Slashdot Mirror
Crack LinuxPPC Day 3:It Gets Better
So this ought to amuse ya: Its Day 3 of the Crack LinuxPPC, Win
PPC Contest that Jeff Carr has been doing. During that time, The
Win2k crack box has gone down several times... yet the LinuxPPC box
remains stable. Jeff has decided to make the game more interesting.
The machine is still crack.linuxppc.org, but the world now may know
that the Root Password is "linuxppc". If you can crack the stock
LinuxPPC box in a reproducable manner, you get the machine.
Its a stock linux install, so I doubt this is in place, but it can also be set up so su doesn't work for certain (or for that matter ANY users). If this IS set up, then there would be no way to log in as root unless you were at the console or you find an exploit.
But, being a stock install, this is probably not the case and therefore getting access to any shell account would be sufficient.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Nonsense. Just like a web browser, the Win2000 guest book is an integral part of the operating system.
You could try to use traceroute.
Tried a number of times... can't get there. Still replies to pings, though.
You dumb twinky molester. How can you possibly use a web browser with your IQ? Are you high? Sick freak. Sick people.
Here you go
± 29 dB
NARC!
MS_COINTELPRO?
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. It would only be a slightly more negative attitude than is often expressed in some of their AstroTurf campaigns they've run in the past over things like streaming media ("I can't use that Really Medium player or whatver. Why can't you use Windows Media Player instead? It always works for me!" (followed by M$ literally throwing money at the content company to as an 'incentive' to switch)).
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I think you may have misunderstood his point. Although It is possible to compromise the security of an individual user with these methods, it is not so for the OS/computer as a whole.
/' is usually the best way to completely destroy the system.
1. Because of protected memory, you don't have access to kernal memory as a user. So, any virus would have to somehow launch as ROOT.
2. A back orifice like tool would probably be able to compromise individual user security, but again, do little damage to the system as a whole, without adequate user permissions.
3. Same thing with macro attacks. Individual users only, unless the application did stupid 'suid' stuff.
Basically, to REALLY compromise security on a *nix boxc, you've got to have root access. When this is the case, I find the 'rm -rf
But that's just me.
____________/\ ____________ \/
--
Wonko the Sane
Look, myself and some others spent the last night scrutenizing this Windows box, here is what we found... 1) ONLY port 80 is active 2) The web server is only accepting "GET" requests. "PUT" appears to be disabled. and 3)it looks like they're truncating URL line length as their fix to overflow bugs. That's it.
Take one and two and tell me how this equates to any real world server. Sure I can put up any OS serving only port 80 and consider it secure!
What about realworld where your server is not on-site and must be remote administrated, or atleast, not on-site in your office, but in another building where your ISD group maintains it.
IMHO this whole set-up is a scam.
The goal is to get root priveliges not the root password. The root password doesn't give you crap if you can't figure out a way to log-in. There's more than one way to get there, ie buffer overflows, r00t kits etc.
---- sonoffreak
"The press are picking up on this, including some non-IT rags (see Linux Today). This is going to be a PR disaster of the finest water.
"Expect a(nother) name change for NT5/W2K sometime during the fall. That'll let them pretend it's a different product."
No, they'll merely change the slogan (drumroll please):
It just doesn't work.
a nice convention is:
DoS = Denial of Service
DOS = Disk Operating System
Oh I don't know about that... nobody cares too much about the Win2000 machine, but if I had any cracking skills whatsoever I'd try my hand at the linuxppc in order to win the machine.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
now all you need to crack it is its physical location, a crowbar, lockpick, and possibly a spare monitor/keyboard.
He's kidding, right?
Has ESR forgotten that the internet worm of the late 80's used a bug in sendmail?
How is that any different than the Melissa virus on Windows? Both problems spread via an insecurity in the mail program.
I'm sure if they ask Bill real nice he could shell out some dough for a server and an NT4 license...
The only people stopping Microsoft from putting out a non-beta crack test is Microsoft. We can only guess why they aren't. My guess is that they think that W2K is more secure than NT4.
--The basis of all love is respect
>assuming that the jpeg wasn't put thru the GIMP first...)?
