Slashdot Mirror
Linux Worm Spreading, Many Systems Vulnerable
sverrehu writes "A GNU/Linux worm exploiting a bug in OpenSSL spreads through vulnerable Apache web servers, according to Symantec. The worm, which was first reported in Europe, targets several popular Linux distributions. See also the SecurityFocus vulnerability listing for the OpenSSL bug." sionide also writes: "Netcraft recently published a report which explains that a large portion of Apache systems are still unpatched (halfway down). To protect yourself please upgrade to OpenSSL 0.9.6g."
Linux can compete with Microsoft.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
People need to know that Open Source is just as vulnerable to viruses and worms as proprietory software is... The hackers target the most widespread software, which is more often than not Windowware. Apache is one of the most widespread Linux programs, and its infection is a sign of things to come as more people leave Windows.
The advisory at Symantec advises the reader to update their virus definitions and run a full system scan. Presumably they are talking about Symantec anti-virus products, but if they make such a product for Linux/x86, I could not detect it on their website.
Okay, so this vulnerability was published and corrected over a month ago. Of course it's still growing; a lot of people still haven't patched their servers. How is that newsworthy? It's been out for quite a while now, anyway, and nothing is different today from yesterday. Nothing horrible has happened, it's just continuing to do what it was designed to do.
Besides which, the impact is a lot less than, say, Code Red which affected a much larger number of machines -- it hit all unpatched IIS servers versus unpatched SSL-enabled Apache servers.
Again, I ask, how is this news? What has changed that made this story worth reporting again?
Contrary to the slashdot post, you only need to be up to 0.9.6e to be safe. If you happen to just now be upgrading past this bug, 0.9.6g is even better, but if you're already running "e" you are safe. The article kinda alarmed me at first when I saw the "g", thinking there was a new exploit in "e" and I needed to upgrade again.
11*43+456^2
Most MS exploits that hit Slashdot are the SAME WAY. MS releases a fix 6 weeks before, most admins don't patch, and then the big exploit hits.
:)
Welcome to the world of mainstream.
In this case at the very least, you should call
such a system Apache/BSD/GNU/Linux, not just GNU/Linux. for obvious reasons.
Buffer overflow exploits (which could then be used to open a shell) involve executable machine code, which would be for a specific instruction set (e.g. Intel's).
According to the Symantec report cited in the story, the bug in openssl is this which is reported as RHSA-2002-155, for which the the fix is openssl-0.9.6b-24.i386.rpm for RedHat 7.3 i386 (plus some other RPMs for other versions, or other RPMS for other versions of RedHat). Maybe the 'g' build from openssh.org is necessary, but RedHat seems to think they've already fixed in in their "b-24" release.
Of course, it was only a matter of time before hackers showed an interest in this OS. Most parts being open source, perhaps that means that holes in the OS or applications are easier to find, but that goes for both the hackers and for people on the up-and-up. I'm surprised it took so long, and it will certainly happen again. The real question is: how will the admins of the affected or vulnerable servers act, and how many are aware of the issue?
And that is where Linux is starting to lose its edge on Windows: the quality of the sysadmins. With the risk of being accused of making a crass generalisation, I'd say that many, many Windows sysadmins are of the point-and-click Mickey Mouse variety. Worse, not just the admins, but the infrastructure architects as well. After all, all you need to set up a domain is to complete one easy wizard, right? I have seen the result in all its ugly glory. Linux on the other hand required an admin who knows what he is doing, since there were no easy wizards. Much configuration was by editing files, with the how-to printouts in hand.
I say "required" in the past tense, since Linux is becoming easier and easier to set up. Some distros are close to the point where I'd be happy to give the CD to my mom and have her set up her own desktop. That is not a bad thing. Yet, I already have seen a few (very few, thankfully) "sysadmins" setting up Linux boxes for database or web services, without really knowing what they are doing. When we get to the point where managers themselves can set up Linux, they will be tempted to hire less and less qualified staff, as has already happened to a large degree with Windows NT.
