Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intrusion Cleanup Forces Delay For GNOME 2.6

Posted by timothy on from the checked-for-stupidity-and-found-malice dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like the GNOME site (both web and FTP) is back up and running again (from a replacement system). The restoration work is still going on, and dynamic content does not work yet. Bugzilla should be up by tomorrow (it is already in testing mode). More details are available in this announcement. Kudos to the GNOME sysadmin team for such a rapid recovery." However, blurzero writes "GNOME 2.6 was scheduled to be released sometime today, however after evidence of possible intrusion on the web server, the release has been delayed by one week, until March 31st." Update: 03/24 14:08 GMT by T : An anonymous reader points to this story on the delay at ZD Net Australia.

170 comments

  1. Half-Life 2, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Perhaps I am the only person getting an odd sense of deja vu...

    1. Re:Half-Life 2, anyone? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Irony, if this were MS, everyone would be trashing them for being hacked, let alone taking *any* down time at all.. heh.. double standards.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  2. Must've been a real bugger by James+A.+M.+Joyce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intrustion cleanup is a real bastard to carry out with any degree of success. There's really no way to prove that there isn't just one more subtle little backdoor hiding in the system, in your repository or in your /home area. This is a case where an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. It's too late, here, unfortunately, so they should probably have rolled back to a backup on another set of boxes. (Just my two cents.) How well would TripWire have worked in this kind of situation? Or is that ineffective against an all-out rooting?

    1. Re:Must've been a real bugger by tobechar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am personally disappointed in having to wait another week, however I completely respect the Gnome team on their tireless efforts. :)

      I definatly agree with the idea of rolling back to a backed up copy of their site, but perhaps they do not know how long someone was able to access their systems?

      Gnome team, take all the time you need. :)

      --
      -
    2. Re:Must've been a real bugger by deathazre · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Looks like the GNOME site (both web and FTP) is back up and running again (from a replacement system)

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    3. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They have TireWire and it didn't work.
      TripeWire never works.
      I've seen TW failing and being exploited in several installations.
      Since the release of wirecutter TripWire has become fucking useless.

    4. Re:Must've been a real bugger by grub · · Score: 1, Redundant


      Intrustion cleanup is a real bastard to carry out with any degree of success.

      Reinstallation is the only tried and true method. Cleaning up to the point where you're satisfied will usually take a lot longer and will leave nagging doubt.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    5. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It takes some work, but there is one way to insure a completely clean system: Re-installation of the OS from media, or a backup from a time known before the break-in.

      Either way, you only have to check the backup server data itself against (externally backed-up) MD5 checksums, and ask developers to re-commit any changes made during the suspect time.

      Now try and do that to a mail server, and the fecal matter hits the air-handler. But, with data that is relatively static by comparison, it takes work, but isn't too much of a trial.

      $0.98 in change, please :)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      The caveat with that scenario is that you have to a) know exactly how the break-in occured in order to b) know that you can fix the system from the pre-break in state to remove the vulnrability before bringing the system back online.

      Just re-imaging the server and putting it back online will result in the server being comprimised again.

    7. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Storm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Intrustion cleanup is a real bastard to carry out with any degree of success. There's really no way to prove that there isn't just one more subtle little backdoor hiding in the system, in your repository or in your /home area.

      Basically, what you generally do is to rebuild from scratch, then carefully check and restore your repository.

      How well would TripWire have worked in this kind of situation? Or is that ineffective against an all-out rooting?

      This is why the authors of the host-based IDS recommend that you keep your database on media that is read-only or kept off of the machine. At that point, it becomes an administrative problem.

      • How do you write the updated database to read-only media on a remote box?
      • When on a shared box that is not your own, especially with a development box, what changes are valid?
      • Who/how many admins do you need or use for the boxes?

      You could use something like Samhain, which automates a lot of the detection of changes, and supports a management console.

      Remember, if it were easy, anybody could do it. Microsoft has tried this approach to system administration, and look how successful its been. :)

      --
      --Storm
    8. Re:Must've been a real bugger by JamesHenstridge · · Score: 1

      widget.gnome.org (the machine that was cracked) has been reinstalled. That's part of the reason why things aren't all up again yet.

    9. Re:Must've been a real bugger by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Cleaning up after a root compromise is about the most time-consuming and psychologically demanding thing that one can do. Let's face it: the guy who's a wizard at writing GUI apis isn't necessarily going to be a security hacker. The biggest issue to deal with when rebuilding a system after a root compromise is the paranoia. 99% of even diligent *nix/*bsd users skip the paranoia step and reinstall using the closest available media. The paranoid among us, however, consider much more than "how do I get the system back to a usable state".

      How long has the system been compromised? What was the initial compromise vector? What additional compromise vectors have been added? Has critical boot binaries been infected? Has boot sector code been modified? When was the last time _KNOWN GOOD_ media was made? Is it possible that bootable CDs were created which contain compromised code or boot sector viruses? Is it possible that the compromised system has been compromised long enough that the BIOS has been compromised? Did any other intruders make use of the door left open by the initial intruder? Were any of the subsequent intruders knowledgeable enough to know the architecture of the compromised machine to a level which might allow them to introduce low-level code to connect priveleged areas of kernel memory to a back door similar to NetBus or Sub7?

      It's not the teenage script-kiddie cracker that is the real concern. The concern is that a teenage script-kiddie opens a hole in the system and then a real Ada ace finds the hole and really makes the system his own. The real Ada ace is the guy who never talks about what he's cracked, anywhere. He never talks about that tunnel through the chipset.

      But... *yawn* exploits are never exploitable until after Microsoft has published them.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    10. Re:Must've been a real bugger by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Re-installation of the OS from media

      What if the OS has a vulnribility and the attacker can get back in without issues?

      a backup from a time known before the break-in

      What if the attacker had installed the back door months before hand? You may not have a valid backup.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    11. Re:Must've been a real bugger by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course even a reinstall still leaves the original hole open that the attacker used in the first place.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Update from a known good source. That was implied, sorry.

