesting the service, for tasks like logins, or as the "nobody" user) and does most of the actual work, passing messages back and forth to the master process to communicate about status and request anything that still requires privileges. This gives you a bunch of security advantages:
The rest of it is basically detail about which functions they separated into which programs, how they made sure that each piece has enough capabilities to do the job without giving it too much power that could be exploited by an attacker, and some stuff about how they validated the pieces. It's adding more complexity to the total system, but each piece is more limited in function, and the security-critical pieces are much easier to validate against bugs and malicious input.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
That shit was fucking funny!!!
It seems to me that the entire GPL vs BSD debate is nothing more than a pastime for those with nothing better to do. Just think about it, a bunch of non programmers standing around bickering about licenses they'll never put anything out under anyway. Arm-chair quarterbacking for geeks.
As for actual developers, well there too the debate, or at least an ongoing never-ending squabble, is essentially pointless. Each programmer or team of programmers is going to choose and use the license they like best for the reasons they consider important. They have EVERY right to make this choice as they are the one's doing the work. Whether anyone else likes it or not is completely irrelevant.
Personally I like both licenses, but for different reasons. I see the GPL as a munition, a weapon. Putting high quality implementations of key tools and programs out under the GPL makes sure that the Microsofts of the world play nice by not being too greedy and/or abusing their customers. The downside to the GPL is that you're not going to obtain any financial gain from the products you release under it. There are rare exceptions such as RedHat, but then that company's product is a delivery system for GPL's software more than the software itself. Ultimately the value of GPL'd software is strategic, not directly economic. The GPL is most suitable for fundamental technologies that NEED to be kept absolutely open to ensure that incompatibilities don't creep in due to proprietary implementations. The BSD license is good because the code can be included in commercial programs. Now some people might start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of commercial software. Of course these same people are usually in high school, college, or 35 and still living in their parent's basement.
Commercial software is what makes products that don't enjoy a wide following possible. Open Source is like socialism in a way. (Actually I don't think that my comparing Open Source to socialism was a very polite thing to do. Socialism is a system by which the abilities of one person are forcibly exploited to fulfill the needs of another. It and communism are but two points along the same continuum.) The base needs of the many are fulfilled, but what about the needs of the few? Does it make sense to try and organize a project to create an open source program to track oil deposits? How about an open source medical imaging system? There are some products for which there is a very small need in terms of how many people need the product. These same people are more often than not willing and able to pay good money to see that these products get created however. Also there is the question of expertise. Programmers are not experts on the best way to do everything possible with a computer. Imagine if someone tried to create an open source implementation of SPSS. Now what if I told you that such a project existed (PSPP) and that it hasn't gone ANYWHERE. The reason is that programmers are not statisticians. Their ability to verify the correctness of their own software's out put is next to nil.
At the end of the day both the GPL and BSD licenses have a useful function to perform. So does commerical software. Anyone who continuously argues about the role these three should play doesn't understand them in the first place.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Well, none of them ignore security, but OpenBSD is the most conscious. Quick and dirty comparo, a bit of a FAQ:
FreeBSD: Balls out performance on Intel.
OpenBSD: Most security conscious, most stared at source code.
NetBSD: Most portable. If it's got 32 bits and a MMU, it's got NetBSD.
There is some code sharing between these. I know the USB subsystem is shared among them (hell, it has CVS tags for NetBSD and FreeBSD) and probably some others. They talk amongst themselves too, and notify each other of problems.
You must be root to bind to any port <1024 as a form of "security" however this stupid rule has been the way in for most internet based security problems in the Unix world. Some systems (like Soalris) allow you to turn it off and that lets any process bind to any port but that has issues as well.
The correct solution is you let a process bind to any port >1024 and any port where the port number is in its group list. This means you put apache process owner in group 80 and 443 and then it can bind it its needed ports no matter who it runs as. Wiht the linux 2.0 kernal this required changing some of one line.
As far as the other problem of becoming someone else, there are no clean solutions to that but I think it would make sense to allow any process id 10 to become someone else. You also need to allow for some id's to give away files. The problem with this is that it intoduces magic numbers into the system which is bad.
Based in this, you could set up the ssh user as uid 1 in group 22 and it could bind to port 22 and then become any other user (or maybe any userid > 100). Bind would be running as user 53 with group 53 and have no special privs. The Apache user id would be in group 80 & 433 and its version of suexec would be uid 2 so it could change ownership to any user > 100 to run their cgis.