My fear is that Linux servers will be run by less qualified people in the future, and that it will cause the proliferation of aggressive and effective Linux virii.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If you follow the stoopid /. suggestion, and compile/install the new OpenSSL you are going to leave RPM nirvana and enter "random untracked apps linked against random untracked libraries" hell.
r pm -Fvh ftp://updates.redhat.com/X.Y/en/os/i386/openssl*
rpm -Fvh ftp://updates.redhat.com/X.Y/en/os/i686/openssl*
The correct solution is to run:
up2date -u
OR, if you don't use the free Red Hat Network., run:
rpm -Fvh ftp://updates.redhat.com/X.Y/en/os/i386/mod*
rpm -Fvh ftp://updates.redhat.com/X.Y/en/os/i386/apache*
Of course, replace X.Y with your version such as 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, etc.
PEOPLE! Package management is GOOD. You should get and apply the updated packages from your vendor/distro. Slashdot editors/submitters should get a clue instead of recommend solutions that ultimately fsck stuff up.
But don't a decent amount of the readers here make statments like "At least us linux admins patch our boxes regularly". And "There is a patch avadiable that night, and most linux admins patch asap; whereas MCSE's never patch".
I hope I never see another post stating that again, ok? Especially not a god damned +5 one.
I live in a giant bucket.
...non-Linux systems running Apache/OpenSSL?
I realize the binary may not run on FreeBSD/OSX/etc., but the vulnerability itself is not Linux-specific, right? Could the virus be ported?
Sorry, I'd RTFA but it's slashdotted.
It seems to me that some basic precautions close this hole before you are even vulnerable... first, only root should be able to run gcc... and second, the webserver daemon should not be running as root anyways... I've never administered an apache server, only AOLServer, and it won't even *let* you run it as root... so if you can't get the server to run code as root and only root can run gcc, then you've got no problems...
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
The primary thing that has concerned me the most about most web based worms is the fact that they usually infect systems using exploits that have long since been patched. This is true for both *nix and Windows worms.
Unfortunately given human nature, we can't rely on sys admins and end users to patch their boxen. Almost every mechanism I can think of to automate this process either calls for automatically updating machines (which sucks if a patch breaks an untested scenario and also may need some legal exemptions) or some similar mechanisms to enable computers to help themselves.
Any Slashdotters have any thoughts about this?
Debian stable is at openssl 0.9.6c-2.woody
I hope it's got the patch backported!
Goes to check changes.log....
This is why I subscribe to the Mandrake Security mailing list. I got an e-mail about this a little while back, did a "urpmi --auto-select", saw ssl in there, and bang. No more problem for me.
-Serp
Most of us home users don't run https servers so -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this doesn't really effect us. Putting my neck out further, would it be safe to say if you firewall port 443 (https) then you should be safe from this bug?
A couple of days ago, I went on a standard errata gathering run, and downloaded openssl-0.9.6b-28.i386.rpm & etc. for 7.2. I don't see -24 in either the 7.2 or 7.3 directory, even though the page you linked to lists it. I would presume, however, that -28 is not vulnerable.
Seems a bit more detailed.
O W:+SSLv3:+TLSv1:-SSLv2:+EXP:+eNULL
//cow
Here is the alert:
published: 2002-09-13
OpenSSL, the collection of libraries and programs used by many popular
programs, has had a number of security problems recently. It looks like
the problems are not over yet.
It has been discussed on several mailing lists, that aside from the
exploit known for openssl 0.9.6d, there are exploits available for
even the most recent version (0.9.6g).
As a precaution, we recommend to disable programs that use openssl as
much as possible. The exploits available so far focus on apache, which
is probably the most common exposed service that is using openssl.
As a precaution, we recommend disabling SSLv2, if you have to run an
Apache server with mod_ssl enabled. The magic configuration lines
are:
SSLProtocol all -SSLv2
SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!NULL:!EXPORT56:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:-L
One of the openssl apache exploits was found to install a DDOS agent
called 'bugtraq.c'. It uses port 2002 to communicate and can be used
to launch a variety of DDOS attacks. This program uses UDP packets on
port 2002 to communicate, not necessarily to attack.
-
cow's go muu~
http://security.debian.org/pool/updates/main/o/ope nssl094/libssl09_0.9.4-6.woody.0_i386.deb
S
Unstable, is at 0.9.6g and thus shouldn't be vulnerable.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
In fact, Microsoft has already pre-infected their own new OS, Windows XP. Maybe those draconian EULAs (you hereby agree that "M$ 0wnz j00") aren't such a dumb idea after all...
