Slashdot Mirror
AP Story on Linux and W2k Cracking Contests
StirFry writes "The AP Wire has this story about the whole crack Windows 2000/crack LinuxPPC situ. And they even use and define the term 'crackers'. Best bit:
'But a log posted on the computer showed at least nine crashes caused by problems with Microsoft software, not the weather. Questioned about that,
the spokeswoman said the computer was expected to be off line for some periods of time ``as customer feedback is assessed and integrated into the
system.'' " Apparently the Linux box is still standing.
What ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Bad Karma breeds Bad Karma.
Etc.
Yeah, sure, it's FUD - but somehow, I don't seem to lose any sleep when the FUD-kings get a taste of their own medicine.
nth post!
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Services froze.
For three hours this morning. 6:04-9:20. No guest page entries.
Not delivering web pages when all it does is deliver web pages is pretty close to a crash.
Seems to ignore the real problem. How much is it not serving pages?
And if the logs can be sent to another computer (perhaps over a second interface), why does one need to stop the computer to analyze logs?
What we should look for here is MS' marketing message: We can't cope with managing one machine receiving high traffic while enduring a little foul weather? We hired tech people who can't configure a server to stay up reliably. We are unprepared.
Yeah, I agree. Some people at MS are going to lose their jobs over this. Perhaps then they'll be able to come in from the cold...
>The Win2K box crashed once (but it had reboots and service restarts). In case you people at Microsoft didn't know,reboots and service restarts *ARE* considered computer crashes by most people.....
Before the Open Source police scorch my mailbox, the $1000+ MSDN subscription is paid for by my company, so it's free to me. I ran Linux when I was at school, back in the day.
-Barry
This is my .sig....or something
A software related crash means W2K died. A hardware related crash means the computer died. Given that it was a software crash, it would lead one to believe that with all the resources Microsoft has at their disposal and all the "experts" that they have working on this problem and that it's their own product that W2K must really suck bad. Frankly, how can a small multi-thousand dollar business successfully base their operations off of a product that the multi-billion dollar software developer can't get to work themselves? If it's just a simple log overrun - then why didn't they just clear it, enlarge the buffers and get the system back up? Why is it repeatedly dying? I'm sure as hell not going to trust my business to such software - beta and alpha software under a development version of Linux is stabler than that.
I think the windows is down now. I get a network error when trying to connect to it. The linuxppc site must be getting hammered pretty bad, but I was able to connect to it after like 10 tries.
Ok, yeah, I get ping response from windows now, but looks like their site is completely down.. I can still get through to linux's, and they look to be running fairly heavy loads.. I'm sure he'll post the numbers later..(unlike microsoft who hasn't posted anything worthwhile)
you should be writing for Segfault.org Shoeboy!
(or are you? I must admit I haven't been over
there for awhile...
-matt
This story is good enough to make it on degfault.org
_I_ have a Power Mac 9500 running linuxppc! :) :) :) ;)
Coooool
Getting one will cost you under a grand, somewhat more to trick it out with lots of RAM and stuff. Is it upgraded with, say, a 200Mhz 604e like mine, or is it the original 132mhz 604 running it?
9500 has 12 ram slots, 6 PCI slots, and two entire plain SCSI busses built right in. Whee! Now if I had lots more drives I could actually start using it to its capacities.
I take it the linux 9500 has been handling slashdotting gracefully? That's very interesting to know.
Final note- the power supply on these kicks ass. I've had brownouts knock my (separate, wall-wart powered) modem offline and make the monitor hiccup and not even cause the powermac to blink. So the linux box up against W2K is probably even better at being hit by lightning
Thank you for wishing me a better life as I enjoy opening documents and not having to worry about viruses. I enjoy a better life without rebooting and downtime every time I wish to install something. Thank you for understanding.
Pass the hat: buy a UPS for MS. 8^)
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That old lightning storm attack never fails... must have taken a hell of a lot of work by the hackers though.
Why shouldn't it coun't. If i am running a production system, it should not go down for any reason. I'm sure MS has the knowledge to setup a Win2K box properly. It must come down to my second pet peive of Windows, you have to reboot to change anything; number one being that it crashes so often.
The Linux box, on the other hand, has had services turn on and off but it remains up and strong. They are actually turning on services until someone cracks one (if that happens).
my 2 cents
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Reboot? Crash? What's the difference? Its all downtime to me. So much for increased stability. That's what you get for selling yourself to closed source.
I wish reporters would read the fsck'ing logs. The Win2K box crashed once (but it had reboots and service restarts).
I still wouldn't consider that acceptable for the small amount of time that server has been up. If Microsoft is going to issue a challenge, then they should have done their homework and had that server ready to handle anything conceivable including power outages and SYN flood attacks.
Once again, the anti-MS FUD spreads....
Oh please, the amount of MS favored (if not outright sponsored) FUD outweighs any anti-MS FUD by several orders of magnatude.
The double standard that the industry, Slashdot and the media has with Microsoft is sickening.
Yes, it is, the media is still far too biased towards Microsoft. And as long as Microsoft is one of the largest advertising dollar spenders, that probably won't change. What is (pleasantly) surprising is that there is still enough journalistic integrity out there that any news unfavorable to Microsoft ever gets reported.
Why can't we get back to doing what's important: improving people's lives through software/hardware?
I wish that Microsoft couldn't be described by replacing 'improving' with 'controling' above.
Linux has improved my life, my life would be greatly improved if I didn't ever have to deal with the agony resulting from Microsoft software. I've managed to get rid of most of it, but I still occasionally have to deal with it at work.
I tried to read the log-but I can't get in.
Furthermore, a reboot or a service restart is, in a production box, exactly the same as a crash. If a service stops working, it's the same as crash, as far as the user is concerned. A web server that cannot serve webpages is USELESS. A ecommerce site that cannot present a catalog or take a transaction is more that useless-it loses customers. Why is it that this wonder-fscking-ful operating system of yours hasn't been able to show me a page since tuesday..
-flips over, checks w2ktest-still dead-
-checks crackppc, sees this in log-
>Aug 7 1999 11:38AM CDT:
>Machine up 3 days. 0 min. Well this is >ridiculous now isn't it.