Well, I posted the link straight from crack.linuxppc.org so I can't vouch for how it was created. The link from the main page mentions SheepShaver.
Actually, they didn't change any real programs either. They just spoofed the (poorly written) bboard program. They tricked it to play back javascript code.
Lowmag.net
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.
Andy Grove would kick Bill Gates in the nuts if they did that.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But it's DEAD now.
Damn, third day of thunder or what..?
If only the stock LinuxPPC install came with secure shell. :)
for the rest of this go to whatis.com
..."
"Bogomips is a measurement provided in the Linux operating system that indicates in a relative way how fast the computer processor runs. The program that provides the measurement is called BogoMips. Written by Linus Torvalds, the main developer of Linux,
To force reload even of cached pages and cached inline images in Netscape Navigator/Communicator, use Shift-Reload, or View|Reload.
Netscape's Reload button is crippled by design. Also see this page for more details.
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
In other words, "Dragged slider bar in IIS window to a different setting, and waited five minutes while the system rebooted and restarted most of the services."
"Tuned" my ass.
Wah!
No, it won't slow down sales a bit. It might improve them. I wasn't even going to think of Win2K before. but if it is released before the first snow, I'll buy half a dozen, grind up the CDs, and scatter them over my lawn. Should come up nice and green next spring;^>
--The basis of all love is respect
Actually, not the flipdown model (introduced with the 9600) or IDE (introduced in non-performas with the G3 towers), just plainol' 50 pin fast SCSI and possibly the worst case ever made by Apple. unscrew, yank case, rip out every cable and pull M/B to fiddle with RAM. ugh. still pretty nice machines, though.
I believe that He's using BOCHS to run Win95 in this shot...
keep acting shocked and move slowly towards the cake.
The Windows 2000 server must be getting much more attention than the LinuxPPC server, so we aren't exactly comparing oranges and apples (macintoshes?). Of course, the LinuxPPC server has more service ports open and a well-known root password. :-) The web server at windows2000test.com is offline. The server responds to pings, but IIS doesn't serve any pages..
cpeterso
Pardon me for butting in... what do you mean, Windows 2000 is a relatively new operating system??? Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) but isn't Win2k a.k.a. NT 5? I'm pretty sure that it's "built on NT technology" (which is redundant, given what NT stands for, but that's okay, this is MS). What does this mean? Windows 2000 is not new, it's using a kernel that's been around for several years (I'm sure NT is at least as old as Linux, but I don't know, can anybody help me out here?). Of course, it has supposedly been improved over time, but I'm not sure...
-Matthead
I'm a bit confused now. How can it be called "cracking" when you have been given the root password by the owner? I thought the whole point of cracking was to *get* the root password (or some equivalent).
If this article were written about Linux we would be righteous in our anger
Non-Microsoft operating systems such as
Linux are invulnerable to macro attacks, immune to viruses, and can laugh at Back Orifice.
This is pure unadulterated bullshit and ESR knows it. I couldn't bring myself to read any further to see if he redeems himself so my apologies if he said "just kidding" later on. In his attempt to build up alternative OS's he has falsely stated that MS is vulnerable to attacks that are unthinkable in _all_ other OS's (or at leas Linux). What makes it all the worse is that Linux is far superior to Windows (especially 9x) in terms of real security. Let's stick to the facts and win on the level instead of trying to bead MS at their game of lies and half-truths.
To those who don't see the problems in ESR's statements, here's a quick rebuttal of the sentence above:
Vi has had macro attacks in the past and any application can have a design that allows macro attacks. They simply have to treat data files as scripts. While I can't think of an application that has such a vulnerability at the moment it does not make non-MS OS's immune since it is not an OS issue. MS has the responsibilty for Mellissa et al. not because they made the OS but because they made the programs (Outlook and Word) that were the vector for the worm.
Linux may be less vulnerable to viruses due to more attention to kernel security and memory protection, but it is also fair to say that not many people have tried. I would hesitate to call it invulnerable, but I'll concede the point if a security expert can convince me otherwise.