Not that I like it, but the fact is that MS is targeting the sort of people we're worrying about, giving them what it thinks they need, whether they ask for it or want it, or not. We hate this because we're tech-savvy and want to control our machines, but for the average user, having someone else "0wn" their machine is probably, ultimately, a necessity. The question is just who's going to do the owning - virus writers and crackers, or Microsoft/Symantec etc.
Actually, the stacks are usually pretty similar. (On most Linux boxes, stacks grow towards lower addresses, except on Alpha, IIRC. Heaps depend on the libc implementation, not the CPU.) As a result, the structure of a buffer flow vulnerability doesn't change much from machine to machine.
The big difference that keeps this 'sploit tied to x86 is the instruction set. You can't run x86 instructions on other CPUs by default. (Ignoring FX!86 on Alpha, since it's not likely to step up to bat on your shellcode anyway.)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
as root type openssl version
Thank you, try again.
While are you are correct in saying that a limited subset of users should be permitted to run the compiler, that subset should never be the superuser. Compilers have security holes too, and gcc has been no exception. (was it 2.7 or 2.8? don't recall, too tired)
Never do your compiling as root.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What does an attempt to infect a webserver look like in the access logs? This will allow those who have already fixed the problem remind those who have not...
"Almost half of the 22 million Apache HTTP sites found by the survey are running Apache/1.3.26, whilst only around a quarter of the Apache SSL sites are running this version, which fixes the chunked encoding vulnerability."
Does this statistic take into account that some Linux distros (for example, RedHat) backport the bugfixes to earlier versions of Apache/OpenSSL/etc.??
All of our servers are running Apache 1.3.23, but it's 1.3.23 release 14 which DOES include the fixes for the bugs mentioned on that page. If they are simply going by the Apache version number reported, then they may be over-estimating the number of vulnerable web servers by several million...
But you all know what they say about statistics anyway...
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
You might save yourself from *this* worm, but how long until someone 0wn3z you with some other 37331 worm that uses port 2003? or 2004? or 37331? or some other number? Hmmmmm?
While you could nuke GCC from your machine (ouch!) why not just patch the hole and get on with life?
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
[27/Aug/2002 20:02:19 23525] [error] OpenSSL: error:1406B458:SSL routines:GET_CLIENT_ MASTER_KEY:key arg too long
[27/Aug/2002 20:02:22 24087] [error] OpenSSL: error:1406B458:SSL routines:GET_CLIENT_ MASTER_KEY:key arg too long
Thing is though, that "key arg too long" error is part of the July patch to OpenSSL, so you won't see it if you aren't patched. Hopefully this log signature doesn't become as familiar as nimda scans.
I would upgrade to apache 2.0 if I could but not all of the plugins that we need are ported yet. :/
not until PHP officially supports it...
Try compiling Apache 2.0.X with a dynamic loadable module of SSL. It will break on 'make', at least on Red Hat 7.2. I had to go back to 0.9.6f.
You don't have to manually install the new versions of Apache/OpenSSL/etc from the project authors on Red Hat servers. RedHat backports all the security bugfixes to the older versions of the software, so the "version" number that you are running is always older than the "latest" version available from the actual project's site. RedHat (supposedly) does more compatibility testing to make sure all the different packages play nice with each other, so they don't actually release new packages to be 'up2dated' unless there are significant features in the new version. This delay (often weeks or months) doesn't usually matter because you don't NEED the latest versions to be secure, the bugfixes get updated pretty much immediately every time. It's worked pretty good for us so far...
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
You don't have to pay for the latest updates. Compile them yourself if you want.
You're paying for the convenience of having it automagically installed for you by Red Hat with little need for input on your end.
How many webserver administrators have the skills to look at the Apache sourcecode (or in this case, the OpenSSL sourcecode), find the bug, and fix it?
All the skill it should take is to apt-get upgrade or up2date, or whatever the distro in question uses for updates. Debian woody had the patch posted immediately. So the skills needed to update your Apache system are no different from those needed to patch code red (Which, a year after its creation, is still roaming around)
The often tauted ability to "go in and fix things" or even to simply "contribute" is highly overrated. Who found and fixed this bug? Was it some random user, or one of the original developers?