    13. Re:Must've been a real bugger by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That only prevents problems on this machine. The real problem is going to be coders using other less secure machine or insecure protocols (such as telnet or ftp to access Windows boxes which are now loaded with key stroke loggers).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Must've been a real bugger by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      What is a known good source? the original CD? Most have several Known exploits. the original CD + updates, still going to be unpatched holes in there somewhere. They need a complete re-evaluation of security practices in order to insure all holes are either closed or inaccessable. I'd of thought the Gnome sysadmin team would be on top of this kind of stuff with proper patching, firewall/DMZ, IDS, and other security options. Either they are and best prractices failed or they are lacking at something.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    15. Re:Must've been a real bugger by welsh+git · · Score: 1

      > Now try and do that to a mail server, and the fecal matter hits the air-handler.

      Surely, much easier with a mail server, as there would be no real data on there.. All the mail is transitional, and besides even if it wasn't, you can easily restore mail queues and users pop3 boxes from a compromised server - it's the system files that matter, and surely a running mailserver has hardly any of those recently updated

      --
      Sig out of date
    16. Re:Must've been a real bugger by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The proper responce (in the majority of cases) is, image the compromised file system. Reinstall the production system from source media and patches. Get the system back in production but change all the passwords, ssl keys etc, give it some other ip then where your dns points and only let the people who *absolutely* need it know how to get at it. Remember time is money and getting back in production fast is important, even if its more limited production. Now analyize that filesystem image and figureout what happend. Go to the porduction system and patch the hole. Move to full production. This is almost always my policy, thankfully I have only had to evoke it once.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    17. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously not thinking of an IMAP server...

    18. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is a link to this "wirecutter" program you speak of?

    19. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      use afuckingsearchengine you dick faced teabagger.

    20. Re:Must've been a real bugger by welsh+git · · Score: 1

      obviously not! :-)

      --
      Sig out of date
    21. Re:Must've been a real bugger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What if the OS has a vulnribility and the attacker can get back in without issues?"

      Then the wang is already firmly implanted in your ass.

      "What if the attacker had installed the back door months before hand? You may not have a valid backup."

      You only restore data, and you check over potentially sensitive data (config files for network servers, source code, etc).

  3. Dammit... by thames · · Score: 3, Funny

    now I have to go to two geek parties in one week

  4. Confidence ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the MD5SUM for gtk-devel-2.0.1a.tar.gz broken ?

    1. Re:Confidence ? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you know the MD5 wasn't made after the intruder got in? It wouldn't be very valuable then, would it?

      The point is, after a breakin you must determine when the breakin occured, because everything after that is suspect. The problem is it can sometimes be very difficult -- or impossible -- to determine when the breakin happened. Then you're really, really screwed.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  5. Re:Correlation? by BRSloth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, if you check the GNOME-Announces list, you will see that every package was already updated to work with GNOME 2.6. They just want to double check everything.

  6. Boy, that was a close call by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Funny

    "GNOME 2.6 was scheduled to be released sometime today, however after evidence of possible intrusion on the web server, the release has been delayed by one week, until March 31st."

    That could have been disasterous had they been forced to delay until April 1. Imagine all the jokes that would have ensued.

    1. Re:Boy, that was a close call by nadolph · · Score: 0

      There is nothing like a good old fasioned /. april fools joke.

      Good times...

      --
      With the moo and the cow and the fish. Minesweeper Record: 7 sec
    2. Re:Boy, that was a close call by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't doubt they cancel the march 31st release date and make a joke on april 1st saying the proyect can't recover and it'll shut down... then they'll release it on march 2nd or something.

    3. Re:Boy, that was a close call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 364 days, I'd be worried too.

    4. Re:Boy, that was a close call by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

      hahaha I meant to say april 2nd

      note to myself: when you preview... read your post carefully.

      thanks

  7. Re:Correlation? by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, sure, they're gonna make up an elaborate story to delay their release one week. Like it'd not be much easier to just tell the world how they're be a little late with this release.

    I mean, let's face it. That would just completely destroy their reputation, contrary to word that their servers have been hacked.

  8. Awwww man! by chendo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now we have to wait one WHOLE week?

    Maybe the KDE team did this to slow Gnome down... :)

    By the way, I've tried CVS metacity with FD.O's Xserver..... funky stuff. Translucency when you move windows! Although it chews a fair bit of CPU (when moving the window itself, that is, as just holding the window still doesn't chew CPU), it should be fixed when we finally get HW acceleration. I was able to get MPlayer to play a video in the background, hover a window over it and watch it through it. ub3r cool stuff.

    --
    Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    1. Re:Awwww man! by bbuchs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you have any notes or tips you could post on the process? I'd like to give it a shot, but haven't had much luck as of yet.

    2. Re:Awwww man! by JewFish · · Score: 1

      They put in translucent move, but have they added wireframe yet? Opaque movement looks horrid on my machine, and is currently stopping from using Gnome with metacity.

    3. Re:Awwww man! by chendo · · Score: 1

      First of all, you have to grab the latest version of metacity. Untar into a folder, and make sure you configure with composition support. If you specify it, and it still says 'no' at the end of the configuration, you will need to copy some header files to the proper directories from /opt/fdo, but I can't remember which. Then, build, install, run FD.O's Xserver, and login to Gnome. If it all worked out, when you click on the titlebar of a window, it should become translucent.

      --
      Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    4. Re:Awwww man! by asm0deu5 · · Score: 1

      It does have wireframe now, but the configuration is hidden. http://wiki.chad.org/wiki.pl?MetacityWireframeDisc ussion

  9. Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    With GNOME and most other F/OSS projects, at least you get honest, up-front answers and timely announcements of intrusion attempts and such.

