Slashdot Mirror
Reflecting on Linux Security in 2003
LogError writes "Here's a look at some interesting happenings with Linux security in 2003 with comments by Bob Toxen (one of the 162 recognized developers of Berkeley UNIX and author of "Real World Linux Security") and Marcel Gagne (President of Salmar Consulting, Inc. and author of "Linux System Administration - A User's Guide" and "Moving to Linux")."
It's better than Microsofts! Sorry, I do not mean to troll..
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
I haven't been r00t3d.
Sweet.
printf("%s@yahoo.co.uk\n", uid[569754].name);
Quote from the article: SecurityFocus columnist Hall Flynn notes that he doesn't understand why Linux vendors that put so much time and money into creating security patches distribute them for free. --> Just imagine the amount of e-mail worms there could be out there if people would have to pay for outlook updates.
They even have documents that give a step by step procedure for stealing the Microsoft fonts and installing them on Linux systems! Notice in particular the instructions for the Tahoma font.
l
- formats/html_single/FDU.html#TRUETYPE
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/truetype.htm
Your link is bad, it should be
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/other
Also, from the HOW-TO, "TrueType is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.", not Microsoft. I'm not sure if the 'Tahoma' font in particular is property of Microsoft.
Just thought that you should know.
"favour"?
Actually TrueType is an Apple invention and the trademark is properly credited. The Tahoma font is the property of Microsoft, as is Arial and many other fonts.
Actually TrueType is an Apple invention and the trademark is properly credited. The Tahoma font is the property of Microsoft, as is Arial and many other fonts. Properly credited in the HOW-TO, yes, but not in the great-grandparent's Anonymous Coward's post, where (surprisingly) nothing about Apple is mentioned.
> From the looks of things, they still have a while to go. IMO, Linux people talking about security is like that saying about people who live in glass houses.
Note that many if not most of the vulnerable programs shown in your link to securitytracker.com are not related to the Linux kernel nor part of most Linux distributions. This makes for a potential "apples to oranges" comparison with Windows vulnerabilities.
Also, the page for Windows doesnt just list OS components either. So, as far as security tracker goes, it IS apples to apples. One can also argue that IIS is not really a Windows component, since it is an optional service. But thats the way they organize their site. If you dont like it, talk to Security Tracker; Im sure they would be happy to hear from you!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Oops .. s/Linux( community)+/Microsoft/ ..
There, now accords with reality, as documented in various trial records.
A kernel that wrote itself. Cool!
A simple backup-restore utility that allows users to backup all their filesystems, and restore them in the event of a crash. A separate unnmounted filesystem to store the 'image' - no worm can get past this simple strategy. A major security breach? Simple:
1. Remove network cable (OR) Internet connection.
2. Boot from tomsrtbt
3. Mount backup partition(s)
4. Run simple restore script.
5. Reboot and enjoy!
Can any other OS do this, with off-the-OS tools?
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Don't throw stones inside your modded linux box?
Right, Check.
As for security, that would explain why my Linux boxes have for years been under constant attack from compromised Windows machines without incident.
Oh boy! An article which takes 1 authors clearly subjective feelings, piles on the anecdotes, and pronounces evidentiary conclusions!
From reading this, it would appear that Gagne is pretty much what happens when you give a linux zealot some airtime. I'll comment on just a few things i got a kick out of:
At some point, I expect users to upgrade to newer releases or take some responsibility for patching their own systems. What's a reasonable period of time? I'd say 34 to 36 months. At some point, any reasonable users should understand that the best way to ensure continued support is to upgrade to something more recent."
but then we have
The beauty of the open source model is that an opportunity exists for creating fixes for old releases. Not so for the users of Windows 95 or 98 who have no source code to go back to when the next critical flaw is uncovered.
So which is it ? Do we expect people to upgrade after 36 months, or do we take any opportunity to mention that we think Microsoft sucks (of which everyone in the audience is perfectly aware)
"Frankly, it seems incredible that this is even open to debate.