Well, judging by the advisory from the OpenSSL team (Dated July 30, btw, this is hardly a new issue) and a cursory glance over the developer list, the advisory issue was not found by anyone on the development team. So, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you. I consider the ability of users to find and patch security vulnerabilities to be a benefit of free software that simply cannot be overstated.
Having said that, I'll concede the obvious. Most end users are not skilled in the ways of finding or fixing bugs. However, there are zero end users of proprietary tools who even have the option of patching security holes in the software upon which they depend.
So, while some may say "But any user can find/fix security holes when it's free software!" I'll simply say "But any user has the freedom to find/fix security holes when it's free software!" Whether or not the user has the skills is irrelevant, what's important is that the option is there.
Here's the gentoo way:
get the tree up to date:
emerge rsync
update your package:
emerge -u openssl
or just update the whole world at once:
emerge -u world
OpenSSL 0.9.6e is perfectly safe. And that was available via Software Update on 30 Jul 2002.
Andreas
You'd just need PPC/whatever shell code. Fortunately, as of 08-23 any OSX users running Software Update (enabled by default) have been prompted to download the update that fixes this. It may have been perhaps a bit later than 08-23 if they're not checking daily (I think weekly is the default). Anyhow, Apple made and distributed an update shortly after the vulnerability was made public.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This should indeed work only against this particular variant of the worm for servers which cannot be patched for whatever reason.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
When hackers stop bothering to hack your software, it is a sign that their love for you has grown cold and you are now irrelevant. Has anyone hacked Novell lately? :)
To be truly loved is to get hacked! Someone out there must really love Microsoft, but I am glad they are starting to share the love with the Open Source community more and more. It is a sign that the love for Microsoft may be starting to fade or maybe hackers are just plain sick of "shooting fish" in the idomatic barrel.
Either way, I am going to go block UDP on port 2002 on the fw/router and mumble to myself about buffer overflows.
Okay, no one is answering the obvious question: Is this an OpenSSL bug, a Linux bug, or a GNU bug?
The submission states "A GNU/Linux worm" and "a bug in OpenSSL". But OpenSSL runs on a heck of a lot of systems that aren't Linux. Does this exploit only affect Linux systems running OpenSSL, or does it affect any system running OpenSSL?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No, really.
Ok, a poll: how many of you went into the source code today and fixed the vulnerability on your own? Come on, raise your hands...
That's what I thought. People just have to wait for either the distribution to release an updated package, or at the least the package maintainer to release a patch or updated release. NOBODY (ok, not many) people go in and hack the source themseleves to fix it. It's better than closed source, but not as much as you make it apear to be.
Yes, you can coordinate with others to make a fix, but you can't sit there and tell me Joe Sysadmin will sit there and craft his own patch to close a hole. It doesn't work that way.
Go ahead, take my karma...
Every Linux user should be using the packaging system to install this - otherwise, as the author above said, you'll have application with nonstandard install, no file querying or verification, nonstandard uninstalls, and further breakage of your system for apps which subsequently rely on openssl and apache.
And if your Linux distribution can't reliably install RPMs, than its not a Linux distribution but an OS which uses the Linux kernel. There is a difference, and its called the LSB.
Also as mentioned by another poster, the netcraft report about the number of unpatched apache servers is complete nonsense. This is an openSSL bug, which has nothing to do with the apache version number, which what they measure and use to conclude people haven't updated.
(presumably older apache versions don't work with the newer openSSL libraries. Guess what... that's why the fixes were backported!)
Funny, I didn't pay Redhat anything to download my installation, yet I still get to use up2date on all my servers...
Please try a little research before making silly statements...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Microsoft doesn't charge for updates, patches, and service packs.
Funny that, I thought I paid Microsoft $135 for Windows 98. Perhaps I'm just imaging it. Oh well, I look forward to receiving the free versions of Windows that you seem to think are out there.
Oh wait. Then I realise that your just full of BS. Hell, even Office 2000 SP2 disables installations of Office 2000 that are useing known "pirated" instalation keys. So much for "free."
Jesus, I just drank half a bottle of wine, fucked my girfriend, fired up the Thinkpad and noticed your BS, and I still make more sense than you.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
It may be that your apache is statically linked. Or it may be that apache records the version of OpenSSL at compile time rather than at run time (dumb). Recompile anyway; you need the practice.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
With Redhat 7.x, Redhat began to ship with most default package configerations "secure by default".