This lousy PowerMac 9500-a 18 month old box, has been beaten on for 3 days, is showing more services that the win2k box, and hasn't died yet.
Hasn't had a service that needed to be restarted yet.
Hasn't had a reboot yet.
Oh yeah-hasn't been broken into yet, either.
This isn't FUD. This is simple fact. www.windows2000test.com has shown that Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0 are not suitable for production use. So far, it seems that LinuxPPC is much closer to ready that Win2k.
So, why don't you go tell Bill that his OS ain't ready-and why don't you get back to work and fix the problems that Win2k has?
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Anyone interested in slowing down the win2000 server, an cheap/easy way to do it is to go to this url: http://pages.hotbot.com/und/spjohn/gowin.html It automatically reloads the win2k guest book page every 5 seconds (only works with netscape) To make sure it isn't just reloading the page from the cache go to Netscape-Edit-Preferences-Advanced-Cache and set 'Document in cache is compared to document on network' to Everytime. Then it should connect to the server every time to get the page.
Nothing's dumbed down about it. The new installer is clearly aimed at mac users. Otherwise, YDL is just a copy of LinuxPPC R5/1999. Not a great one at that.
Check it out. The stoy made the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_0_4_40185_00.html (free account required)
if you need something like this to work yourself up over, i feel sorry for you.
this is just another in a long line of publicity stunts that MS is trying to pull off. remember "scalability days" (i think that's what they called it)? terraserver? now this cracking test?
it's astounding that people have such short memories, but that's the way things works. each of these three displays fizzled at first, then they got swept under the carpet. the problem is that if it's a win for MS, it's a _big_ win because they can market the hell out of it. if not, somehow they make everybody forget about it. (maybe they have one of those memory-eraser things from "Men In Black" - heck, all those billions of R&D have to go somewhere. i don't thing they've ever actually pulled a product out of R&D, it's all copying/embrace & extend).
anyway, some things:
1) the contention that it's beta software -- if it's beta, then don't expose it to a huge media frenzy. if you jump into the fire without an asbestos suit, you're going to get burned.
2) this is such an invalid test, i wouldn't be surprised if was being administered by mindcraft. i mean, come on, who thinks they're actually going to see any valid test results from this. i feel sorry for anybody who actually takes this test to be a test and not a stunt.
3) the volume of attempts on NT vs the LinuxPPC box have got to be skewed so horrendously that this comparison shouldn't even be brought up by any respectable reporter without finding out what that difference is and reporting it.
I can understand the logs filling the system up, but it can't even go a day? What are they putting into these logs? Images? And why can't the server logs be shunted off to a remote file-server? Come on, this is supposed to be multi-billion dollar Microsoft's flagship Operating System and their own techs and their own resources can't keep the system up for more than a day at a time - and when it's down, it's down for hours. Why, then, is free LinuxPPC on cheap hardware still up and running, even after millions of attacks. Why then, with more processes and the publisher actually giving out the root password and with telnet available, is it just peachy and happy with no break-in and no failure. This has put Microsoft's billions to shame - and rather than be honest about it, Microsoft has chosen to lie about it. Who do they think they're fooling? Is their view of their customers (whom Bill had on occasion called thieves) so low that they think they'll buy into that? "Oh, Microsoft's experienced techs couldn't get W2K couldn't do a single task for more than a few hours, I think I'll base my mission critical apps on it and put the success of my business in their obviously capable hands. After all, I am paying for support, and I do pay a lot of money for their bug fixes...they must know what they're doing." NOT...
that's what they get for testing out software that's not even finished yet
Are you kidding? There is zero chance that they are having weather-related problems that would cause a server to go down. I can understand a breach of connectivity, but this is Microsoft... they probably have UPSs.
Dear Microsoft:
I want an operating system that can run under significant load without crashing. Until you can produce that, you can kiss my assessment.
Sincerely,
dave
---
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Please, don't use automatic log clearing. *BAD* idea if you'd like to know how crackers got into a system, or even tried to.
Some would rather have a box go down, but be able to analyze the results, than let a cracker attack it and then be able to hide the results even if he failed to get full admin rights.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
...but the weather here on Tuesday and Wednesday was spectacular. At some points the lightning bolts were coming so fast and furious that instead of hearing individual blasts of thunder, they were coming down in a continuous roar that never faded out. Scary, exhilarating, exciting, and my power never went out. We NEVER get weather like this in Seattle - supposedly over 1000 bolts touched down Tuesday night alone!
This is no apology, though - 9 unscheduled non-weather related downs, and they blame it on the weather? Morons.
InThane
Just checked in on http://crack.linuxppc.org. It's getting quite a few hits. I love the one status update though:
:) D'oh!
Aug 6 1999 part 4 12:38AM CDT:
At a rate of 2 million packets per hour/ someone appears to be using a brute force method to guess the passwords. Does this kind of attack count? Unfortunatly, they are trying to telnet in as root
Gotta love it...
Once they started taking money for it, it stopped earning any slack for being "beta". Or isn't this the version they were "selling"?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I have to admit I love the new typing wizard. Sure, I have to go through 4 dialog boxes for each character, but I don't have to leave my hunched down in the chair, semi-comatose position. All praise the wizards of Redmond.
"Why pay to get an operating system that's not going to work as good, when you can get one that works for free that's better?" he asked in a telephone interview.
The Microsoft spokeswoman called such comments "just speculation." '
Hello? Are we speculating the crashes of Microsoft's flagship OS that they put up for the world to see? Are we speculating that a multi-billion dollar company can't get it's own product to work right on their own computers with their own experienced techs - even if it's just to run a single program on a single port serving basic pages with little or no cgi or scripting? Are we speculating that they expect lesser companies to perform critical tasks with less resources and expertise than Microsoft while Microsoft can't do the job themselves. If the W2K were a functional server, millions would have been lost during it's down time. And are we speculating that a cheaper computer running a free operating system is still up and running after a constant barrage of attacks with NO problems and with many more processes up and running, including telnet? HA. No - HA HA HA! No - Bwah ha ha ha, chortle, ha ha ha, snort, ha ha ha..... I'm sorry but those fanatics that insist that the sky is blue are just speculating. Ha ha ha, snort.... This is even better than the Win98 crashing on Bill - even better than the pie in his face! Ha ha ha, I can't help it, it's just too funny. The way they are lying and decieving us, actually believing that we hang on to every word they say as Gospel - Ha ha, snort.... My sides hurt - stop it....