There's that objective analysis shining through. Definitely not the words of someone pushing a beleif as opposed to an argument :)
One need only read the newspapers, listen to the radio, watch television or work in an office where Windows is widely used
Which papers would those be ? The ones that manage to not mention that FSF, Debian, and Gentoo all had their Root file distribution servers OWNED in the same year ?
has nothing to do with Microsoft's market penetration.
riiiiiiiight. Let me tell you what. if windows update gets owned, you will hear about it in the papers, and on the news, etc. And it wont be because of the magnitude of the issue - because it happend to the FSF, Debian, _and_ Gentoo _first_. When something goes wrong with microsoft software, it hits the whole internet. It's a market share issue.
It doesn't hurt that at its very core, Linux is designed with security in mind.
What do the original UNIX authors have to say about designing UNIX from the ground up with security in mind ? A history of linux will show a few things, I think.
No need here for launching a security initiative after years of neglect."
Or, said another way - "not too much new ground to cover making a freeware clone of 25 years of operating system research!"
Despite the fact that I do not run a Microsoft computer in this office,
why am i listening to your opinion of MS software again ?
costs in terms of data loss, damage, and lost productivity in the last three years alone runs into the billions of dollars. This is documented fact
Really ? which documents ? Where are the documents that talk about how much money business MAKE by leveraging software - Microsoft software. If, overall, MS software is hurting business financially, why dont they go back to notebook paper ? Why not use linux ?
This article is pretty much a non-article.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
In my experience with both Operating Systems, I have often found that a lot of the insecurity lies with the user. Again, this is just my observations and not hard fact, but I have found that the average Linux user is more aware and technologically savvy than the average Windows user. Linux has traditionally served as a geek playground whereas Windows seeps into the marketplace on new-from-the-store PCs and thus is usually the first operating system most people learn on. My mother, who would "never try an operating system like 'Linus'" is just as oblivious to the necessity of a good firewall on her machine. In fact, before I intervened, she nor any of her friends even had one. Worse, they were under the opinion that you can not retrieve email without Outlook, and that Internet Explorer was the internet. That might sound preposterous to you or I, but I have found this to be true of many casual PC owners. So, beyond security problems inherent in code are problems inherent in the user as well.
;) Hmmm... that seems vaguely familiar. :)
Linux is also very community-minded (hence, the "Open Source Community.") We vehemently defend Linux and thus have greater stock in its success. Now, I do not subscribe to the idea of thousands of users pouring over the source code and fixing security holes, but I will assert that the small number of users who actually contribute to the community do a fine job of it, and are extremely dedicated. What Open Source offers is the ability to pour over the code, even if most of us don't take advantage of this. M$ developers are usually money-driven and thus focus more on how fast they can get a product on the shelves than how rock-solid they can make it. Linux developers seem to take more pride in their product as, since many of them donate their work, all they really have is that pride to guard. You won't find the Linux community only putting out one large, obscure patch a month and then declaring "AHA! We have less patches than M$."
If I had to put my money down on which one was more secure, my money would go on Linux.
-dexterpexter
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
Yes, favour. Far more of the world spell it like that. Guess you didn't know there was a world outside of North America.
Ahhh, but the difference is that if I throw a stone and break my little glass Linux house, I have the ability to fix it... for free. That is the beauty of Open Source.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
It's an unpleasant truth, but Bill Gates was right when he suggested that perfect bug-free, unexploitable code is impossible. There are going to be vulnerabilities, no matter how much of an effort you make to keep them out of code.
Security has to be achieved through firewalling, shutting off unnecessary services, keeping software up to date with the latest security-related patches, and some common sense on the part of the user. In my experience, a lot of Linux users are every bit as ignorant as their Windows counterparts when it comes to security. I know plenty of people who don't know what daemons are running on their computers, who don't keep their software updated, and who don't follow basic common-sense security procedures. Unfortunately, there's the perception among a lot of people that just running Linux makes them secure. They feel they don't need to bother with things such as firewalls, because they're invincible. Even among their Windows counterparts, firewalls are considered a necessary tool for security.