Maybe it is time for all the distributions to consider shipping with external services such as Apache configured to run under chroot.
Eventualy dedicated servers will require a LSM/SE Linux type enviroment to run exposed services.
I notice a lack of Debian in there. I could guess a number of Debian sys admins would find this reassuring.
No, I'm not advocating that they should be slack about updates, but it's interesting to see that Debian isn't listed. Remember to "apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade" all you Debian admins!
I would also guess this may be due to the way Debian package numbering works. Where possible, Debian will not upgrade a version number of a package when they fix a problem in the stable distribution. Instead, they will patch the existing version, and release a sub-version of the software to solve the exploit. This means that you can't simply look at the version (eg: whatever Apache returns) and determine if the program is exploitable.
You simply have to "suck it and see".
Hmm hands up who installs a compiler on WEB SERVER?!
Me me me! I wouldn't dream of doing it on something I intended to serve web pages to the world from. But I've fired up Apache a couple times on my computer just to quickly look at something before commit. I didn't do it at all in the 3-4 days after I the exploited hole was discovered and my vendor released the patched version. I'm a programmer who occasionally writes a web page, I could do with a much simpler web server, even one written in Java that can't do buffer overflow, but that's not what is already installed....
It's not a "lazy" admin problem.
There've been too many admins who've been burned by a "security patch" that broke the system in some other way. When your computers need to be up 24-7, and you can have, at most, about 4 hours of down time, you're going to be VERY selective about what patches get added to the system. Or from another viewpoint, I just got burned by an XP "security patch" that for some reason broke my autodial functionality so that my routing table went straight into my local network. I had to reinstall Windows XP to get the functionality back... I'm not about to start putting those security patches back on. I don't like it, but my system works. (I run firewall and antivirus software as well, so its not like my butt is completely uncovered, either)
Admin's are not only responsible for the computers and OS's themselves, but the network communications layer, hard drive resources, ALL of the apps on those boxes (and their associated patches), plus help desk support, new computer setups, and old computer shut downs, and let us not forget software licensing management issues.
IT Admins also painfully understand the one part of Software Engineering that Software Engineers don't. Any change to the program WILL have functional differences.
Automating updates can work because it takes the load off of the admin. But as you point out, there are legal issues, plus there's the above issue where you don't necessarily want to install all of these patches because your system works "as is". On the flip side, Norton's LiveUpdate for their anti-virus software runs pretty well. But NAV is a very distinct application and purpose, and doesn't have ripple effects throughout the rest of the computer system.
Also there's an apple and oranges comparison to Microsoft and Linux problems here. Microsoft got its bad press not from legitimate security issues, but because Outlook allowed the very ACT of receiving an email a vector for running a virus/trojan horse through the preview pane. Because Word allowed any document to take control of the users hard drive and begin deleting files, grab the email address book and replicate itself. That's a whole different ballgame than exploiting IIS through stack overflow issues, or exploiting this loophole in OpenSSL. There's a difference between "defeating/exploiting security" and "leaving the doors wide open.". But now, thanks to Microsoft PR to spin their problems and Linux PR to make Microsoft look bad, ALL exploits are equal so that the least exploit is just as important as a truly criticial one and THAT adds to the Admin's workload, and leads back down the road of not getting these patches installed.
In the end, the power and the responsibility lie with the Sys Admin. Which is where it should be.
Just like the old days when I'd try to get into a public ftp site, only to be turned away because there were too many visitors, and the system couldn't support them...
Of course, if you've a mission critical system of course you've subscribed. But for Joe Home Users the upgrading might take a while.
Or he could use one of the many mirrors. (yes... I know, the mirroring system is very faulty, but it's there, sortof)
Finally
Linux can compete with Microsoft.
Sorry but Linux is extreemely poor comptetition in this area .. If you read the Symantec alert you will notice that :
"At this time over 350 computers have been observed performing this activity, "
"350" computers, that's not a competition, that's a joke !
And note that Symantec has a history of beeing anti-Linux in their Advisories.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But I get that "convenience" for free with apt-get and Debian.