Sounds like alot of good linuxppc publicity, though I kinda feel that the distro is 'dumbed down' a bit for old mac users new to linux.
I'm gunna get my hands on TurboLinux for PowerPC, it seems like it would be more in my arena. Or possibly Debian. I really wanna try out Yellow Dog.
Anyone know of any other Distros for PowerPC?
-Ben
bensmith@biz1.net
Am I the only one who thinks what M$ is doing is a total ploy on the whole hacker/cracker/unix community? Why the hell should we help them to make their beta software more stable when it's released? Note to Microsoft: Release your code to your customers, give us the IP's and *THEN* we'll go after them, I'm not going to spend my time on their servers so they can release a better product!!!! Just another fsck'ing example that their programmers arnt up to snuff, so they revert back to our community to help them...
Try:
HEAD / HTTP/1.1^M
Host:www.windows2000test.com^M
^M
According to HTTP/1.1 standard you MUST include Host header in the request.
Is the Linux box software still in Beta? Like the Win2k box?
For some reason when Free Software bugs come up on SlashDot, BETA or PRERELEASE is always the excuse.
Just something to think about...
NT is not garbage, it does some things quite nicely, unfortunately crashing is considered a product "feature" by MS, and not a "flaw." But who cares, this Linux thing is a fluke...... isn't it???
It seems that Linux is winning this round against Windows. When Mindcraft did those benchmarks, those were under controlled conditions where the MS guys could tweak to their hearts desire and take advantage of what they knew would work right. The problem with the test was that it simulated network usage which is unreal when you compare it to a regular server hooked up to the Internet. Here we finally get a test of real server usage and Microsoft seems to be losing on this benchmark. I hope the media picks up on this just as it did on Mindcraft so that it can be said that just because Windows may transfer crazy amounts of information better than Linux, it doesn;t mean its a reliable server for hosting services on the Internet.
right NOW!!! MICROSOFT is king of quality software! Linux is useless cause you cant get AOL on it! AOL invented the INTERNET they are KING OF IT. PS- dont be callin me a god damned tr0LL for tellin the tr00th.
Use d.net to crack passwords and you have a real purpose :)
I saw it more as Microsoft trying to tap a little bit of the Bazzar for debugging Win2k
I saw it as Microsoft trying a publicity stunt, and getting out-maneuvered by the LinuxPPC guy.
I also spotted this article about a "Hacker's Lab" that allows crackers to work their way up to something like a "black belt" in cracking, by undertaking a series of canned cracks. It might be cool, might be lame, but it's kind of funny.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
People don't seem to understand why I hate Microsoft so much. They always insist its the hardware or user problem. Bad motherboards, network cards, or a clueless administrator. Well, if that's the MS way of putting the blame on perfectly good resources, they need to wake up. Seems like when you deal with NT, you make a deal with the devil and have hell to pay when things go south...
LinuxPPC 1999 (R5) dumb? Not at all. They turn off a couple of daemons by default and have a nice little X installer to simplify things for general users. Hell we have a pretty installer for the MacOS X Server and its as far from dumb as you can get. LinuxPPC is about as good as it can get. They've done a hell of a job or getting things out the door and into our hands. They are always quick to help solve problems too. If Jason and the rest of the crew were here right now I would definetly buy them a round of beers. They've worked their asses off and deserve it. Keep up the great work guys!
I seriously doubt that w2k will last even half as long as LinuxPPC
---Got Coffee?---
Agreed. But they still could have the logs dumped to back up THEN cleared the orginals
The lightning excuse was the worst one I've ever heard.
Alright -- yes, there has been some pretty strange weather this week in Seattle (I work in downtown, and I live just north of downtown), but I work with 3 computers all of which have been working without problems.
Ever hear of a surge protector, M$?
Apparently not.
Bernie
Woulda rocked if they had put up this contest *right* before that big recent IIS hole was discovered. Heh...getting a shell through a static web server still cracks me up.
Yeah, I still remember the Comdex crash. And M$ never fixed the bug that caused the crash before shipping it. Which says a certain something about M$. If something like that happened to...say...Red Hat, you can be *darn* sure that they'd make sure that whatever it was wasn't going to happen again before they shipped the software.
Of course it's handling all the load on it gracefully. Still make a *darn* nice second Linux box. Could set it up as a firewall or something...maybe a print/file server in your house.
I had to post relevant this forward email going around...
Yeltsin, Clinton and Bill Gates were invited to have dinner with
God. During dinner God told them, "I need three important people to
send my message out to all people. Tomorrow I will destroy the earth."
Yeltsin immediately called together his cabinet and told them, "I have
two really bad news items for you: [1] God actually exists, and [2]
tomorrow He will destroy the earth."
Clinton called an emergency meeting of Congress and told them,
"I have good news and bad news: [1] God really exists, and [2] the bad news
is tomorrow He's destroying the earth."
Bill Gates went back to Microsoft and happily announced, "I have
two fantastic announcements: [1] I am one of the three most
important people on earth, and [2] The Y2K problem is solved."
Managers challenge developers to get work done using Windows 2000
SEATTLE In a move that sent tremors of fear through the programming community, project managers across the country have begun challenging their developers to write code on Microsofts new flagship operating system, Windows 2000. The challenge has not been well publicized - most developers only find out about it after being shown a box running Windows 2000 and being encouraged to get to work. The prize for victory is continued employment. So far nobody has successfully completed the challenge, although there have been several notable failures.
"It was awful," complained unemployed programmer Greg Andrews, "I couldn't do anything. I slipped further and further behind schedule until my PM decided I wasn't up to the challenge and gave me the axe."