    If only MSFT (and more importantly, proprietary software companies that aren't so much in the spotlight) were as forthcoming about break-ins.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting
      " What does Microsoft have to do with this? You fucking dumb jackass."

      Well kiddo, it's not just MSFT truth be known (hence my mention of "more importantly, other proprietary companies..." )

      Most proprietary companies are too worried about "customer confidence" to actually be honest with their customers. Back when a group of russians had 3 months' unlimited access to Windows' source code, it took outright proof in public before MSFT would admit to such a thing. ...and that's just MSFT; I wonder how many times Adobe's servers have been compromised? It would be nice to know that P-shop and Acrobat (or worse, the free reader?) wasn't quietly trojaned-up and sleeping on my 'dows boxen.

      Now, what about the break-ins we don't know about? How were they handled? How can a proprietary software company, let alone its customers, be sure that there aren't any nasty suprises hidden in their products?

      ...and therein lies the crux of my argument - open-source companies are specific, honest, and, well, eopn about what goes on security-wise.

      It's damned refreshing to be a customer who is treated like an adult, and not lied to, or kept in the dark about the products I use.

      Does this answer your question?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      For those that aren't familiar with the Microsoft security break-ins...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/998449.stm

      I'd imagine that it is possible that other people have gotten in as well. To my knowledge, this is the only one that was made public.

    3. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by dave420 · · Score: 1
      "open-source companies are specific, honest, and, well, eopn about what goes on security-wise."

      err... didn't SCO dabble in open source, if my memory serves me correct? :-P

    4. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be nice to know that P-shop and Acrobat (or worse, the free reader?) wasn't quietly trojaned-up and sleeping on my 'dows boxen.

      How does a public disclosure ensure the binaries are secure?

      How can a proprietary software company, let alone its customers, be sure that there aren't any nasty suprises hidden in their products?

      How? Probably the same way everyone else does it. The OS model does not have a monopoly on practices used to ensure code integrity.

    5. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I find it amusing that the Gnome site had a security issue and folks find a way to use that fact to blast Microsoft! Funny stuff.

      I'm guessing Gnome runs some type of Linux/Apache server combo... if they were running Windows IIS, folks would be talking about what a piece of garbage IIS is (regardless of if the security breach was a bug or an IT/config issue)... and Microsoft would be bashed on the 7:00 news for yet another "virus" (you need to dumb it down for the national news).

    6. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think the problem is that unless you've been lost on a deserted pacific island for the last couple of years, have never been on the intraweb before, and use a computer made up of wooden gears with a squirrel running the show, you'd likely know that Microsoft was hacked a couple years back, and they never really told the whole story and kept backpedaling, first saying they had been hacked for >6 months, then 6 weeks, then 2 weeks, then none at all.

      But, since you obviously HAVE been stranded on a desert island for the last three or so years, have never been on the intraweb before, and use a computer made up of said squirrel / wooden gear combos, it's excusable that you don't know about all that, huh?

    7. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Because if they say they were compromised they can take down the binaries until they've verified that they weren't tampered with.
      However, if they just took down possibly-modified binaries without an explanation, people would ask questions and require answers they dont' want to give.
      Therefore, currently they leave up the possibly infected binaries so that they dont' have to disclose their servers were compromised.

    8. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf is with the attacking MS when the OS that was hacked here was LINUX....so much for Linux being "safe"...

      Before the MS-Hater bandwagon kiddies open their mouth they should look in the mirror and ask, "is my OS safer, or do we just ignore its faults so we can feel superior?"

    9. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I suck on ESR's penis when your done with it?

    10. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None the less, the point is a good one. Opensource groups tend to be a lot more public about such things - if they have reason to think their servers have been compromised, they don't hide from the fact. Like the GNU site last year, the Gnome guys are providing details of what they know, and stating what they're doing to ensure downloads and repositaries are safe.

      In comparision, companies like Microsoft have to worry about the effect of such things on their share price, and as such, it's in their interest to keep such things as quiet as possible. Not a matter of open-source vs proprietary - just the fact that companies have other responsibilities that non-commercial groups don't. I imagine IBM would likely take the same approach as Microsoft to avoid bad publicity.

    11. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Sorta... but they went from a full commitment to OSS, to a company desperately trying to keep UnixWare alive. We all know what happened from there... :)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Well, there is one difference I appreciate... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Actually, my gripe is against most closed-source companies; just that Microsoft is notorious for not admitting such things :?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  10. I suppose by AnonymousCowheart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suppose this will get modded as a flame bit, but a lot of people were cheering when Bill Gate's credit card number got stolen just wondering how those people felt now? I know there was no "real" damage in that case, and in this case the server was offline, but still something to consider. Maybe these people were also "trying to help" by showing a server insecurity.

    1. Re:I suppose by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about I try to help by breaking down your door and snooping through your house?

      Asshat.

      The real problem I have here is that GNOME is a free OSS organization. It's like stealing from charity!!!

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  11. Ya know... by oldosadmin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes you nervous about the big megacorps -- when their website is compromised -- do they even know... or care? I've never seen M$ shut down for a day because of a website compromise, although it must have happened several times.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:Ya know... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      a) Quit it with the "M$" stuff. It is simply infantile.

      b) Most professional commercial operations have redundant systems and don't go down when their single Althon gets hacked.

    2. Re:Ya know... by HeghmoH · · Score: 2

      A megacorp that will be losing enormous amounts of money for every minute of web site downtime will not be running their site on a single server. They most likely have a physically distributed cluster which can't all be compromised in the same attack, and hot swaps ready to go in case they all somehow get compromised as well. They don't have to take their site down because of an attack, whereas a comparatively small nonprofit effort has no choice.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if the processor type affects whether or not the system get hacks. Fucking Troll.

    4. Re:Ya know... by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      I don't think M$'s website goes down much cause their administrators are probably MSCE certified, and those guys know *everything*.