Just by using OpenSSH you automatically attract the attention of certain federal authorities who assume you're up to something that requires them to poke their nose into whatever you're doing via OpenSSH.
Many of us who transfer large amounts of data over the internet (TBytes worth) don't care about people decrypting our files. (To you my files would like random numbers anyway.)
We only really care about safegaurding the authentication process. In fact I would love to see a feature in scp where only the authentication is encrypted and all other data transfers are not.
Jun 22 22:47:29 server sshd[711]: fatal: map(65536): Invalid argument
I got this on 2 machines, running RH6.2 and Slackware 7.1 (kernel 2.2.21 on both). Other two machines - Debian 3.0 & RH7.2, kernel 2.4.18, do work perfectly. WTF? I cannot find anything instructing in the source.
And it's done, for example in MicroBSD - http://www.microbsd.net
The 13 year old must be teh 31337 5|<r1p7 |<1dd13 to be successful.<br>
And 5|<r1p7 |<1dd135 can be kept off your computer by washing your ears twice a day.
Helps spread the bits of "randomness" a little further. Why would you like it the other way around? Sounds insane.
It smells like something is dead.
Look at how a switch works. When you transmit a frame, it associates your MAC address with the port you're on. Next time a frame is sent to that MAC address, it sends it only to that port, becuase it knows that address is going to be found only on that port. If the switch does not know where a particular MAC address is to be found, it must send the frame to every port. Therein lies the weakness.
Switches tend to have finite sized MAC tables. If you overload them, they throw away older data in a least-recently-used manner. So the way to turn a switch into a hub is to send a non-stop stream of frames with random Ethernet source addresses. Make them small frames so you don't chew up all of the bandwidth of the switch, and don't send them too frequently (unfortunately, how frequently is too frequently is dependent on how big the switches table is). Address them to a known non-existent MAC address and make them a known unused Ethernet protocol. You will flood the switch's table and it will be forced to broadcast all frames. QED.
The problem is that ssh can change to any user it wants. That's the PROBLEM, that's the reason that bit was seperated out and away from the network traffic bit. It's not a solution.
Making it where the process id X (Where X is supposed to be sshd), can change to anyone else, is pretty much a negative solution to the problem, because now people can get root even after it's dropped privs. Not to mention now you cannot restart sshd if you need to, because it has to be pid X. And god help you when the kernel people come up with yet another 'fake' process that runs when the kernel starts, using no memory but taking up a pid.
And there is functionally no difference between being able to change to any user except root and being able to change to root. If you can change to the sysadmin's non-root account you can get root trivially by trojaning 'su', or, if he's very paranoid, by trojaning his shell.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Capability-based rather than owner-based permissions.
That's not neccessarily the case anymore.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
And it's done, for example in MicroBSD - http://www.microbsd.net
Actually it's done here: http://www.lucq.org/openbsd/patches.php (about halfway down the page), from where MicroBSD obtained the code...
Or you could bind to >1024, and redirect the packets from the lower port. (Not sure how to do this with Linux, but with ipfw on FBSD you can 'add ## fwd 127.1,8080 tcp from any to me 80').
Now that BSDi is dead ARE there any companies left that are dedicated to developing BSD as a kernel and OS as part of their core business activities anymore ?? No. Except Wasabi which is pretty small still only able to meet payroll by borrowing more money. Pretty heavy in debt.
The reason it's delayed a year is because BSD development has had a serious accident and needs to be hospitalized to get itself back together. With BSDi defunct relying on Apple, Wasabi and a band of merry volunteer hackers to get SMP done means it AIN'T gonna happen.
Hello Yahoo??!! Can Yahoo afford to hire a few SMPng hackers for a year??? Oh yeah I forgot Yahoo is broke too.
At this point SMP is owned by Linux and Solaris and in a distant third Microsoft .
On 4 way and 8 way machines BSD is simply not in the running at this stage and even on 2 way systems out of the box RedHat7.1 is a better choice for SMP. What's more threading work done by IBM is gonna improve Linux even more on this front - even Caldera (which bought SCO Unix a quite good SMP system up to 8 ways) admits that Linux will likely overtake the SCO kernel.
BSD dying? Quite likely.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the srrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hpeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
It seems that while the lastest security hole found in OpenSSH is not fixed, the ISS and OpenBSD people try to keep the details of the problem for themselves.
This method is maybe good for a short time, but I hope this will be fixed soon.