Laughing at Back Orifice is pure and complete BS. Crackers don't need to install BO, it's already there!!! Seriously, all BO is is a remote GUI. Most linux servers have X installed and everything can be configured with a terminal anyway, all they need is root access. BO may be a more stealthy, but a cracker needs to get Administrator access in the first place to install it and it is slightly easier to monitor for BO listening on one of your ports than it is to monitor all telnet and X connections for root activity.
In any case the name of the game is to prevent root access in the first place. I believe that Linux does a more comprehensive job of this, but we need real arguments, not lies, to win the fight.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Many unicies (sp?) disallow root login from network terminals. In *BSD, you even have to be in the wheel group to su root.
Idiot anonymous Crawford
In ANY context, "Denial of Service" is abbreviated DoS, not DOS. The poster made a mistake.
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
What would make a more interesting test is to have a competition between NT/2K and Linux where they would run a standard set of services (web, mail, maybe directory services). Then you unleash crackers on it and see what gets broken.
Really all this is doing is testing the security of TCP/IP stacks on both OS's, and the security of Apache vs. IIS serving up static pages. It's much more an Apache vs. IIS thing than a Linux vs. Windoze thing.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Isn't exp(j*PI) = 1?
i.e. exp(j*PI) - 1 = 0
So you are giving -2 cents?
Share bicycle touring info worldwide: http://wheretocycle.com
>If they want the full range of skilled crackers
Who is 'they'? Lunux/PPC put one of their own boxes on the line for this. You were expecting maybe an PIII-500 running Slackware?
God I must be tired!
You're right of course!
I basically meant I wonder if Win2000 would run on a similar spec machine...
I love that commercial. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it...especially coming from HP!
port 111 port 23 port 80
(sunrpc) (t-net) (httpd)
We've had a lot of experience with these kind of DoS attacks. Our experience is that various NTs and Linux boxes bog down or eventually become non responsive; although the Linux doesn't usually crash per se. However, our BSDI boxes chug right along without even so much as a blink.
FWIW.
Meanwhile, the LinuxPPC has been chugging along, being attacked 2 million times an hour with no success. He's even tried to make it easier for people. No faltering, no crashing - even the Slashdot effect hasn't killed it. LinuxPPC has multiple processes open and even telnet - the W2K only had the webserver open. LinuxPPC is still cooking along, W2K couldn't even handle having one process happening and died multiple times.
"The router's down" - but a test confirmed that it was up. Weather? Other systems in the area at the same time were up, and the weather wasn't a factor in the entire time that the computer was crashing (what - 9 times now?). Excuses - if a company can't come out and say that they failed and will work to correct the problem, then they are dishonest and people shouldn't do business with them. You're going to trust your business and mission critical applications to these yokels? You never know when they're telling the truth or feeding you a line. At least with Linux you know exactly where you stand and where to go to fix any problem that may arise. No one is hiding anything in the Linux community - that's not how our software was developed. Open Source means Open. No lies, no deception. That's something I want to base my business on and something I want to base my mission critical apps on...
Get with the real world - dump your Microsoft fantasies and get on a real OS. Why do you think so many major computer manufacturers are supporting Linux? (Remember - Microsoft doesn't manufacture hardware - only software - so the industry leaders are still the hardware manufacturers that choose which OS to use). SGI is even talking about dumping Irix in favor of Linux. Can you seriously attempt to compare NT to Irix??? Sun is putting Linux alongside Solaris in their support. NT doesn't hold a candle to Solaris, regardless of what the proprietory benchmarks make out. The real world is Unix and Linux. The fantasy world is Microsoft. Sooner or later you're going to have to wake up and face reality...
Sure, that would make sense. But I checked at least a half-dozen web sites running LinuxPPC and none of the Apache's matched the behavior crack.linuxppc.org had.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Hmmmm...nope!
You eigther have both boxes DoSed in equal measure to give us all a neat insight into how they cope under the same strain or you don't Dos either box at all.
Clearly the latter option is far easier to achieve, and is inherently more sensible as the entire competition is about cracking and not DoSing.