      I bet they have tripwire rigged up to a cluster server so when an intrusion is detected, it downs the affected server and brings another, fresh one online. They probably even auto-ghost the affected machine and bring it back online when reset. It's the Gatling Gun method of system security.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    5. Re:Ya know... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You do know it's possible to move a web server instantaneously, don't you? You can even switch locations instantly (across town/country/continent/world). Server break-ins and uptime are only a problem if you don't have the resources and equipment in place to facilitate a speedy transition to a redundant system.

    6. Re:Ya know... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      -----
      Server break-ins and uptime are only a problem if you don't have the resources and equipment in place to facilitate a speedy transition to a redundant system
      -----
      A speedy and redundant transition of your web-server only proves one thing: it's just as speedy and redundant for the intruder to be on nearly every box on the network.

      Maybe you have three rack systems for webspace and the intruder is only caught on that one PC that belongs to the secretary down the hall. What assurance do you have that that secretaries' PC wasn't running a brute force password cracker on your servers for the last nine months? Of course the rack system logs don't look suspicious. All of the logins are perfectly valid. If the intruder really knows what he's doing then it's not tough to have a script filter and regenerate the .log files.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    7. Re:Ya know... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      I've never seen M$ shut down for a day because of a website compromise, although it must have happened several times.

      Perhaps it's because MS is able to afford redunancy and the hardware and personnel to do frequent backups. They don't rely on a machine someone donated, funds given through a PayPal tip jar, and whatever free time contributors have to give.

      You assume that because sites dedicated to open source, free software, whatever, disappear from time to time they are more secure. Taking a site offline is not proof of diligence; it is proof of a paucity of resources.

  12. Re:It's just a hoax by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your hypothesis would be conceivable for a closed source project where bosses get pissed off when the product is not delivered on schedule, I don't think that Gnome developers have this kind of pressure.

    Also, this attack reminds me of the one to the Debian servers, because it occurred just before a Woody release. Let's wait and see what the Gnome team has to say about it.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  13. Who's responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If we ever find the jerks who keep breaking into free software servers, I hope they get full legislative punishment. Namely pound-in-the-ass prison. Stupid kiddiez.

    1. Re:Who's responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now some geek is going to write his sexual-abuse-in-prison-is-no-laughing-matter rant. He does it every time.

    2. Re:Who's responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not! It's really painful, since you can't easily get KY jelly.

  14. Re:Correlation? by Dreadlord · · Score: 1

    Hmm slightly convienient, just like the Valve - HL2 delays.

    You mean, they'll delay GNOME 2.6 before March 31th to Summer, and before Summer they delay it again and so on?

    No please! I want my GNOME!

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
  15. Running IIS? by Peter_Pork · · Score: 2, Funny

    A rumor is circulating that Gnome was using an unpatched IIS... I wish they would run Linux, it is much more secure, believe me.

    1. Re:Running IIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because every time a system is broken into, it's the fault of Microsoft or IIS.

      I run 8 differnet websites off a single Windows 2000 Server box using IIS. They each serve several gigabyes of traffic a day, and the box is on a public internet. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong, because I've never been broken into.

      Fucking jackass.

    2. Re:Running IIS? by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > Please tell me what I'm doing wrong, because I've never been broken into.

      What's your IP? ;)

    3. Re:Running IIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A prominent Linux box just got hacked?! ... I know! .... Let's make IIS jokes!

      Pathetic.

    4. Re:Running IIS? by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      > Please tell me what I'm doing wrong, because I've never been broken into.

      What's your IP? ;)
      192.168.0.2

      Fire away. ;)
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    5. Re:Running IIS? by Koatdus · · Score: 1
      --
      You do not have the mind or education to envision Nature's Time Cube. [timecube.com]


      Interesting site.

      Is it yours?

      One problem with the 4 day in one 24 hour rotation theory however is that it is only true if the earth has 4 time zones. Since the earth actually has 24 time zones there are in reality 24 days in each rotation.

      Of course since humans are the ones that choose to segment the earth into 24 time zones and since that was done mostly for convenience you can pretty much say that there are any arbitrary number of days in a rotation. If we wanted to we could divide the earth up into more or fewer time zones, whatever is convenient. Want to have the time zones only a half hour apart, use 48. Ten minutes apart, use 144. 1 nanosecond, use ?

      It is all arbitrary. We use 24 because one hour divisions are easy to keep track of and close enough to "sun time" that it doesn't matter for everyday use.

      Since I know that clocks in New York are exactly 3 hours away from my clock I know without too much effort that if it is 14:23 at my house then it is 17:23 in Times Square.

      If we were using divisions that were not even hours then it would be much harder to figure out the time.

      I would have to estimate the distance, about 2855 miles according to Mapquest, know that the circumference of the earth is 24,902 mi at the equator(Thank you Google). Figure out that that is about 11.46% of the way around the world...(Since I don't live on the equator ignore that fact that As you go from 0 degrees latitude (the equator) to 90 degrees (north or south poles), the circumference of the circle defined by that latitude line will decrease in direct proportion to the cosine of the angle of latitude. Thus, the circumference of the circle is C = 2 pi r cos(x) - but it that is too hard to figure out this early in the morning)

      Anyway, ignoring latitude, if we were using 10 minute time zones and it were 14:23 at my house it would be somewhere around either 16:53 or 17:03 in Times Square depending on how much I messed up the numbers by rounding.

      I, for one, am glad that we use 24 time zones.

      --
      Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
    6. Re:Running IIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop the bullshit. this was not a MS OS, it was LINUX that got hacked, so wtf makes it so fucking superior??? is it better due to dumbasses ignoring its flaws and problems???? is it better since anyone can get the code, and distribute it with trojans included(read up on when this happened, was never caught untill years later, and it was LINUX)

      shove that superior attitude up you arses until you can prove it's better, or continue to lose credibility with the public!!

  16. Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    ...they're running the new system on OpenBSD

  17. Dumb Cracker? by gscott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to Waugh, the GNOME Web servers that are hosted by Red Hat were compromised by "a dumb cracker who probably didn't realise what they got into".