Several industry analysts blamed these failures on one of the ground rules laid out in the challenge - PMs refuse to allow hardware upgrades for W2K users despite the fact that it requires at least 256Mb of ram and a PIII-500 for reasonable performance. The analysts speculate that the challenge could still be completed if not for a few 'features' Microsoft included in order to make the challenge more, well, challenging. First off, is the extensive use of wizards, wizards are programs that require the user to navigate through a dozen dialog boxes in order to change even the most trivial of settings. Secondly, W2K makes extensive use of MMC a specialized tool designed to aggravate users accustomed to keyboard shortcuts.
"We aimed these inovations at administrators mainly," admitted a Microsoft spokesperson, "but we're pleased to note that all users of W2K have found their productivity reduced by these tools. Wizards and MMC are part of our Zero Administration Windows initiative whereby we make administration of windows such a nuisance that nobody tries it."
Still, many developers are hopefull that they will be able to complete the W2K challenge. Observered one developer, "I'm three weeks behind schedule right now, but I just discovered that if I disable the networking services and everything that depends on them, I free up just enough memory to allow me compile my 2500 line program in under 10 minutes. I might still have a job next week."
--Shoeboy
I wonder what the conversation at M$ was like just before the test.. I imagine it went like this. MSperson1: I heard there was a huge storm coming. MSperson2: I think this would be a great time to do that test server thing MSperson1: I don't know.. there's supposed to be alot of lightning. MSperson2: Yeah, it'll be great for PR, because we'll be able to say that the servers can stay running through even the most severe conditions.. MSperson1: Wow, what a great idea, and then on the W2K box, we can have a good photo of the storm. MSperson2: I think we won't put power conditioners or UPS's on the system, because W2K is so great, it doesn't require stuff like that. MSperson1: What a great idea. let's do it!!
The MS W2K challange is like letting
OJ try on the glove! Bad move.
Rather than "if it doesn't fit, you must aquit"
it should be "if starts to crash, dont spend your cash"
I wonder what the conversation at M$ was like just before the test.. I imagine it went like this.
MSperson1: I heard there was a huge storm coming.
MSperson2: I think this would be a great time to do that test server thing
MSperson1: I don't know.. there's supposed to be alot of lightning.
MSperson2: Yeah, it'll be great for PR, because we'll be able to say that the servers can stay running through even the most severe conditions..
MSperson1: Wow, what a great idea, and then on the W2K box, we can have a good photo of the storm.
MSperson2: I think we won't put power conditioners or UPS's on the system, because W2K is so great, it doesn't require stuff like that. MSperson1: What a great idea. let's do it!!
No shit, we got enough ups' on my work's server to power the city, not to mention the ones on individual PC's.
Yeah, we run novell here. We tried to impliment exchange server (so no-one would have to change e-mail clients), but, shit, all sorts of troubles. Groupwise (what we use now) has it's issues, but it works . . .
My next pet project: put a linux box on a novell based network. Should be fun . . .
thanks for the time
Dan
Maybe God decided to get into. And succeeded in cracking the system.
So is God the winner?
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Just for the record, I still haven't been able to access the MS box. By contrast, I have yet had to wait for the LinuxPPC box. Makes ya go "hmmmm."
That's cause there has been hype in the media for so long (one year) that the reporters are starting to understand what they are reporting.
Cause that site is down again!!!!
UhahahaahHAha!
I recently noticed how Win95 would make this rapid flashing thing during bootup, right after the screen that says...hmm, can't seem to remember exactly what it says. Hmpfh, I'll get back to that later. Right now I've got this irresistible urge to buy proprietary software'n'stuff... ... seem.. to remember.....
I'd say that I've experienced the same before.. but.. I can't
Insert mind here.
Or maybe even God wants to make sure Linux wins!
As always Microsoft is leading the way in and revolutionary methods of internet security. This is just the next level. Base on the simple idea that if a computer is crashed, it can't be hacked. I'm suprised that more companies aren't adopting this state of the art method.
God! I didn't even think of that. The thing we keep screaming at the media and Mindcrafties to address is STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY. It seems that this is the way these issues - qualities in Linux lacking in Winschmoze - will see light. And it was entirely by accident! ....And the hits just keep on coming....
Well, what did you expect? ;-)
The whole point of Beta testing is to find flaws and bugs so you CAN finish the software
I should dig out my statistics book, and count up how many usable characters there are for passwords... Then maybe time a login attempt from a fast connection... Hmm. Well, as long on the up side, I suppose you could run a mulitple attempts to login at once and cut the time needed down drastically. Anyone actually know what the right calculation is, and what the results are for number of possable passwords and potential time required is?
...the spokeswoman said the computer was expected to be off line for some periods of time ``as customer feedback is assessed and integrated into the system...''
I love it when marketroids encounter an unexpected directive. They seem to revert to their native dialect, marketspeak. I mean, c'mon - "feedback is assessed and integrated into the system?" What the hell does that even mean? She might as well have said "Beep. Marketshare. Assessment. Issue. Beep."
Some day, we may even need translators just to understand those guys. It'll be like that scene in Star Wars:
Uncle Owen: What I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of my marketing department.
C3PO: Marketroids! Sir -- My first job was programming apologists... very similar to your marketroids. You could say...
Owen: Do you speak technobabble?
C3PO: Of course I can, sir. It's like a second language for me...
Yeah, just like that.
To begin with, as several other Northwesterners have mentioned, the weather on the day of the Win2k crash test was incredible. My girlfriend was practically struck by a lightning bolt on her way across the 520 bridge and when I made it home my cats were shivering in a dark corner, terrified of the incessant thunder. Very odd weather. Perhaps the Almighty was displeased with Microsoft.
And secondly, do not even try to suggest that the tidal wave of 3l337 d000dz breaking themselves bodily against the walls of that Win2k box were in any way duplicated in the case of the LinuxPPC. Judging from the volume of vitriolic comments on /., just a single ping from each of the would-be crackers would have been enough to constitute a DoS attack. Everybody hates Microsoft. Very few people hate LinuxPPC. The savagery of the attacks bear no comparison to one another. -konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
>Aug 6 1999 01:15PM CDT: :)
:-)
>In response to the brute force attempt, we have
>decided to save him the trouble: linuxppc
I guess the flood of ignorant packets got boring.