There's a basic competence needed to run Linux. Unfortunately, beyond that, many users are clueless when it comes to security.
Linux doesn't lend itself to many of the problems Windows does. But that's only part of being secure.
Linux distributions shouldn't come with lots and lots of services enabled by default. We complain at Microsoft because a lot of users have IIS running on their machines and just aren't aware of it. Many Linux distributions are just as guilty as Microsoft here.
If we want to make Linux more secure, we need to fix the two biggest vulnerabilities - the default settings of many Linux distributions and the user.
do you have any substantiation of this ?
You may have heard something about software engineering, but if not, i'll tell you. The later you discover a bug, the more expensive it is.
Lets take some examples.
I think you get the idea. If a bug makes it out into the public, it will cost microsoft at least $100,000, at a minimum.
So, do you think bugs make it into the code because the emphasis is on cranking out software quickly, without caring about the quality ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
My God you are a useless troll.
You say:
a step by step procedure for stealing the Microsoft fonts and installing them on Linux....
Then you link to http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
Which has a copy of the microsoft licesne the fonts were obtained under:
Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices.....
(s)he said "most" so yes, the kernal bug is accounted for. yes, there are vulns in linux, nobody argues with that, but the fact is that in default install (and how many home users use anything else?) there are far more problems with windows. integration is also a problem. problem in moz? no big if you don't use moz, and you can use other things. problem in ie? too fucking bad, it's part of the os bitches.
hey t0ny, why does your face smell like ass?
> Apparently you missed that story last month regarding the hack which exploited a Kernel bug. This effected ALL distros, since it was a kernel exploit.
No, I *didn't* miss it. I'm on the BugTraq mailing list.
>Also, the page for Windows doesnt just list OS components either. So, as far as security tracker goes, it IS apples to apples.
Without a direct comparison of the number of exploits for code that comes with the OS for both systems your statement is speculative at best.
>One can also argue that IIS is not really a Windows component, since it is an optional service.
Baloney. IIS comes on every Windows CD-ROM and is used by lots of Microsoft apps. And there's plenty of bugs that cross boundaries thanks to Microsoft's blurring the distinction between OS and application...like that WebDAV bug in ntdll.dll that was exploitable via IIS.
>But thats the way they organize their site. If you dont like it, talk to Security Tracker; Im sure they would be happy to hear from you!
Don't blame Security Tracker for the deficiencies in your analysis!
I think it's ironic that the two things I had to patch most often this year were OpenSSH and OpenSSL. What does that first 'S' stand for again?
I absolutely agree with every point in your bulleted list. But the short answer is yes, I do believe that bugs make it into code because of emphasis on cranking out software quickly. It would seem illogical to do so, true, but the sad truth is that it happens and I have watched in horror as it has happned at the place at which I work. When the CEO comes in screaming "ship it! ship it!" and you are given very little alternative, that is exactly what happens. And yes, it does cost more money to repair the bugs later than sooner, but management knows no logic, and developers many times get no say in when their project ships.
Jack Ganssle gave a very nice keynote speech at the recent Boston Embedded Systems Conference that touched on those very same problems. We all know better, but it still happens. And no, not just at M$. However, when you can crank out a new OS every couple of years and the sheep still buy it despite knowing that the OS is unstable, then why not?
Some of the security holes that we have seen come from M$ products (and other products as well!) show the lack of real testing... problems that never should have been seen by the end user.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
Haha. Tony's an assface!
In my experience with both Operating Systems, I have often found that a lot of the insecurity lies with the user. Again, this is just my observations and not hard fact, but I have found that the average Linux user is more aware and technologically savvy than the average Windows user.
This is a simple result of the law of large numbers. If we assume "technological savvy" is normally distributed within the population then very small samples can have on average very high "savviness" rates. Once the sample size grows the average "savviness" goes down and approaches the mean (which in today's world is still quite low) asymptotically.
Linux has traditionally served as a geek playground whereas Windows seeps into the marketplace on new-from-the-store PCs and thus is usually the first operating system most people learn on.