    Seems like he was smart enough to hack their system.

    --
    Scott Plumlee
    1. Re:Dumb Cracker? by stevey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be interesting to learn how the compromise had occurred.

      I'm guessing that all the important services would have been up to date (ssh/rsync/apache/etc) - so that leaves a password/ssh keycompromise, or some scripting flaw..

      I hope we find out once the cleanup has been completed.

    2. Re:Dumb Cracker? by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 2, Funny
      "a dumb cracker who probably didn't realise what they got into"


      They meant a white guy from Alabama - he was looking for 'gnome-porn'. ?!

    3. Re:Dumb Cracker? by goldspider · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If what Waugh says is true, it speaks volumes of the competantce of Red Hat's webserver admins.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:Dumb Cracker? by Fluffy+the+Cat · · Score: 3, Informative

      The machine in question isn't run by Red Hat admins.

    5. Re:Dumb Cracker? by JamesHenstridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      What Jeff meant is that the cracker didn't seem to be targetting Gnome specifically. They'd have just as likely broken into any other vulnerable box.

    6. Re:Dumb Cracker? by trick-knee · · Score: 1

      > They meant a white guy from Alabama

      heh. I missed that connotation.

      but this means they know who it was!

    7. Re:Dumb Cracker? by FU_Fish · · Score: 2, Funny
      According to Waugh, the GNOME Web servers that are hosted by Red Hat were compromised by "a dumb cracker who probably didn't realise what they got into".

      Seems like he was smart enough to hack their system.

      So the dumb cracker was really a smart cookie?
    8. Re:Dumb Cracker? by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Not really. Here's a scenario for you (the debian-style):
      • cracker compromises a 3rd-party machine and gets the ssh tokens for a legitimate user.
      • cracker logs into the server - no particular preference, that server just happened to be one of those he gained access to by sniffing on ssh logins from his initial machine
      • cracker logs in as a legitimate user on the server (impossible to detect at this stage) and acquires, in some way or another, root access (like a nice, untraceable pam exploit)
      • cracker tries to secure root acces and triggers an allert in the logs (this being the 'dumb' step)


      the problem is, you can't trace the initial attack vector. It can be done by any script kiddie who compromises a machine that some developper uses. However, if it's not a mere script kiddie (and covers his tracks successfully), chances are that even a competent sysadmiin can fail to discover it. Yeah, I know about read-only/remote IDS databases, remote logs, backups and so on. It's a nice overhead when you're handling a large farm and you still have to make sure the data is on a secure machine. Do you do it for all your servers? (besides, at this level of complexity you need a full-time job - at least experienced hackers will see it coming and maybe leave you alone).

      that said, whoever was the sysadmin for that box picked it up - kudos for that! And if the 'dumb cracker' line means what it says (from the logs, etc) then here's hoping that it was indeed just a lone incident.
    9. Re:Dumb Cracker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm a long-time GNOME fan and it strikes me that the infrastructure is often left behind, such as the bugzilla version (definitely not up-to-date), and I imagine now that the same applies to the apache and so on.

      When you are so exposed on the Internet as gnome.org, you also need good sysadmins, not only good programmers. GNU/Linux alone doesn't do the trick. I don't see why people are saying how wise of them to move everything off-line and delay the release. They were idiots in the first place because they obviously left severe vulnerabilities unpatched. I hope that lessons are learned.

  18. mod parent +1 Funny by Dreadlord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    hehe, before that someone mods you +1 Informative, gnome.org runs Linux/Apache.

    Nice one though :)

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
  19. Kudos to the GNOME sysadmin team for getting owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Kudos to the GNOME sysadmin team for getting owned

  20. Ack. Insightful? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something bad happens to someone we like. Bummer.
    Something bad happens to someone we don't like. Haw Haw.

    Why do people make such a big fucking deal out of double standards? Should I feel equally angry toward someone who kills a stranger as I would if they'd killed a relative? No.

    1. Re:Ack. Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak a pragmatic truth: emotional_work = force / distance.
      force in that equation is immutable, though, and not justified by a low emotional_work result.

    2. Re:Ack. Insightful? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it depends. Do you purport to be a moral and logical person? Do you believe in the protection of personal freedoms?

      If so, then even if you don't KNOW or LIKE the victim, you should still support punishment of the criminal. Otherwise, you're encouraging elitism. Or do you want to live in a world where crimes against the unpopular are cheered and go unpunished?

      I lived in a similar world called "Middle School," and I wouldn't want to go back.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:Ack. Insightful? by maximilln · · Score: 1

      -----
      Or do you want to live in a world where crimes against the unpopular are cheered and go unpunished?
      -----
      News Flash! Today's top headlines!

      American Society Verified to Function as a Communist Pyramid Scheme
      -----
      Using complex statistical models, mathematicians at MIT, RIT, RHIT, and Harvey Mudd have confirmed that the flow of money and power in the United States seems to follow the exact same patterns as a systems (commonly known as "pyramid schemes") in former communist USSR.

      "We're seeing a lot of favoritism and elitism. People with less intellectual capability and lower levels of honesty are routineley being allowed to use and abuse people with more intellectual capability and higher standards simply through the exercising of influence and power realized through purely social connections. If the victims ever realize the manipulation they're in then they are faced with a losing battle trying to recruit help to combat the corporate leech attached to their neck. We're also seeing many students from wealthy backgrounds, properly shielded from the pressures of everyday life, cruising easily through PhD programs and into high-profile positions while students of equal or even greater intellectual capability coming from less priveleged backgrounds are forced to take their Bachelor's degree and get into the working world."

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    4. Re:Ack. Insightful? by fforw · · Score: 1
      Or do you want to live in a world where crimes against the unpopular are cheered and go unpunished?

      hope you'll stand that position when it comes to "unpopular" guantamo bay prisoners.