The number of people you say are 'working on bug fixes and patches worldwide for Linux' is a rather uncountable number. Yes, that's by the nature of the development model it uses. But it's far fewer people than you imply. I would bet that less than 1 in 500 people using Linux these days has ever done more than rebuild the kernel source after a 'make xconfig'.
Some figures on the total number of different people who have submitted kernel patches would be in order. Plus maybe a list of the average number of people who have done so each month over the last six months.
I suspect it will end up being fewer individuals than are employed at Microsoft(~1) on Windows 2000.
PING crack.linuxppc.org (169.207.154.108): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=478 ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=243 ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=219 ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=190 ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=236 ms
^C
--- crack.linuxppc.org ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 16% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 190/273/478 ms
If you repeatedly request an ASP page that uses the Session object, and do not return the session cookie, ASP will start a new session for you on every request. The default timeout period is 20 minutes. This can be used to effectively stop a machine from serving any ASP pages, due to memory exhaustion. I tested it. It works. takes only 20,000 sessions to kill a 128MB server.
Seriously, what's with MSFT putting up a server without a decent UPS? I checked with some buds and they all have UPS and they just flickered the UPS lights a few times as they handled the lightning strikes.
So, no, this is NOT reasonable as an excuse. Operating a server, especially a web server, without a UPS in the Seattle region is sheer incompetence. A webmaster who did that without orders from above forcing him/her to not use a UPS would be fired.
'Nuff said!
Will in Seattle
No Linux isn't a fluke. It's a fairly stable operating system for a lot of people. It has it's admirable qualities.
Wether the much vaunted Open Source Development Model is a fluke is still a matter up for debate, of course. We'll see, and of course if it is "The One True Way (TM)" we can deal with it then. Right now it's somewhat of a religious crusade.
Name your version & run a test & it'll come back with similar results.
BTW, wasn't it supposed to be finished 2 years ago?
That was probably the best post I've seen yet.. and, I agree.. Notice that nobody posted on the W2k guestbook between 10:45am today and 11:18am..
I wonder what that was all about.. guess they were restarting again, because I couldn't access the site at all during that time.. oh.. wait.. no comments about it under the status page..
Why even post 'status' if you're not even going to update it so people can see what's going on?
One unignorable thing, though, is that this provides us with entertainment. Something to read. Something to chuckle about.
Who cares if the world forgets about it? I, for one, view Microsoft as a sort of permanent circus, and find it even more hilarious that respectable people actually take them seriously.
It is good there are companies like Microsoft out there to alleviate our boredom.
maybe they have one of those memory-eraser things from "Men In Black"
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Zzzzzt!
"What the heck is that thing?"
"I don't know, push the button"
Click
"I guess we'll never know, the batteries are dead."
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
Observered? Yikes. I meant Observed. All other spelling and grammar errors are intentional.
--Shoeboy
Check your sarcasm detector, I think you left it off.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Hypocrite. In one breath you say it never crashed on you and in the next you're suprised it would stay up for even a day. Ohhh, weird things happened when using a beta OS - how awful.
Why don't you check the site? It doesn't say that the server went down because of the power, it says it was unavailable because of router problems. Hmm, that wouldn't have anything to do with the sever would it.
Grow up. Microsoft hasn't destroyed anybodys life. You suck. There, feel better now?
What load? It had 6,000 people go to the site by mid day, hardly a high traffic site, a 486 could handle that kind of load. The Windows2000test site had 82,000 requests in 18 minutes at one point, and I'm sure it's getting hit harder all the time.
I don't think that is accurate... I think you can use the symbols too now, like !@#$%^&*() in your passwords, so that's another ten at least. So, maybe fingerd won't matter much if the password is creative enough.
rob@water:~/ $ wc file.txt
1 1 95 file.txt
rob@water:~/ $ more file.txt
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU
So, that's 95, and I just tested something, I can easily set a 10 character password, so... 10^95 potential password possabilities, assuming you stay under 10 characters.
Hmmm.... I just decided to change all my passwords to a really long string!
My life is boring because I find it amusing that yet again MS has found a way to stick their foot into their mouth? This doesn't have to be a "valid test" to be an amusing fact. I live and work in Seattle. I have been here for "the great storms". I work for the University of Washington Medical Center, where we know that downtime is measured by users, not logs. I also know that in spite of the fact that one of our facitilies was hit multiple times by lightning, we didn't lose server functions (but we *did* have lights flicker). The core of M$ can be defined by a service call that my boss had. USER - My fax modem is not working, I can connect using modem functionality, but cannot send or receive faxes. TECH - Oh yeah, we know all about this. Give me your number and I'll fax you a support doc. * 30 minutes later * LEVEL 1 MGR - Sorry that couldn't help you, what can I do for you? USER - My fax modem is not working, I can connect using modem functionality, but cannot send or receive faxes. LEVEL 1 MGR - Oh yeah, we know all about this. Give me your number and I'll fax you a support doc.
They just posted the root password: linuxppc that's badass!
For all the NT Admins breathlessly reading Slashdot to learn about The Opposition....
/etc/securetty file, and someone would have to be unusually braindead to add network ports to that file. (The normal procedure is to log in as a regular user, then 'su' to "root.")
This is a major "D'oh!" since most (all?) distributions are configured so that telnetd *won't* allow "root" to log in over the network. Knowing the root password and a couple bucks will still only get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. "Root" is only permitted to log into a system from ports listed in the
Bottom line: a brute force attempt to telnet in as "root" has absolutely no chance of succeeding. The fact that someone is trying it simply highlights their own ignorance.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Oh, some of us understand.
We shake our heads sadly and wish a better life for you, but we understand.
Cool! Can someone moderate this up a few points?
Will in Seattle
I can't make much since of that site... HackersLab. I was amped about geting my orange belt in ping bombing. Guess I need to hit the books first. ÀüÅõ. ½Ã ÄÄÇÅÍ ÃßôÇÏÙ æ±â.