And herein lies the problem of making blanket statements: yes, most people who are not experienced with computers do run Windows at home. Of course they're going to get infected with something! They lack the experience to mitigate risks and to know what they should never do. DOS didn't have one tenth of the complexity of the latest versions of Windows and stupid DOS users still got viruses all the time.
Linux is also very community-minded (hence, the "Open Source Community.") We vehemently defend Linux and thus have greater stock in its success.
I'm pretty sure a bunch of CS majors deriding SCO on /. won't help Linux kernel development all that much or attribute to any possible success.
M$ developers are usually money-driven and thus focus more on how fast they can get a product on the shelves than how rock-solid they can make it. Linux developers seem to take more pride in their product as, since many of them donate their work, all they really have is that pride to guard.
You are Eric S. Raymond and I claim my free-as-in-beer Tux merchandise.
You won't find the Linux community only putting out one large, obscure patch a month and then declaring "AHA! We have less patches than M$." ;) Hmmm... that seems vaguely familiar. :)
Naturally, since you won't find the "Linux community" putting out any patches at all, ever. They're always put out by individuals or by companies/devteams that simply wish to produce the best possible product for their users.
If I had to put my money down on which one was more secure, my money would go on Linux.
The best way to keep you computer system secure is to make sure it's not run by idiots. How do you accomplish this? Make sure it's as complicated as possible[1]. For a long time Unix had this going for it, which means that Unix administrators had to have a lot experience coupled with knowledge and consequently would usually run a secure network.
By comparison, since "any idiot can run a MS network", then idiots were hired to run MS networks, with predictable results.
[1] The same principle actually works on a broader scale. Intrinsically hard topics tend to gather a more knowledgeable crowd while idiots flock to the easy topics like politics, religion and such. Which usually means that the level of discussion over political topics is far lower than that, say, for hard sciences.
minor nitpick. if you read the link you posted, you'll see that there's infact no WebDAV code in ntdll.dll (why would there be ?)
:)
WebDAV depends on some code in ntdll.dll, and it looks like you can feed WebDAV goop that it happily uses to exploit the BO in ntdll.dll.
So, webdav is the attack vector to remotely get at a problem in ntdll.dll. it's not substantially different than php triggering a bug in kmalloc()
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I am not sure if you are attempting to argue with me or not, but it sounds like you are actually agreeing/clarifying points that I actually meant, but are better said by you.
I am sure that the average Linux user was at some point technologically unsavvy, but you usually find that individuals who migrate from Windows to Linux are those users with at least some grasp on what they are doing. However, that does not change the end result, that being that the average Linux user probably has some idea of how to "secure" their computer. Now, as Linux desktops become more popular, we will find that these numbers will change. However, I would feel a lot more confident running an unpatched Open Source product than an unpatched Microsoft one, although doing either is tempting fate.
I did take the time to point out that contributors to the Linux community are far fewer than those who use Linux. However, it still holds true that the few people who do contribute, do an excellent job at it. Anyone disagree with this? I, for one, am impressed with the thankless work that they do.
And the "any idiot can run a MS network" fits perfectly in with my point that the insecurity, often times, lies in the user/administrator. *Laughs* Do Microsoft certifications even mean anything anymore? Or are there big wigs out there who use terms like "paradigm" and phrases like "thinking outside the box" that still get impressed with shiny stones and MS Certs?
As I said, same point (with an argumentative tone), better said by you.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
That's what's FUNNY about it! The original post uses favour while telling Europeans to get out! It's ironic! Laugh!
Now don't break your arm patting yourselves on the back. That article hasn't really stated ANYTHING new or anything of even mild interest. Yeah Steve Ballmer said windows was as secure as linux, did anyone actually BELIEVE the guy? Maybe the non-techies, but this article is really only going to be read by /.ers which is the epitome of geeky techs. What point did this article actually have other than calling the kettle black?
I found the article not very informative.
It had a lot of verbiage but thats about all.
'Someone said this, someone said that, yada yada.'