Then you have a simple choice, don't you? Switch if you want to. I hear so much about how wonderful it is that there's choice in this community, but when people are presented with a choice like this one, there's much whining about it. Sheesh!
In all the hundreds of messages on this topic there are lots of discussions on how to install an automated patch, some on how to manually install the patch but NONE listing what to change in the source code.
So much for the "technical sophistication" of the community and the much publicized ability of "when a bug occurs, you fix the bug and recompile". It seems that really was "when a bug occurs, you download updated code and run a canned script". So tell me, how is that any different than Microsoft's "Windows Update" (except that it's easier to make typos)
God I hate that. Why should we have to pay to get the latest updates to our FREE software?
Blow it out your ear. Redhat needs to make money and I can't think of a better service to provide to achieve that. If you don't want to pay, take your place in queue. They're not saying no, they're saying wait, we're taking care of those who are trying to keep us afloat.
I don't use Redhat, and I don't particularly like them, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they're doing here.
I've noticed this as well. Most people in #linux (regardless of which network) are BOFH wannabes, and the culture in there perpetuates this to the point that even newbies do it. Most of the time, you get such smarmy remarks because the people handing them out don't know what the hell they're talking about either.
On the undernet, #freebsd and #freebsdhelp operators have traditionally taken the view that if you're going to tell someone to RTFM, put it thusly: "The question you ask is too complicated to be answered here. See the manual at http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx." Unlike the enormously retarded "fuck off luser," or "RTFM," it's actually *helpful,* even though it amounts to the same thing. I wish that more people in #linux would take that advice instead of actively trying to be jerks.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Regarding:
;*default base=/usr ;*default prefix=/usr ;*default release=cvs ;*default tag=RELENG_4 ;*default delete use-rel-suffix ; src-all], make world ; make kernel ; mergemaster -p if needed. Binary packages are also available, and this operating system can be synched up with -STABLE, source-ily or binar-ily. This system is commercially viable[JUNOS on gigantic M160 Juniper routers are FreeBSD, and I have an M10 at work that is my playground, again, FreeBSD], robust, maintainable by source or binary. FreeBSD has a great regard for coherency, real documentation and contrary to the typical FreeBSD is dying troll, the are hardly any features that Linux and FreeBSD don't have in common, with a number of the better and more important drivers and subsystems in Linux being ports of a FreeBSD endeavor, eg, SCSI, AIC7XXX, USB support, etc. I find Free BSD to be easier to maintain either bleeding edge or bleeding stable, and ports makes it laughably easy to break ranks and auto-magically place the stuff you want in a packaged manner in your system with autodeps. RedHat is notably resistant to tinkering, this is why I like FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the penguin has sucked up a lot of the attention, so certain things like Java directly from Sun are behind the curve. (e.g. JRE 1.1.8). FreeBSD does run Linux binaries - but this isn't a robust solution, but it's a meta-hack. I also like 'portupgrade' which really puts the ease of keeping ports up to the stable minute in high gear. The soft update filesystem is a big plus when compared to EXT2/EXT3/Reiser.
;p.
OpenBSD. I do not favor this, but a patch requires a diff on your local CVS, and that you only recompile the portion affected. No need to recompile everything. OpenBSD's monolithic approach to things is not my cup of tea, personally, and I would use FreeBSD in place of OpenBSD wherever it may be found.
Gentoo: I attempted to get this to work, and it failed, but I got the sense this was similar to FreeBSD, in that a portion or package could be 'emerged.'
Debian: I find this distribution to be difficult, but once working, upgrades are easy to accomplish by apt. The problem here is that Debian has a tendency to not let anything into -STABLE - sometimes on the order of months to years after its needed.