Remember the Press Conference blue screen of death fiasco? Bill demonstrating 98 BETA's plug n pray usb support and it crashes. What did he say? "I guess thats why its still a beta"... DOH then W98 released and has had to be patched and re released like 95 did. The same shit will happen with W2k. What NOONE here seems to grasp is that any OS robust enough to handle all the various hardware and tasks we can throw at it is going to have problems here and there. The question becomes do you want an OS that you have to BUY the fixes for or do you just want to be able to scan the newsgroups and the dist's ftp to patch it up or add support for some new hardware? Do you want an OS that says well it should work with your equipment but if it doesn't your SOL untill we feel like developing/releasing a fix? Or, do you want an OS that outline right out.. this is what it works well with.. this is iffy... and this well.. good luck but check back later and it'll probably work... Geez....
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Haven't dropped by their site, but one wonders if they even have a load on it, with multiple groups of users sending different requests. Or is it just a one trick pony port 80 web server?
I don't blame them for shutting down telnet, if they expect hacks.
Will in Seattle
but it really seems to me that MS thought that it was asking for a nice gentlemanly round of fisticuffs w/ the crackers out there, but what it got instead was an alley fight. Quite a different thing when you're down and the fight doesn't stop.
Sure the weather must have been out-of-the-ordinary, but that really doesn't mean dick if you're serious about servers, at least in the real world outside of the MS campus.
Once again MS proves beyound a shadow of a doubt that it is basically a rank amature(sic) technology company that makes a Chinese fire drill look positively organized.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Not that this should devolve into a "My macho hardware has longer uptime than yours" thing, but it's just plain dumb to issue a public challenge when you're clearly not prepared even to support the event, much less the actual responses to the challenge.
The lights were flickering all evening at my place (in Seattle proper), and my UPS' kicked in several times. But none of the systems even hiccupped. One of the modems needed the power cycled after lightning hit a pole 1 block away (nice fireworks when the City Light transformer blew up), but for the most part, everything was as it should be. It just boggles me that my basement is better prepared for such events than the MS production server staging network.
Or maybe She-Who-Hurtles-Lightning just wanted to twist Bill's undies into a wee bit tighter bunch than they already were. Heh.
I think not...(*poof*)
You're right--it's easy for technology buyers to forget Microsoft's failure incidents. The best example IMHO is the security breach discovered a month or two ago that lets anyone, anywhere break into any NT server. Notice how the news sites don't give this bug the attention it deserves. Reporters need to say that such a breach left open is probably the worst thing that's ever happened to an "enterprise class" OS. Yes, other OS's have had incidents, but the bugs were fixed expeditiously. Microsoft, like the software they produce, keeps getting bigger and slower.
However, general attitudes appear to be shifting toward alternative operating systems because they are becoming viable. (To some degree, they always were viable, it's just that people weren't aware of them.) Hopefully the attitude shift is not temporary.
>Does Microsoft expect us to believe their server was down due to power outages? Haven't they ever heard of a UPS? Microsoft certainly can't claim they can't afford to put something nice like an APC 1400 on a server.
I'm from the southeast (where we know lightning) and a nearby strike or series of strikes will zap you as quick as if you did not have even a $5 surge suppressor. Used in a press release, the term "power outage" can mean a lot of things, from component failure due to lightning strikes to long term area blackouts.
>Does Microsoft really expect us to take them seriously as an enterprise-capable vendor if they would consider putting up a publicly accessable web server (even for a test) without putting it on a UPS?
About as seriously as someone who suggested an APC 1400 for enterprise-capable server protection. The APC 1400 is great for departmental servers that need to go down gracefully (I know, I have one), but an enterprise better have a standby UPS/generator setup, some serious power isolation, and lightning protection on the building(s). All of which is expensive, and not at all common in areas that don't get a lot of thunderstorms. Its use in a test like this is probably not justified.
Don't get me wrong, I think M$'s problems are hilarious for the negative PR they are buying, but lightning is a force than can only be diminished, not eliminated. Once bitten, it can take a while to find all the damage.
"...the spokeswoman said the computer was expected to be off line for some periods of time 'as customer feedback is assessed and integrated into the system...'"
/heck/ does that mean anyway? Customer feedback assessed and integrated? What, they're going to release a service pack for it (in several months) because so many people found it completely ridiculous?
;]
Perhaps I'm ignorant or merely excessively curious, but what the
IMHO, Microsoft just shot themselves in the foot again. Let's laugh at them and move on.
Can't sleep, the clowns will eat me...
Yeah, I had a chance to test my own copy of Windows 2000. The first thing I have to say about that is that it really sucked, it never crashed (BSOD) on me, but plenty of weird things happened that made me reboot. All I have to say is that Windows 2000 sucks. I am surprised that Microsoft even thought that it would stay up for even a day. Linux rocks windows, that's my 2 cents.
That is, are any of them not due to filled event logs, or very similar DoS's?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Now the feedback page is saying that the comments field is required. Duh; where do you think I typed in my comments. M$ doesn't know HTML or validation, methinks.
...it took them so long to turn on the syn attack filter.
q 142/6/41.htm.
.asp not .htm)
8/6/99 Events
9:20am - Router back up, traffic hitting site. SYN attack filter appears to be working. Receiving an average of 600 datagrams/sec, 100 fragments/sec.
9:00am - Reset TCP to handle SYN attacks. See http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/
Set Valid Retransmission Times Elapsed to 3 seconds
Set Enable Dynamic Backlog to 1 (enabled)
6:00am - All network traffic stopped. Router down.
The site seems much faster now. (The url in the log is wrong, its
Hmm that sounds more realistic, 5.19E19... Still would take a while to brute force it, even with a username.
I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but it's great to see that Linux reporting seems to be getting more and more accurate. You used to have to wince a lot at the misconceptions and errors that showed up in news articles about Linux, but this one summarized things well and I didn't see any glaring mistakes.
It's nice to see!
The sad thing about this is that it seems Microsoft has spent so much on Windows 2000 that they can no longer afford to a UPS to avoid things like power fluctuations.
Thats what you get when you let a marketing person field technical questions, "Umm, my kid put a peanut butter sandwich in the disk drive and it crashed. Therefore my kid is the winner of the contest."
Yeah but he tried requests conforming to HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/0.9 standards, too. According to the latest RFCs, and all RFCs on HTTP, when possible, you should always be backwards-compatible.
what I would like to be posted in the news is the fact that windows2000test has ONLY httpd running on port 80. That would not even make a practical server. The LinuxPPC server has enabled telnet to make it fair. Oh well, at least the story used the word 'crackers' correctly.