Anyone who attempts to DoS either machine is clearly a bit of a no-brainer as they're seeing a contest designed to be constructive and doing something destructive instead.
palantir:~> dlocate -s ssh
:)
Package: ssh
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: non-US/non-free
Case closed
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Note the difference in loads:
linux ppc:
load average: 0.22, 0.25, 0.23 (equals about 25% processor usage, right?)
windows:
% Processor Time Avg: 30-47
Of course it is all over if he opens up fingerd.
That doesn't follow. Assuming you aren't talking about exploiting a bug in fingerd itself, simply knowing valid user names won't help much because you must still crack the password for that account (good luck).
Even if you manage to get in (not necessarily by brute-forcing the password), the shell may be a flytrap - a potemkin shell while the system logs everything it can about you while paging the sysop.
Worse, it's trivial to write a potemkin shell that escapes to a real shell only if the client is in a magic IP address range and the user knows the magic command. That means *every* shell could be trapped, but only people on the local subnet could enter the command "O$ks&*%kk1!" and escape to a real shell.
I don't know of any potemkin shells in a standard distribution, but a non-responsive one is trivial to write if you know basic socket programming. Even a responsive one can be quickly built if you use chroot() and are careful what commands you copy into your sandtrap.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
For everything you ever wanted to know about this topic, visit the BogoMIPS mini-HOWTO
Melissa worked because it used actual features of the system, such as treating data files (spreadsheets, documents, etc.) as programs, and without any security checking. (You see how well warning the user that there is a macro worked.)
The difference is they fixed sendmail. Another Melissa can come along any day. Next time it probably won't be a Macro. There is now a problem in excel 97 that uses ODBC to take over the machine, without any warning.
> they are going to have a MAJOR PR coup.
/.!)
I disagree. Remember that the audience for these stunts is the world's PHBs. They don't know the difference between a crack and a DOS attack (or a crack on the DNServers).
Sure, MS will have some excuses -- maybe even some good ones -- but the outstanding fact for the PHBs will be that MS put up the challenge and the box did go down. Repeatedly. And after the fiasco of the DOJ trial, where they were repeatedly shown to be liars and falsifiers of evidence, those excuses/reasons are apt to ring slightly hollow in ears that don't know how to weigh them. The seeds of doubt have been sown.
Also, those PHBs will hear that the content of the Web site was changed by 'hackers'. We all know that it was a BFD, but the PHBs don't. Or, if some few happen to know it, they'll be asking themselves: Have I been buying software from a company that is stupid enough to leave such a simple and obvious leak when setting up a security challenge?
Ditto for all the other downs, even if a few PHBs believe MS's explanations and realize that none(?) of the problems really represent cracks [see, even I can't say 'none' with full confidence!]. PHB: Have I been buying software from a company stupid enough to leave so many simple and obvious failure modes when setting up a high profile demonstration of their newest flagship product?
No, the egg won't be on any penguins' faces.
The only question now is deniability. How will MS wriggle out of this one? My prediction is that they will say it was an unauthorized test by a subcontractor or a couple of rogue employees, that MS proper had nothing to do with it, and that besides, it wasn't an up-to-date build anyway. The real thang is secure and it don't never crash. (Remember, you heard it first on
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nah... People will buy shit, even when they know its shit, especially from M$! '98 crashed during a big demo right before its release. Did that slow down sales?
You are a fscking moron who obvously doesn't have anything better to do than post anonymous messages on /. attempting to showcase his feeble intellect by being the tenth person to imply that he knows the difference between DoS and DOS.
You people make me downright nauseous.
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
Can't stop is if you can't start it, eh?
void post { post_random_comment("slashdot.org"); karma--; }
For my choice, I run Linux at home on my new AMD K6-III 450 toy.
Apparently its down again at 1855 CDT. Not much of a test on my part, I just followed the links from the news article. linuxppc replied and loaded immediately, whereas MS never even replied.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
I think this "BOCHS Lite" you are talking about is known as Freemware. Find the link on the right side of bochs.com
Read the stats:
Memory Usage:
MemTotal: 158760 kB
MemFree: 19468 kB
MemShared: 123140 kB
Buffers: 9432 kB
Cached: 72416 kB
SwapTotal: 67468 kB
SwapFree: 67468 kB
There's 72M of memory being used as cache.