      --
      while (!asleep()) sheep++
    5. Re:Ack. Insightful? by damballah · · Score: 1
      Should I feel equally angry toward someone who kills a stranger as I would if they'd killed a relative? No.

      Doesn't make either one less wrong.

    6. Re:Ack. Insightful? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      I wasn't under the impression that right and wrong was under discussion, his (weak) point was.."ah ha ha ha...you all liek seeing badd things happen to people you dislike, but when it happens to someone you like you are unhappy!!" Well no fucking shit sherlock.

      Agreed, both "perps" in these cases are deserving of fair punishment, but this has no bearing on how I feel...

  21. Intrusion Method Same Of Gnu.org Intrusion? by Goo.cc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From what I have read, intrusion details have not been released yet but I wonder if the Gnome server was compromised the same way the gnu.org server was last year. If so, that would be disappointing.

    Still, I am happy to see that this will not push the next version of Gnome back very much. It is really starting to look nice to me and I am a Mac OS X user.

    1. Re:Intrusion Method Same Of Gnu.org Intrusion? by lazy_arabica · · Score: 1
      I wonder if the Gnome server was compromised the same way the gnu.org server was last year. If so, that would be disappointing.


      GNU website attack used a kernel local security flaw in do_brk() which allowed a normal user to get root privileges. This flaw was quickly fixed, and I think it is more than unlikely that the Gnome project website is still running an unpatched kernel.

      Gnome being closely related to the GNU project, I wonder if there could be a relation between the two attacks ?
    2. Re:Intrusion Method Same Of Gnu.org Intrusion? by Goo.cc · · Score: 1

      "Gnome being closely related to the GNU project, I wonder if there could be a relation between the two attacks ?"

      That is an interesting thought. Did they ever discover who was behind the gnu.org compromise?

  22. Pointless Comparison by panthro · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates' credit card number was just one out of thousands of numbers taken from several servers. There is nothing to compare here. You're just trying to stir up shit with Linux zealots by creating an apparent double standard where none exists (or at least if it does, you're giving a terrible example).

    Side note: the vast majority of people who claim to be "trying to help", regardless of what security measure they have circumvented, are actually just messing around for kicks and would rather be seen as a friend than an enemy when the shit hits the fan. This "white hat" and "black hat" nonsense was concocted by corporate computer security consultants, who of course know nothing about computer security and need to do something to justify their salaries. Most of the general public and especially corporate executives are paranoid and have a hard time believing that hackers aren't after their precious profits.

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    1. Re:Pointless Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just trying to stir up shit with Linux zealots...

      Naw, it's a Microsoftie looking for a raise!

  23. GNome = Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they did the same thing that Valve did and released a press release about the "intrusion" in order to push back release dates since they were falling back?

  24. On the other hand. by Rhesus+Piece · · Score: 2

    As much as not being able to run Gnome 2.6 today makes me want to sit on my bed and weep, I am really grateful that the Gnome team is more concerned with releasing a secure product than with releasing when they said they would. This is one of those advantages of non-commerical software that we always cheer about in action. Rock on.

    1. Re:On the other hand. by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Do you remember the Half Life 2 source code leak? They pushed back their release for exactly the same reasons, and they're closed source.

      Just because an open source company does something "nice" doesn't mean to say they did it because they're open source. It means absolutely nothing.

    2. Re:On the other hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pushed back their release because it wasn't anywhere even NEAR ready.

      The intrusion was an excuse, an a lousy one at that.

    3. Re:On the other hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off the crack pipe dumbass, the LINUX server using OPEN SOURCE services was hacked!!!!! How the fuck is it an advantage for the software???????? Any sysadmin would do the same if their server was hacked, so it is NOT AN ADVANTAGE to the open source group. (narrow minded twits)

      To many of the MS-Hater bandwagon kiddy group seem to hang in /. waiting for a chance to spread misinformation, and LIES about how suprior linux is, yet play down any hacks and viri that are a threat to their pet OS...(and then they will turn around and point a finger at MS and claim that MS is withholding information or lieing should the data not be what they wanted to see and hear)

  25. Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This event immediately brought thoughts of Half-Life 2 to mind.

    I bet in a week the source code for GNOME 2.6 will be all over the Internet, free for anyone to take, read, and use!

  26. Dude - by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
    ...not to cheer on another man's misfortune or anything, but having the CC# of a guy who has more disposable income than the GDP of most countries?

    "...yes, General? I'd like to buy that slightly used supersonic fighter you have idling in your hangar, please. Payment? No problem, dude; you take Amex, right?"

    OTOH, you're right to a point, though wouldn't "trying to help" involve some sort of notice to the victim?

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  27. Goes to show, Open Source != always secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With all these break-ins on open source servers, it should finally let people see that just having open source software on a server does not make it more secure. The apache.org site was hacked because of an insecure default install of a web application and MySQL. Even the docs said not to leave it that way. If 1 in 100,000 people make such mistakes, popularity created more places to get in.

  28. Re:It's just a hoax by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    I don't believe it true in this particular case, but we really require a term for the general case of attempting to use strange/illegal incidents for advertising.
    I submit "Paris Hilton Device" as a candidate.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  29. Don't look at the source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you look at the compromised source to GNOME, you may not be able to contribute to uh, well, hmm,

    nevermind.

  30. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No post with "M$" in the body contains anything of value.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Including parent.

  31. Gnome website hosted on IIS server? by goldspider · · Score: 1, Funny
    "GNOME 2.6 was scheduled to be released sometime today, however after evidence of possible intrusion on the web server, the release has been delayed by one week, until March 31st."

    Something's not right here. Does this mean that the Gnome website is hosted on an IIS webserver? I mean, we all know that only IIS servers are insecure.

    Or could it be that system security depends more on diligent admins than software?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Gnome website hosted on IIS server? by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      Or could it be that system security depends more on diligent admins than software?