Well It's been really protected for the past 12 hours! I've been trying to take another crack at it and it appears to be down again! That's good security for sure! SubSolar
The average uptime before reboot onw www.windows2000test.com was 14.4 hours as of 12:00 lst night. This does not even count the nameserver problems, etc.
Kspett
Kevin "Cash Money" Spett
Ignore your rights and they go away.
Nah, just took a spare pokemon with an energy card.
Will in Seattle
Because you don't have infinite storage: the best you could possibly do is probably use a separate system, burning to write-once mass storage (separate and write-once to preserve integrity), and even then you'll run out of media. There is a fundamental compromise with any logging system.
You can either:
* Let the machine continue to run when you're out of log space. This means that either you cull the old log, or preserve it but nothing further is logged until the space problem is resolved. If you choose the latter, a malicious cracker can attack your machine, and then flood it with event-causing occurrences to erase logs of the attack; if the former, he simply switches the order.
Either way, it is going to be possible for a malicious cracker to act in a way that is *not* logged, which means that you will have a far more difficult time preventing a repeat attack -- or possibly even detecting such. For many, this is unacceptable.
* Or, you can shut down the machine so no lamer/cracker can do further damage to it, and you are ensured the ability to analyze the logs.
Since you cannot prevent a full DoS (e.g. simple packet floods. If you block those alleged originating networks, then you've lost some service. That's why the rules don't count DoS attacks.) anyway, some security guidelines require that the machine be shut down instead.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
ms
I think we should beat on that LinuxPPC box. I think they should open up DoS attacks also just to prove a point. They should open sendmail and ftp ports also. I mean they have posted the root password on the website already. That is pretty confident if you ask me.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
No Linux isn't a fluke. It's a fairly stable operating system for a lot of people. It has it's admirable qualities.
Dude, it was a joke.
Post less, think more.
I finally got through to w2k, and clipped from the status page:
8/6/99
9:00am - Reset TCP to handle SYN attacks, and rebooted.
8/5/99
1:00pm - Tuned IIS' performance options reset application protection to Medium, and rebooted.
8:54am - Changed IIS' application protection to Low and rebooted, site back up
8/4/99
6:58pm - IIS stopped sending pages. Restarted service.
6:00pm - Morning crash dump due to known bug in Rdr in our build, shutdown Workstation service
9:42am - Crash dump - investigating causes turns out to be Rdr erro
8/3/99
3:22pm - Network connections down due to router failure, possibly related to thunderstorms and power failures in the area
It looks like Micros~1 is reading from a BOFH excuse-of-the-day calendar as they struggle to tune their flagship product toward a state of adequacy. It will be interesting to see how many holes have to be opened up on the LinuxPPC system before it reaches a break-even point with w2k.
Hey that 604 chip is really well designed. It's a workhorse(awesome fp). Too bad they stopped development on it. Apple should have gone with the 604e rather than the G3.
It's not your father's Beta.
The term 'beta' has been dilluted, if not completely nullfied, by current industry actions. Commercial software these days never actually stops being developed. The progect just gets published and sold (sorry, 'licenced') to consumers; even with known "issues" (read: bugs). As a consumer, you hope that the software house you purchase products from is willing and able to put out fixes for these bugs at a, hopefully not-so, later time. Microsoft does it. Netscape does it. It's standard practice. Now, in a more development-centric environment (where Marketing doesn't control the progect) such as your favorite Open Source progect... "Beta" might actually mean "there's known bugs here that we want to fix before we say it is 'ready'".
Breathe in... release.
Microsoft's W2k progect is now in its final stages. They've released a "release candidate" to their testing public. I would hope this means they're pretty sure they are close to a finnished product. Baring any suprises the massive amount of testers might find... its close to a done product. MS says this product is stable. Shouldn't it be?
It's my party...
This is Microsoft's show. They're the ones who went for the publicity stunt. Let's not forget that MS, for the most part, are greatly skilled at PR. So if they didn't think W2K was ready... if they suspected that it was still buggy and 'beta'... why did they pull a stunt to bring attention to this fact? And, again, if they knew it was unstable why do they not simply state that the product is 'beta'?
An even better point is that Microsoft controlled the configuration of this test. They picked the hardware. They picked the software (including access to the world's best information source in the world on how to tweak a W2K installation- themselves). This was not some unskilled admin setting up a shaky configuration on obscure hardware. If MS, with their resources, can't keep W2K stable... who can?
I said it before - MS tried to pull a quick publicity stunt and got stung by it. Badly. "Beta" hardly explains this one away.
Hey! They even tried to put part of the blame on God!
> (maybe they have one of those memory-eraser things from "Men In Black" - heck, all those billions of R&D have to go somewhere. i don't thing they've ever actually pulled a product out of R&D, it's all copying/embrace & extend)
Heh. Could be, I recently noticed how Win95 would make this rapid flashing thing during bootup, right after the screen that says...hmm, can't seem to remember exactly what it says. Hmpfh, I'll get back to that later. Right now I've got this irresistible urge to buy proprietary software'n'stuff...
jcarr. People tend to use the same login everywhere. And root is _always_ blocked by default, you have to get in and su. BTW, look at the load average. This guy needs a faster pipe, it isn't even stressing the server enough.
I lived in Seattle for 4 years, and I only saw lightning once in that time!