Notice that the swap has not been touched. We
don't get a ps to see how many copies of httpd
or anything else are running...
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Well, based on the same logic Linux must be DOS because it also has a command line and I can use some DOS commands (like `dir' and `echo') there.
Well then, by your analogy, Microsoft should be running the test on a NT4.0 system, because as you said, "Many exploits are platform specific." W2K is different than NT4.0, and the same exploits most likely aren't going to work.
How many people use Linux on PPC versus the number of people who use W2K on Intel?
--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Why so much? How do they expect you to run StarOffice if Linux takes up 160MB? Another example of Linux Bloatware...
160MB of ram?
Lowmag.net
. . . never mind the 600 meg MINIMUM disk space required.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This type of Media Stunts(tm) have no ``real industry value''. It just takes a couple of losers with DoS scripts to completely wreck the comparison, and there seems to be pretty many of that kind around...
I wouldn't be surprised if someone at M$ could predict this outcome, only to be trampled by marketoids.
____
ZZ
You're welcome. :)
--Tom
Tom Geller
Try posting some pro-M$ blather
Blather really should get moderated down. Now if someone posts something thoughtful and intelligent that is pro-MS and they get moderated down, then something is wrong. I don't see that happen much (people posting anything intelligent that is pro-MS, let alone it getting moderated down), and when it does happen, someone else will usually moderate it back up.
no one here owns MicroSloth stock
I certainly don't own any, but I'd bet there are quite a few people who read and even post on Slashdot that own Microsoft stock. And I'm not just talking AC's or obvious Microsoft apologists either.
As for your assertation that people aren't working as hard to get into the Linux box, I don't know if that is true. They are offering a real, tangible incentive (you get to keep the box if you get in). That is a pretty good reason. And unlike Microsoft, whom many wouldn't care to do debugging work for gratis, lots of people are happy to help out Linux developers.
It would be kinda hard for the LinuxPPC people to run LinuxPPC on a non-PPC platform, wouldn't it?
not mad or anything, but last I checked LinuxPPC ran on non-intel processors.
In case you ["didn\'t notice","have no sense of humour"] this message was posted completely out of fun.
Lowmag.net
As has been stated before, ssh allows root login by default, but that can easily be disabled in /etc/sshd_config. just say "PermitRootLogin no" Easy...
It depends on your distribution. Debian, for example, does prompt for a non-root username and password upon install (though you can bypass it if you want). Some others do not.
As a matter of fact, I could care less if some kid breaks out a bunch of spray cans and does a graffiti mural - provided it's tasteful and not just a bunch of gang/hatred symbols thrown together. I could care less if someone wants to throw a DoS attack at a box or spoof their IP all day long.
Hackers hack, crackers crack, and me... I write code and manage the systems here at where I work. Never once have I had break out a DoS or Spoof to do something productive. Do I know how to do these things? Yes. Do I see a need to do these things? No. Am I going to campaign to take away someone's rights to do these things? Hell no. It's a free country - do whatever the hell you want. Just don't come bitching to me if you do something illegal and the law clamps down on you...
"You did WHAT to WHO for BEER MONEY?!? Jeez, man - you don't even like beer..."
If I could post something good about Microsoft I would.
Let me say they are on my mind, but Linux is on my computer. That is good enough for me, was it good for you?
Could some kind soul point me toward a link with an explanation of this whole port number thing? I'm assuming this is something entirely else than serial or parallel ports.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
DoS against the Windows machine is encouraged because it camplies with the stated objective of the "contest" - to stress-test the machine. DoS against the Linux machine is discouraged because it does not comply with the objective - to break into the machine.
Ok, so that was sort of weak because Microsoft only asked us to stress test it in a specific way which did not include DoS, but my next point is better.
DoS against the Linux machine impedes the ability of others to attack it, and thereby reduces their ability to get a free machine.
DoS against the Windows machine impedes the ability of others to attack it, and thereby reduces the amount of free testing Microsoft gets (of the kind it wants).
If the cracker's aim is not to work for Microsoft for free, he or she should aim DoS attacks against the Windows machine, but not against the Linux machine.