      Can't be. We all know that anyone who runs Linux has perfect security!

      What's funny is the lame self delusion - if there were 5 Linux compromises a week to one IIS they woudl simply claim that the IIS ones are unreported :)

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    2. Re:Gnome website hosted on IIS server? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      we may never know if they are right or not as the very act of investigating will break the investigation:)

      no os or server package is 100% airtight, but some have more default leaks then others...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  32. Could it be?? by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could it be that having competant, diligent system admistrators is more important than using the "right" server platform?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Could it be?? by arcanumas · · Score: 1
      Could it be that having competant, diligent system admistrators is more important than using the "right" server platform?

      It could be, but only because you trust the competant administrators to choose the right platform.

      Unless you believe that an administrator who is competent can make a patch against a binary IIS, when no official solution exists. (If he could , then he is an uber-hacker. Not an administrator)

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    2. Re:Could it be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache runs under Windows too you know ;) Though it is often the case where company policy or legacy reasons requires that IIS be used, in which case the admin has to make do with what they have (and how loud the screams are is inversely proportional to the IIS version).

    3. Re:Could it be?? by arcanumas · · Score: 1
      Apache runs under Windows too you know ;)

      Yeah i know. But it is a perversity of nature , don't you think?

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  33. Mod parent up, plz... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
    (re: knowing when the break-in occurred)This is true, but you can guess fairly well if going to backup (just look for the same things in the backup that alerted you to the compromise in the first place.)

    You are absolutely right that the admin has to apply any missing patches and modifications to the system that may not have been in place on the compromised server. My thanks for bringing that up

    (although, in some cases, no patch will save you... esp. if it was an inside job, or someone got hold of the passwords. but that's the bitch about security - the paranoia never stops digging deeper :) )

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Mod parent up, plz... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      -----
      but that's the bitch about security - the paranoia never stops digging deeper :)
      -----
      I started out college in '93 as a comp. eng. major. I switched to chemistry because I wanted to keep computers as a hobby and not pollute them with the need to make money. While I sadly watched the Amiga die and the world move to Microsoft I accepted it as a result of giving up computers as an academic pursuit. I never learned C, I never built any *nix/*bsd OS for my home PC, I wistfully used NeXT in the school labs.

      In 1998, my Win95 was backdoored through an IRC exploit. I noticed that things were wrong but couldn't fix them. I had no Win95 install CD. The McAfee Vscan provided by the school couldn't finish a scan without crashing. Apps began crashing. My audio card would work and then not work and then work and then not work. The hard drive never quit grinding away. Bad blocks began to show up two or three at a time, then fifteen or twenty, and then I'd be on the road to get a new hard drive. Then my own Win98SE cd. Then a new motherboard. The new motherboard shipped with theral sensors and BIOS thermal monitoring. I haven't seen the thermal monitoring screen in the BIOS since the first Windows BsoD and I've tried nearly every BIOS rev. FIC provides for the PA-2013.

      I'd finally had enough. I resolved to give up on Microsoft sometime in late '99 and dove into Linux. My first install was Debian 2.2. There was an rpc.statd remote root vuln. in Debian 2.2. The box was rooted within 2 weeks of being up and online.

      I now have two systems. Both of them run Win98SE cleanly. Both of them run Debian Sid cleanly. Both of them run a modified LFS cvs from early this year cleanly.

      The security paranoia may never quit digging deeper but once you hit the bottom you know where you stand.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  34. Re:Correlation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, you are absolutely right! After all, they gotta make them deadlines or make up stupid excuses so that they can keep people interested and make them buy their product... oh, err, never mind!

    Seriously: this part of what I like about OSS - no forced deadlines that are driven by profit concerns. If it takes an extra wreek to make sure it's right, so what?

  35. That MCSE line was a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That MCSE line was a joke, right? Please! PLEASE tall me you were joking. I have 8 years of experiance, and have seen MCSE certs that couldnt install a floppy, install windows, adn had no idea what TCP/IP was used for.

    1. Re:That MCSE line was a joke, right? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who passed MCSE who swore he didn't study anything, and most of the questions on the test he answered with "Buy more hardware" or the equivalent (more hard drives, more RAM, cluster machines, buy a tape backup, etc...)

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re:That MCSE line was a joke, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a guy who got an EE degree without studying much. I guess that means that all EE degrees are worthless, too, right?

  36. Re:It's just a hoax by hitmark · · Score: 1

    as in someone is trying to at the very last moment before release to sneak some backdoor or trojan into the code? it would be a bit strange to find a part of gnome listening on a high port for traffic. most of that code does not need to work as a server...

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  37. Thanks to mainstream media oversimplifications... by thepeete · · Score: 0

    This will all come out as

    Gnome webserver security breach + gnome open source => open source insecure...

    Another FUD is born

    --
    My Karma is so low that even my own postings are beyond my current threshold
  38. Oh no! by Throtex · · Score: 1, Redundant

    They've hacked in and gotten the source code! For free!

  39. Re:Kudos to the GNOME sysadmin team for getting ow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    careful now, you`ll have to make another "LOL I AM TEH FUNNY BUT I NEVER GOT LAID" karmawhore post if you keep using up your wanky little "mod points"

  40. Re:Correlation? by ahadsell · · Score: 1
    In my experience, deadlines are rarely driven directly by profit concerns.

    In the case of proprietary software development, the driving force is generally that promises have been made to (current and future) customers. Breaking those promises can hurt the customer's perception of the reliability of the development organization. Perhaps more importantly, it can hurt the managers' and developers' self-image.

    It seems to me that these motives would also apply to an Open Source project. After all, no one wants to be thought of as unreliable.

    That said, I also suspect that none of the above applies in the present case. A one-week delay, in a multi-month project, when there is an obvious reason for concern over trojans, seems completely reasonable to me.