FreeBSD: My current favored system. The core OS is small enough recompile for a one off/test solution. It has a robust sense of packages. Its ports collection make everything and anything installable, packaged and remove-able - quite easily. The system is extensible and scriptable, the build is easy to invoke. cvsup supfile [*default host=cvsup3.freebsd.org
RedHat: What can you say, the status quo of GNU these days. Not good, not bad. If you need someone to "worry" about *everything* for you, and you leave you system well enough alone and have no desire for things similar to FreeBSD ports, its good. I do not agree with RedHat on the sloppy kernel patching, awful system compiler offerings, strange mangling of glibc, gcc, and the kernel, and 1500 versions of the kernel for 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and Advanced Server. How can a good job be done with so many forks and branches? I also got upset with a situation like this: HP Openmail has new glibc minim requirement. Openmail runs perfect on RH 6.2 Now I have to get a new glibc for 6.2 (the same version of higher in 7.1). How do I do that without bringing the system down or upgrading it? (I bought openmail BUNDLED officially with redhat, and they dropped the ball on me. Thanks RH] Is RedHat revolting to me? No. Do I wish they did certain things differently? Yes. JFS and XFS are not supported at install by RedHat, which annoying.
Also RedHat blocks up2date-ers and tries to extort money from you so you can get your security updates. I find this practice revolting. I never download from RedHat ftp, I have to use speakeasy.rpmfind.net. I did "buy" the RedHat server that came with my Dell 1550. So I get slow ftp access and have to use an unofficial mirror, and I get no up2date priority. They say "If you want to be secure now, PAY UP." Even Microsoft offers fast and free access to updates. Not that that company is honest or honorable, but I want to take a cheap shot at RedHat and point out when a said nemesis is more honest about something, is should speak a volume about that behavior of extortion.
There is also Solaris, which is to me the no-compromise solution in maintainability. Its not everything you want, you don't get a desktop environment out of it, but in terms of commercial viability, this is probably one of the best supported environments out there. I think the thing is arcane, a strange mix of BSD-ness and SYS V-ness. It got a slow package manager, etc. But it has volumes of tracking, documentation and coherency. I am greatly disappointed by Solaris X86 having been deprecated to only the LX50 Cobalt. I do think this platform has immense value, often from the standpoint tat script kiddie assembly for x86 wont run here
Cobalt: This platform revolts me. It is a horrible bastardization of RedHat, which is why I do not fully deprecate RedHat. RedHat to me is far superior to this horror show. I have to maintain a cobalt, and there are a number of reasons I don't like this operating system.
My current viable OS choices are FreeBSD, Solaris and RedHat from the x86/SPARC perspectives. I have not enough time or experience to consider AXP or PPC's OS choices. I also use NetBSD on ancient SPARCs and much prefer this to OpenBSD.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
This would be insightful if the bug wasn't patched by the many eyes a long time ago.
-no broken link
It's not that hard to build your own openssl rpms. /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/openssl*
1) Download openssl-0.9.6g.tar.gz from a mirror.
2) rpm -tb openssl-0.9.6g.tar.gz
3) rpm -Uvh
(it's got a ready made spec file in the tar.)
As far as QA, I tell you what. If the system is designed correctly, it will need very little QA. I know this because some systems can never get it right, no matter how much QA go into them, because of fundamuntal design flaws.
Chris argues that because systemically flawed systems cannot be cured by any amount of QA, it follows that systemically adequate designs do not require more than "very little QA." Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is also dead wrong.
QA is an essential part of any system development methodology -- no matter how good the design, human beings implement it, and humans make errors. Relying on design alone (or even primarily) is a terrible error. Humans cannot help but make errors -- and design alone cannot prevent this. QA gets short shrift enough in the best of systems -- it is inherently and necessarily an essential part of product development.
Once I see widespread support for apt on rpm
There's other package management front ends available, some people would consider better than apt. But yes, if you want apt on your Red Hat box, just visit www.freshrpms.net. It works the same as any rpmlib frontend.
Can one, now, do the equivalent of "apt-get install task-kde3" and have it not die with a billion and one "cannot install: libxxx required but not found" errors?
Yes, one has been able to do so for 2 years now. up2date -u kdebase.
If so, then rpm has finally matured to the point where apt was a few years ago.
That statement makes absolutely no sense - its like comparing Linux to Microsoft Word. Apt is nott a package manager, never was, and never will be. Its just a front end that indexes dependencies.
The only problem I have with rpm is that (at least the last time I used it) it was stupid about dependencies. Has that changed?
Yes, it has, a while ago. But like most people who knock RPM, I'm sure that doesn't matter, and you'll continue to form your opinions based on that fact that You Like Debian And Can't Be Bothered Hearing About Anything Else or Bothering To Understand Why Standards Are Good.
Comment removed based on user account deletion