Exactly how many holes were there? How many known of are still there? "Where's the beef?"
if I had mod points i would have modded parent up. the AC who posted re: "far more of the world spell it like that", and the mods who modded down parent - at least the way i see it, the parent was making the point that while the grandparent is telling the euros to fuck off because hey he's so american, he's actually using non-American spelling. which i think is a masterful point to make.
Why? There is an unvoiced feeling among software managers that they had better get the product on the shelves by Christmas or their careers will suffer. In the extreme, they become yes-men, telling their bosses only what is pleasing, with no regard for the truth. Too many yes-men and the company crashes because top management is not aware of problems until it is too late to fix them.
The solution? Software product managers must have the intelligence to recognize when their product needs more time, and the courage to tell their superiors the bad news. To encourage that behavior, top management needs to be tolerant of bad news, and not limit the careers of their subordinates who bring it.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Might Darl McBride face prison time?
There most certainly is logic. I know because I've been in that situation. While I'm not a CEO and I'm not in the software industry, I have released a product with "bugs" which we'll try to work around or fix eventually. So I think I understand the desire to ship things before they're "ready".
It comes down to two simple words: market share. Every day, people are making decisions and buying products that serve their needs. If they're not buying your product, then they're buying your competitor's product. Moreover, if you don't have a relatively recent product, you start to lose mindshare. It's very possible to release a product so late that even though it's the best, no one cares anymore: they all bought a competitor's product and are locked in to it. So in a very real sense, every day you delay the release date is costing you money.
Thus, you need to balance the desire to ship a product with no bugs with the desire to have a product in the market now. And the way to choose when to do that is to balance the monetary costs and try to release the product when the cost is minimized.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
- XFree86 will run on a lot of stuff. However, why do you need a GUI? Last I checked, you were developing a better CLI...
- SSH?
- No Microsoft proprietary Kerberos support. There's Kerberos, just not MS Kerberos.
- I'm pretty sure it's there, and if not, someone can whip it up quickly.
- Hmm... Samba, anyone?
- I thought most of them WERE crypto...
- The "free will" contributors do a better job and go through more of a review process than your patches, thank you very much
- That's just pure BS
- No. Initial cost is much less than Windows, and TCO would have to be less.
Terry Pratchett (in his many and various Discworld novels) overed this quite clearly.
The Patrician privatised everything.
I mean everything
All the usual goings on in a big city (eg crime) were arranged much like insurance is today (in our world).
Unfortunately (you knew I was going to say that).... The Fire Department got into the insurance business (have to raise money somehow) - specifically FIRE insurance.
This ended up with them having such pleasant conversations (amongst themselves) while walking down the main business streets.
My My. Such lovely Old Buildings. Wonderful WoodWork. Would be such a shame if one of them should catch fire. Would prolly burn most of the city down. Oh Dear! What a disgrace that would be.
Basically, in our world, most people recognise that such a situation (ie charging to fix something that you should not have broken in the first place) would very rapidly lead to (essentially) rampant wholesale uncontrolled extortion.
If a company were to charge you for security and other bug fixes, they would then have a strong financial incentive to produce shoddy bug ridden software and frequent updates.
Product quality would decrease, and administration overhead would increase.
It's the same issue with charging for software subscriptions. What is their incentive to produce another updated version with new features? After all they've already got your money.
A Software Subscription (with ALL updates FREE for 5 YEARS !!!!) does nothing more than make software updates come out once every 5 years.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Baloney. IIS comes on every Windows CD-ROM and is used by lots of Microsoft apps. And there's plenty of bugs that cross boundaries thanks to Microsoft's blurring the distinction between OS and application...like that WebDAV bug in ntdll.dll that was exploitable via IIS [microsoft.com].
Where to begin?
1. Just because it comes on the CD-Rom does not make it any less of an optional component. If I started ranking on security flaws on some of the obscure, minor, optional programs what come with the varios Linux distros, you would just change song and say "hey, nobody uses that" or "its just optional, nobody is forcing them to use it". Just a tip- pick one story, and stay with it. It makes you look less hypocritical.