This is probably a stunt for LinuxPPC to show that it's more secure than Linux x86 - for that very reason. Not a bad argument.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"That's an application, not Windows 2000," he said.
"It's been up for most of the day today," he added.
Now that's comedy.
Ivan.
I am just curious. What's a BFD? Do you have more info on what was actually done to the guestbook? All I know is that it was compromised. (Seems to me that at this point, if they had a prise to give they should have given it. but they don't, so that point is moot)
--- Tao
Although the 'sploits are normally platform-specific, the buffer overflow still exists, so you could in theory create a PPC version.
--
Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
You know, they already posted an nmap...
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Unixen, actually. I wish I knew why...
It's not a bug, it's a feature...
No, NT is based on VAX.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I don't have an axe to grind against Microsoft. I'm simply a business user looking for a secure and robust operating system for Internet applications. I've run both WinNT and Linux for years.
I look at the Windows 2K log and what I see mirrors my experience with WinNT: a lot of reboots for fairly minor things (tweaking the web server and tweaking tcp/ip). I look at the Linux log and I see stability.
The bottom line is that NT is not as stable as Linux for Internet applications.
Look at the Win98 kernel a little bit closer boy.
Using Mach's message passing is just as bad
as basing your OS on DOS, anyhow. Ick ick ick ick.
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
I wrote a 20 line JAVA console app that makes continuous connections to port 80 of a vitim machine
What you've constructed is the simplest type of denial of service (DoS) attack. While it may "hurt" them, it won't help you in any way. Specifically, it won't bring you any closer to achieving one of the contest goals (to change content on their site, or retrieve information you "shouldn't have").
I'm not a cracker.
Indeed. (But then, I'm not either....)
More accurately, that IIS uses multiple processors better than Apache.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Crack has not yet 'gone down', per say. It is, however, under an extremely heavy load. Because of that, sometimes you cant get through on one service, but more often than not if you cant get through on HTTP you can still ping it or telnet in. In any case, you also have to remember that Crack is a much, much slower box than the Windows 2000 test box. Its also more than likely on a slower line. Id be willing to bet that the people who have been DoSing Win2k are now turning their attention to Crack, and that is probably why you are having trouble getting through.
AFAIK most companies pay for bandwidth for their service, as in a certain amount of money per certain amount of data coming across the line. Surely this episode must be costing M$ a fairly large sum of money, as 250 packets/second would add up pretty darn quick. I also hate to think of how much the average net lag has gone up because of this. One second? two?
ìì!
after this contest is over will the configuration be posted for public consumption?
Pork is not a verb
The last time I checked, it worked like this.
exp(j*PI) = cos(PI) + j*sin(PI)
= -1 + 0
= -1
It OK though. One of my systems professors repeatedly uses the "fact" that exp(j*0) = 0
:-)
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Some may be encouraged by peer respect, but anyone who hacks purely for the respect of their peers does not embody the true hacker spirit. The true spirit is the thirst and pursuit of knowledge.
Sorry to attack you on a tangent, but the misrepresentation of hackers hurts all of us.
Mitnick never jumped onto IRC and blabbed how 1337 he was by social engineering a copy of the Solaris source.
"Ahh... The net is vast..." - Maj. Motoko Kusanagi
I always thought that load average was the number of processes running, over any given amount of time (with 3 averages). I'm going to assume that I'm right, because it seems to be a pretty good definition.
Then again, NT==DOP (Denial of problem)
Oh, please, showing that you know what DoS stands for proves you're inteligent, uh? Get a life, at least his posts was way funnier than yours.
Alejo.
Yeah, but lately it's way more slashdotted than usual. I can't even get into the main page for this topic(banner ad and topics banner loads, rest of page stays black and just sits there), I have to go in through my user page to the one comment I got in hours ago and thread hop from there. I've gotten several "no DNS entry" messages about the slashdot main page. Sumpin ain't right.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
And additionally that DoS attacks aren't restricted to pingflooding a machine, but are globally defined as any method which makes the machine lose its connection, or further screw it up remotely, which would be a valid test of linux's security (something wouldn't be too secure if people can easily do the same thing as when reboot is run on a root shell)
There are more pieces of complete, utter, tinfoil crap driving around on the roads than, say, Okas or Saabs... but does that make foil-wrapped death-traps better than well-engineered vehicles?