  41. For the tinhat owners. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that conspiracy theorists on Slashdot didn't blame gnome team of faking the intrusion because they could not meet the deadline for the release.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  42. Re:Intrusion? I thought linux was secure! by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

    There is a differece between more secure and absolutly secure.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  43. It's called hypocrisy by bonch · · Score: 1

    Embrace hypocrisy if you want, but then don't whine when nobody takes you or your community seriously.

    1. Re:It's called hypocrisy by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Nope. Hypocrisy is professing to believe in something in which you do not believe. Inconsistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for hypocrisy.

      This isn't hypocrisy, it's just inconsistency.

    2. Re:It's called hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every community and/or society I know of embraces some degree of hypocrisy.

  44. Re:Linux on the desktop? Fair question, on topic. by Theatetus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, dumbass, the difference is that closed-source companies keep it a secret (or doesn't know in the first place) when their servers are compromised while Gnome and Debian are very up-front about it.

    If you think this kind of thing hasn't happened to Microsoft, Oracle, etc., you're wrong. They just like to keep it quiet.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  45. a dumb cracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Choice quote from the ZDNet article - "a dumb cracker who probably didn't realise what they got into". (it's nice to know redhad linux can be hacked by a dumb cracker.)

  46. New features in 2.6? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Kind of offtopic to the security breach (but not to the release of 2.6 itself), but.. is there a list of changes/updates anywhere?

    I'm curious as to what improvements have been made.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  47. It's justified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that if anyone has a right to display the monetary greed of Microsoft (M$), it's me.

    I run a website (oldos.org) dedicated to old computers. We used to offer downloads of DOS, Windows, etc. Old operating systems no longer available for sale anywhere. Did Microsoft care? No. We recieved a cease-and-desist order -- hence why you see no illegal downloads on the site today.

  48. Compare to Savannah breakin by greppling · · Score: 1

    I don't want to complain, I am glad that the Savannah team (consisting mostly of volunteers) handled the breakin there with great care and responsibility. But still we have to give extra credits to the team handling the gnome servers for bringing up the services so quickly. (At savannah, it took more than a month until CVS write access was reenabled.)

  49. Impatient bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which one of you dirty bastards couldn't wait 1 day for the source? Whoever is running GNOME 2.6 right now, stand up and speak! Impatient Bastard!

  50. Re:Dumb Cracker? - Not Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just fits in with previous /. articles which mentioned that Linux distributions were just as insecure as Windows.

    This wouldn't happen if Linux were were more than just a kernel. The majority of these repetitive distributions just need to die..die..die.. There is a need for a real Linux operating system which isn't just a hodge-podge of snips, snails and puppy-dog tails.

    Maybe once the linux community gets past their egos some real development in this arena can commence.

  51. HE'S RIGHT, MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Microsoft (and any other proprietary company) has nothing to do with this topic. Too bad you're flamebait now...

  52. So.. even Linux servers can be hacked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was a IIS server that got hacked, everyone here would be ranting and raving about how insecure MS products are. Instead, they praise the admins for their fast recovery of the server.

    It seems that it's not just Microsoft that is getting hacked these days.

    I bet this does not show up on slashdot!

  53. Probably a SCO advocate by cgreuter · · Score: 2, Funny

    This sort of thing is exactly what I'd expect from freedom-hating closed-source advocates. No doubt, some SCO fan went and did this in retaliation for the Linux developers' attempts to preserve their intellectual property rights.

    There is a dark side of the commercial software community and now we are beginning to see it emerge.

    (Warning: this article contains sarcasm.)

    1. Re:Probably a SCO advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done. Very well done. Good thing I saw this because I'm browsing at +5 for Funny, -5 Everything Else (a.k.a. Boring).

  54. Where is the code? by ajs · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does anyone have a copy of the code that was taken from the site? Any chance of the KDE developers being able to reverse engineer some of the Gnome features from it?

    Oh right, *open* source software.... ;-)

  55. Re:Linux on the desktop? Fair question, on topic. by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1
    No, dumbass, the difference is that closed-source companies keep it a secret (or doesn't know in the first place) when their servers are compromised while Gnome and Debian are very up-front about it.

    So you say that because FOSS projects let us know of security breaches, that means that somehow they are more secure? If their security is breached, it does not matter whether they tell someone or not, the fact remains that their security has been breached. Of course being a FOSS project you will try to spin it that this actually means that they are somehow more secure. But if the MS servers had been compromised, you would be ranting about how that proves commercial software is less secure.

    Go back to your temple, zealot. Its people like you with totally implausible arguments that makes all users of FOSS look bad

  56. Re:Linux on the desktop? Fair question, on topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should learn to read, or at least practice your comprehension skills, the GP, said nothing like what you said.. you could be a Troll I suppose.

  57. Required Slashdot reading list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get modded down for posting a troll, then get modded up for posting a whore 2 posts later.

    I salute you sir

  58. Re:Linux on the desktop? Fair question, on topic. by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1
    You should learn to read, or at least practice your comprehension skills, the GP, said nothing like what you said.. you could be a Troll I suppose

    My my, we are touchy today! Cannot understand perhaps why people do not switch to Linux while you belt them with your Linux manual? I did not and still do not care what the GP said, otherwise THAT is the post I would have replied to. In this instance, I replied to YOUR post, which was about SERVERS (perhaps you are a troll, the GP was about Linux on the desktop - you were totally off-topic).

    If you want people to use Linux, take some advice. Firstly, stop frothing at the mouth, it scares people away. Telling someone they are stupid for not doing something is not a good way to convert them. An unsecured, unpatched *nix box will be just as vulnerable as an unsecured Win box, so get off your high horse. And a big one, never assume someone is less intelligent than you just because they dont agree with everything you think. I can guarantee you there are plenty of people with far higher intelligence who will see the world totally differently.

    Oh, and accusing people of trolling just because they dont try to convert the world to FOSS is rather immature.

  59. Re:Linux on the desktop? Fair question, on topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, you are a Troll. Have a nice day Troll.