2. Used by other apps- MS cannot be held responsible for non-MS apps causing holes in the security. To claim otherwise is lunacy, and throws the whole issue of personal responsibility out the windows. I am responsible for what *I* do, but to hold me responsible for what people I work with do? Thats absurd.
3. You mentioning the WebDAV exploit demonstrates your lack of knowledge in how Windows uses DLLs. I try to always get my expert opinions from experts, so please stop spewing nonsense about things you dont really understand. Just because you are on a mailing list doesnt make you knowledgeable, or an expert.
Also, your former gripe regarding no kernel exploits, of which there were some, is just as valid if you want to talk about Windows. So why dont YOU stop talking about apples and oranges? You cant have it both ways.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
is that the beauty of unemployment?
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
... distribution servers OWNED".
Debian's is a Sparc machine, the x86-only kernel exploit bounced off it harmlessly.
In the Gentoo case, it was _one_ machine out of a pool of dozens of DNS-round-robined _mirrors_. Not the master.
Given these, you tell me how "root file distribution servers" were compromised.
UNIX has been built from the ground up with security in mind, it's called OpenBSD.
Haha, Im too big a pussy to post with my real account, so just like an infantile sissy, Im going to post anonymously!
A: No thank you, I have no wish to remove my head from the sand...
Hi Mr McBride, welcome to Slashdot :)
Naturally, since you won't find the "Linux community" putting out any patches at all, ever. They're always put out by individuals or by companies/devteams that simply wish to produce the best possible product for their users.
Hey, DIPSHIT
That is the Linux community.
Another two simple words also apply: cash flow.
As employees, it can be easy to take the long view - invest a lot of resources in the product now, and it'll be that much better a product, and we won't have to do expensive fixes later.
The CEO, on the other hand, has to keep track of issues like, if we keep pushing back the release date to improve it, in a few months we won't be able to make payroll. And, besides, when cash is plentiful from sales of a release, making expensive fixes is a lot more do-able.
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
So? Then IIS is part of the OS(going by what your saying), what difference does it make? If the system gets cracked because of this program, whether or not it's integrated into the OS, makes no difference when you loose all of your data.
2003 was the year for LSM (Linux Security Modules) to become mainstream by the release of the 2.6.x kernel. Though LSM's basic idea is great, it doesn't at the moment include even a fraction of the required hooks (couldn't support PAX for instance!) so it is kind of useless.
In any case, the mainstream kernel still doesn't include buffer overlow protection for the userspace processes. It isn't protected itself either. Some smart people use Grsecurity and Propolice kernel patches to obtain both, but...
MS will release XP sp2 soon with "some tweaks" over the matter. Soon perhaps only the Linux boxes will be virtually breakable.
Nice going, kernel developers.
No, the plural is viruses not virii. Like you I made this mistake out of a mistaken confidence in my own superior education. Worse still I made it in a magazine article. Worse yet I'm not American which would be partial justification for being ill-informed & ill-educated.
Ouch. At least you are anonymous.
see; viruses definition
Linux built with security in mind. ROFL BS! That's the biggest load of shit I've heard since I've heard people claim that redhat is as secure as debian or slackware.
Linux is NOT built with security in mind, only after it's built and breached, is it then "patched" with security fixes. The development model of Linux is out of control and does really suck. The amount of Linux distro's alone is out of control and way too fragmented for real use. Why not standardize like the BSD's, such as OpenBSD in which is REALLY built with security in mind.
And there is a certain subset (I forget the exact fonts) of Microsoft's proprietary fonts which are freely licensed for use by anyone who has a capability to use TrueType(TM) fonts in their OS. The collection is referred to as WebFonts, I believe, the licensing exists to encourage people to use the fonts on web pages (and by extension, to encourage use of Front Page), and the collection includes, Arial and its derivatives, Tahoma, Verdana, Times New Roman, and others. These fonts have been freely available for all to use (but not redistribute) since at least 1999
So, where's the "theft?"
utter rubbish
Even more importantly, management needs to recognize bad news as input variables and nothing more. A lower manager shouldn't be making the decision whether to ship now or later; they should be able to openly pass accurate information upward to more appropriate decision makers.