:-P
> WHat's the reality with Microsoft now?
The reality is that the carefully prepared W2Ktest site has died in the ass more often than I've had meals, and that skulking along with one brain-dead service, and the stock-install multi-service Linux box has been plugging along happily for three days.
The reality is that MicroSoft LIE when it gets broken (or broken into) - the pitiful "weather" excuse being clearly visible on globally accessible weather-radar images for the farce that it is - and always have behaved like this, and (it seems) always will.
As for MindCraft, name (or URL) me just one commercial (i.e. real world) website that serves only static pages less than 4k bytes long from RAM, and needs to shove those out a pipe 4x100M bits wide. I betcha can't! Betcha, betcha, betcha! Nyaaah!
When you (anybody) can do that, I'll admit there's some point in their benchmarks - and did you notice that the second set of results were different in places by more than double? - and did you notice that all related bottlenecks in Linux or Apache were fixed within a week? - and did you notice that they didn't use khttpd for the test, which would have been much more appropriate for small flat pages? - and which real-world webmaster uses four logging partitions on their NT box? and... well, you get the idea... (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No http, traceroute dies after the router (.250)
How sad.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
3:54 CST
The Linux box is under pretty heavy DoS. It is dropping about 25% of my pings but it is STILL up, no reboots and STILL serving web pages.
There is almost no packet loss on the Windows end of things, indicating that no one is saturating their network, though it is probably suffering DoS attacks of its own. The machine is pingable but the web service is D-E-A-D.
Just thought I'd post this since M$ seems to edit the boo-boos out of its "Status Log" every few hours.
--- Tao
And if bad weather hasn't been enough for the Microsoft team, there is also a total eclipse coming up. Oooooh! Bad omen! :-)
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Im no l33t d00d or nothing, But i did a traceroute to www.windows2000test.com and it seems that they have a firewall between there server and the internet. I think that is what is repling to the pings. check port 80 of the f/w...its not even running MS software.
I have to return some videotapes...
Hey dude, I ain't defendin' Windows here, but if I had a dollar for everytime a salesman demoed my software before it was ready to be demoed I'd be a rich man.
Someone on BugTraq speculated, quite correctly IMHO, that one reason LinuxPPC may be holding up so well is that nobody has yet ported existing buffer overflow exploits for Linux apps to the PPC architecture. Thus, a large class of potential holes is less likely to be exploited than if the machine were running x86 Linux (any flavor).
Can someone who has experience writing exploits evaluate whether this hypothesis is reasonable? Are buffer overflows sufficiently easy to exploit that known holes would have been used by now?
No shit sherlock.
Not so cheap a machine...that 9500 will take a 400 mHz G3 upgrade just fine, and it's the last of the 6-slot motherboards, with 8 ram slots. That's a box with a lot of potential. True, the box goes for about $1000 or so on the market, but linuxPPC.org doesn't exactly have the financial resources of a MicroShaft :-/
It's really not any kind of straight across comparison. All the BogoMIPS count indicates is the length of a particular timing loop used in the kernel. If you take the BogoMIPS rating from even a pre-MMX Pentium and compare it to a Pentium/MMX, they will not match up MHz-for-MHz, neither processor or system bus speed. The same applies for all other families of processors as well. It's really not very meaningful at all. That's what the 'Bogo' means - as in 'bogus'.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
It's not that simple. You can't login as root over telnet/rlogin, ftp, etc. unless you specifically set that to be allowed (an obvious security hazard). Without a user account, it's harder, and some kind of exploit needs to be found. Having the root password only makes it easier once you have some sort of access to the system.
I am assuming BFD meand Big Fscking Deal
Could be Bitch Forgot Diaphragm though.. you never know
maybe even Booger Flicking Debian users
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
I've just spotted a "Crack crack win crack" at the bottom. Is it some kind of bait, or is it that someone did it but was too lazy to put up a nice web page?