1. Notice the difference in the challenges - Microsoft has problems and has hushed everything up. Actually, they've hushed everything up period - no reports on attempts, hits, etc... On the other hand - LinuxPPC has kept up an ongoing report on everything. Now, who do you want to do business with - someone who hides problems from you or someone who discloses everything? 2. LinuxPPC is running on an older computer and still handling 2 million hits an hour (more than Slashdot?) and still chugging happily along. That's with other processes going, telnet available, and other users logged on... Don't know what hardware the W2K was on, but reportedly, they only had one port open, no telnet, blah blah blah and they couldn't wait to start crashing. 3. Darn! Now I want to go out and buy a PowerPC with Linux on it - my wife is going to kill me... Guys, we don't have to bash Win32 - Microsoft does it good enough in the most embarrassing situations. Remember when Win98 crashed on Bill when he was giving a demostration? Now the W2K? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples (I thoroughly liked the Mac commercials criticizing Microsofts reliability). Very public. Linux has been out in the public and under close scrutiny and has had amply opportunity to cause embarrassment - but it hasn't. Even with "beta" software. (I get good performance out of alpha software, much less beta.) IBM threw together a cluster and popped in Linux (purchased only minutes earlier) for a large show - and it worked flawlessly. It seems every demo of Linux has gone well. And we typically load our computers down with tasks. These "benchmarks" that have been so pro-M$ and anti-Linux speak nothing of the real nature of Microsoft and their weak systems. Meanwhile, thousands of Linux servers plug away happily in mission-critical tasks with nary a critizism from the operators or the mucky-mucks upstairs. Linux loads so easily, and is almost set up on install with little configuration for performance serving. But God help you if your NT server crashes... You load that up then you have to point and click your way to oblivion and use expensive third party tools to get any kind of performance. Why should people be expected to put up with that headache?
Does Microsoft expect us to believe their server was down due to power outages? Haven't they ever heard of a UPS? Microsoft certainly can't claim they can't afford to put something nice like an APC 1400 on a server.
Does Microsoft really expect us to take them seriously as an enterprise-capable vendor if they would consider putting up a publicly accessable web server (even for a test) without putting it on a UPS?
Seems like some pretty lame attempts at PR spin to me. With what Microsoft pays for advertising and PR, they can certainly do better.
I wish reporters would read the fsck'ing logs. The Win2K box crashed once (but it had reboots and service restarts). Once again, the anti-MS FUD spreads.... The double standard that the industry, Slashdot and the media has with Microsoft is sickening. Why can't we get back to doing what's important: improving people's lives through software/hardware?
This link points to a yahoo page dedicated to linux that is updated nearly every day.
If Microsoft themselves weren't the cause for some of that reportedly intense weather. BillG: I summon you, lord of darkness and master of the regions of hell and keeper of the dark abyss. I summon you forth to do my bidding! Satan: Hi bill! What's up? BillG: Umm, we're having trouble with this contest thing, can you help us out? Satan: Sure thing old pal! KRACK! BOOM! THUNDER!
I hope to die peacefully in my sleep like grandpa, not screaming like his passengers.
I have to admit, that when this whole "crack my box!" contest started, I hadn't really thought about it as a Windoze vs Linux thing. I saw it more as Microsoft trying to tap a little bit of the Bazzar for debugging Win2k, and a Linux guy stealing the idea. But it seems that the press has picked up on it as a contest between OSen to see which is more secure - something I'm pretty sure the Boys in Redmond never intended. My hat is off to the LinuxPPC dude - he managed to out-Mindcraft Microsoft! Hey Billy, it appears we can play the FUD game too. :)
I would like to see people FIRED for blaming the weather/ hardware whatever. The project leader of this exercise needs a swift kick. Compared to the linux challenge, it does not look good. With MTBF in the millions of hours, and that the actual comms carrier seems to be OK, maybe the problem is elsewhere, My opinion of M$ has gone down, because they should say 'dunno', rather than blame the weather. Micocrunk should duplex / triplex its challenge box, so the rest of the world can judge if environmentals, or perhaps software is to blame. One box in Seattle, one in NY and another elsewhere. Oh silly me - this would triple the risk. Can't imagine why recovery times are soooo long. One idea would to have an identical linux box on the same power circuit, that pings and thats about it. They can swap boxes if, by a fluke, management insist box A is harware dodgey.
Man you're GREAT! I give it +5, TriPlusFunny!
That's right, I have a small UPS too (down in Olympia), it buzzed at me when the lights flickered, but my cablemodem didn't even have to reset (it can't be on the UPS). It is strange that my bedroom and your basement are better equipped than them...
(In fact, I was running an IRC server during the end of the storm, and role playing with people across the country, the GM lives in Seattle proper, and all that happened was my power flickered twice. The game went smoothly for the entire 3 hours... heh).
from the abqjournal:
Carr called Microsoft's challenge "the lamest thing we'd ever heard of."
What have you been smoking? Man there are NO users logged on! They are system accounts! Like root, www, and others!
i wish aol would send me zipdisks instead.
sound more and more like baseless, groundless media 'spin' and public relations damage control from a professional handler who's clueless about the actual details of the situation.
This gratuitous bashing of ye' olde software hegemony was brought to you by:
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Heres the source code for the page. For some reason that URL i posted doesn't seem to be up. This page is actully kinda neat, it can be easily changed to work for any URL, and change the interval. It was originally used when i was checking the online course schedule at my school to see if a course I needed was open. /. was filtering them out. But if you have some time to waste, add the brackets and cut and paste it.
e fault.asp";
I had to cut out the angled brackets on the HTML tags,
HTML
HEAD
SCRIPT language = JavaScript
function loader (){
setInterval("goThis()",5000);
}
function goThis (){
document.cs.src="http://www.windows2000test.com/d
}
/SCRIPT
/HEAD
BODY onLoad="loader()"
LAYER name=cs height=10000 width=1000 src="http://www.windows2000test.com/default.asp"
/LAYER
/BODY
/HTML
...the Power Mac 9500/132 was discontinued in July of 96. So this box is at least 3 years old, and maybe even 4 ;-)
| Microsoft's Windows 2000 hacker challenge was taken offline | by a router failure (caused by an "act of God"), it was struck | by lightening... heh heh, so even god thought it would be fun to hack MSIIs. ;-^
I'm guessing both sites are getting hit really hard right now.. I can't access much on either one, and both are intermitent on ping responses.. anyone else getting that too?
A longer, more detailed (possibly the original?) version of the same article can be found at:
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitec h/1sci08-06-99.htm.
Yes, W2k is still in beta.
But MS specifically said that they thought W2k was ready for the real Internet security world, so I consider that non-beta.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Let them set up two servers, and we'll benchmark cracking protections. Wonder who would win?
(crashing 9 times, laugh, laugh, laugh, cough, laugh)
+&x
The best thing about Microsoft products is that they come with a 'best before' date.