A CEO may decide that software is too buggy to ship based on input from below, or he may decide to push the release date. A junior team leader shouldn't be the one making that call, although a culture of fear tends to make that exactly what happens all too often.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
so your first impulse upon readin this was to think i was trolling ? why, because i have an uncommon point of view ? do you disagree with my argument, my conclusion, or my employer ?
:)
:)
Yeah, I _could_ have mentioned that, but it should be obvious from my posting history and my user page that im certainly not hiding it. I wasn't aware that slashdot required a disclosure statement of employment for dissecting a poorly made "argument"
my post was to point out that this was hardly an article at all, and basically some free advertising for this gagne fellow. It had NOTHING to do with linux security in 2003, over half of it was a rant on how shoddy microsoft is.
I've pondered the value proposition of open source before.
I'm sure since you value open source so highly, instead of being dependant on whatever is given to you, that you also sew your own clothes and grow your own food
The article i responded to was not an article at all - it was an anti-MS rant and i was irate that something with an interesting title claiming to be about linux security in 2003 - was nothing more than someone pushing their ideaology.
Also - i really dislike the use of the term astroturfing. I'm _not_ being paid by MS to post to slashdot, especially the day after christmas.
I'm not blindly supportive of everything MS does - but unlike alot of people, I'm also not blindly critical. When someone has something interesting or objective to say about MS, I listen, because thats how we get better. When someone is just ranting off and sounding uninformed, occasionally I let them have it (I say occasionally because responding to each instance of this would be a 24/7 endeavour for multiple people
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Why on earth any sane person would want to take a bitching game machine like X-box and ruin it by installing Linux is a mystery to me.
We know you don't understand.
Your lack of understanding doesn't cause us to lose any sleep, though. We're fine with it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What you say is true, but the person you are responding to also has a point. Products of all kinds (not just software) are often shipped with known defects (and many unknown ones) for a variety of reasons. Ed Yourdon in one of his books (either "Deathmarh" or Rise and Resurection of the American Programmer, I don't remember which) advocates that there's such a thing as "good enough" software. This is software that isn't perfect, but is cheaper and faster to market than a competitors that strives for perfection. This is one way that the US has dominated the software market for the last 20+ years and fought off the off-shore invasions that Yourdon predicted in his book "The decline and fall of the american programmer".
Frankly, "good enough" software is still the norm for most things, but the bar for "good enough" has risen quite substantially in the public network world due to the exponensial increases in penetration attempts (and successes).
Closed source commerical companies aren't the only ones to do this either. Look at most Open Source software, which pretty much ships something as soon as it can compile and then slowly morphs into a solid product. Frankly, you're never going to find all the bugs in your software in the lab. It has to be exposed to the billions of permutations of end-user systems to find most of the problems. A good example was the 2.4 kernel, which was still going through major "beta" changes up until about 2.4.14, despite supposedly being "stable".
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The fact of the matter is, as humans we're alwasy going to miss problems. Until software verification becomes so completely automated this will continue.
One can say the same about many products, including Linux. We shouldn't have seen the kinds of problems we saw in the early 2.4 kernels. We shouldn't be seeing the kinds of problems from Sendmail, OpenSSH, wu-ftpd, and a host of other "usual suspects" either, but we do.
Open source tends to ship early and often just as much as closed source. We just hide behind 0.x version numbers for years and tell anyone that has problems that they shouldn't be using unstable versions.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Strange, but I've never experienced this 'unemployment' that you speak of. Open source has been a great set of tools for me to use to bid on jobs that I'd have a hard time getting otherwise. By using mapserver instead of a proprietary system, I can bid $8000 lower on a job. Same thing for using open source dbms in situations that warrant it.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Yes, it is an unpleasant truth, but I hope you don't hold the mistaken belief that this idea is an original from Bill Gates. It's been common lore in the computer industry since before Microsoft came into being.
...the security breaches of GNU/FSF (twice), Debian, GNOME, and Gentoo. All within six months!
Don't troll if Linux has its flaws like any other operating system does.
"Sufferin' succotash."
and not so long ago, anyone remember Code Red? Former co-worker of mine saw the defaced page and that screenshot that was passed around was priceless
if you want a life get rid of you're computer ... ah, mmm, now what am I going to do? Can Slashdot send me a printed copy?
this guys just pissed because he couldn't figure out how to make a swap partition.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
Next we have Linux users violating the EULA for the X-Box and tinkering with it so that it can run Linux.
Why on earth any sane person would want to take a bitching game machine like X-box and ruin it by installing Linux is a mystery to me.
But that's a big question about ownership of the box. If you buy an Xbox and want to break it (by smashing it with a hammer, for example) then who is to stop you? It's your Xbox, right?
So, if you want to "break" it by attempting to install other software on it, then why should you not be allowed to? It's your Xbox, after all, and if you break it, it's your problem.
Trying to prevent people doing unintended things with equipment that they own is ridiculous. Sure, you can make it illegal, but there is no point in making laws that people are just not going to follow, since that only serves to bring the rest of the law into disrepute.
You may not understand why someone would want to run Linux on their Xbox, but really - why should Microsoft (or you, or anyone else) give a shit what anybody wants to do with their own Xbox? They stumped up the cash to buy it in the first place, therefore it's their choice what they do with it.
The DMCA is a stupid law that serves no good purpose whatsoever, and by it's very existence deserves to be disobeyed. Using a machine for something other than it's original intended purpose is a totally different ballpark to copyright infringement, and should not be illegal.
The government that governs best, governs least.
Organic free-range music... yum!
At least someone understood. This other reply to my message was apparently too pissed by the grandparent to see what I was saying.
Hack this then: CLI label: JMP label Its bug free and you know it
You, however, have never been laid.
Nice troll, you fucking terrorist.
do you have any substantiation of this ?
History speaks quite eloquently on this. In addition, Gates and Balmer both are on quite public record as saying that developing a bug-free product would simply cost too much.
I think you get the idea. If a bug makes it out into the public, it will cost microsoft at least $100,000, at a minimum.
Then, given Windows history, even Microsoft, with all their billions, should be flat broke!
C'mon, you are astroturfing to the max. Anyone that has been using Windows on a steady basis for the last ten years simply cannot defend them on any kind of QA effort!
Number 1) eula's have never stood their ground in court. certianly not my own local one. Nor have they ever constituted any sort of agreement without both parties present.
Number 2) It's an xbox. You bought it, you can break it anyway you seem fit.
Number 2) Darl... is that you??
lol
The open source development model insures that Linux code is open to scrutiny at the most basic level
That should be "ensures" not "insures".
Shame this advocate can't apply the principles himself - getting a peer review of the article should have picked up that simple mistake (assuming that his peers, at least, lernt gramer at skuwl)
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
All that money, and you still cant afford a Slashdot account....
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
He's only saying IIS is part of the OS because he doesnt know what he is talking about (despite attempts to appear so). He may impress the other guys at the help desk with his mailing list membership, but it really shouldnt impress anybody around here (especially those of us already working computer security positions).
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
In A.D. 2003 ....
War was beginning.
Slashbot 1: What happen ?
Slashbot 2: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Slashbot 3: We get signal.
Slashbot 1: What !
Slashbot 3: Main screen turn on.
Slashbot 1: It's You !!
Overly Critical Guy: How are you gentlemen !!
Overly Critical Guy: All your base are belong to us.
Overly Critical Guy: You are on the way to destruction.
Slashbot 1: What you say !!
Overly Critical Guy: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Overly Critical Guy: HA HA HA HA
Slashbot 1: Take off every 'sig' !!
Slashbot 1: You know what you doing.
Slashbot 1: Move 'sig'.
Slashbot 1: For great justice.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.