-- Fast, Cheap, Well. Pick two.
> i wonder if for a day or two, since everyone is either trying to break CRACK or the windows box if therer are less people trying to crack other systems.
More likely Melissa II is going around this weekend and will spread farther before anyone notices it because all the world's security administrators are busy rooting for their favorite in the current shootout.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Tell me how to crash a machine by overwhelming it with too many packets. I have a 486/20 Linux box on my ethernet and I can saturate it with complete garbage and only raise its load average. I have even tried injecting raw noise with a pulser and other nonsense and it had no problems. I was unable to find an exploit on one of my boxes. Perhaps you can?
Ah, I just loaded the home page of crack.linuxppc.org, and yep, they're using BOCHS. Sweet.
Gotta ask: is any1 using BOCHS out there? How do you like it? How is the performance?
And also: Could we convince its creator to come out with an Intel version, just so folks can use Windows apps under Linux without rebooting (or praying that WINE might actually do the job)?
Essentially, what I'm asking is: Would you think that a "BOCHS Lite" that doesn't bother emulating the Intel instruction set be worthwhile? It could allow alternative OSes to boot under it (just in case you actually needed Windows for something)..
-----
".sig,
I will concur that it is ridiculous to flood a machine with packets in an attempt to bring it down - this is a valid point. There are other, more elegant ways to bring about the demise of a machine on the net.
However...
I misinterpreted your response? let's take a quick look at it:
"I hope all you fucking denial of service assholes get what's coming to you... a big bill from the telcos and isps and a trip to federal prison. I see that as no different than tying someone up in your basement and not letting them go to work. You probably don't even have a clue of what the real use of denial-of-service is."
It's no wonder I missed your point.
First off, if you were trying to make a rational argument then the inflammatory language was totally unnecessary. Secondly, I wouldn't call any use of a DoS, for whatever reason, actual and legitimate.
You yourself agree that there is no need for spoofing in any form and no need for DoS attacks in any form. If there is no need for DoS, and no need for spoofing, you just killed your own argument that there is an actual use for DoS.
Q.E.D.
"You did WHAT to WHO for BEER MONEY?!? Jeez, man - you don't even like beer..."
Execpc in Milwaukee had problems with onje of thier routers last nite. I use ISDN dialup thru them and wasn't to happy. Anyway, everything puked past this box: bash-2.02$ traceroute crack.linuxppc.org traceroute to crack.linuxppc.org (169.207.154.108), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 208.212.81.1 (208.212.81.1) 0.936 ms 0.949 ms 0.864 ms 2 e0-supranet04.supranet.net (205.164.161.7) 7.226 ms 7.733 ms 7.280 ms 3 e1-supranet01.supranet.net (205.164.161.1) 8.014 ms 7.250 ms 8.417 ms 4 558.Hssi5-0-0.GW3.CHI1.ALTER.NET (137.39.130.65) 13.850 ms 13.837 ms 13.424 ms 5 104.ATM2-0.XR2.CHI4.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.62) 13.758 ms 14.926 ms 14.071 ms 6 194.ATM9-0-0.GW1.CHI1.ALTER.NET (146.188.208.157) 15.742 ms 14.623 ms 15.221 ms 7 norlight-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (137.39.130.178) 15.052 ms 14.686 ms 14.740 ms 8 inet-gw300.execpc.norlight.net (207.170.6.74) 19.209 ms 19.331 ms 19.009 ms 9 2-18.atm1-0-0.rtr0.nbl-wi.execpc.net (169.207.50.161) 23.259 ms 23.633 ms 21.658 ms 10 vl2.sw1.nbl-wi.execpc.net (169.207.50.250) 21.039 ms 20.432 ms 19.654 ms 11 dslmux0.execpc.net (169.207.36.202) 18.932 ms 20.632 ms 23.516 ms 12 169.207.154.108 (169.207.154.108) 38.815 ms 30.807 ms 27.400 ms Which would explain not being able to see the crackme box.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
I have had load avrg's of 8.0+. So does that mean im usinf 800% of my CPU? I sure as hell dont know. BUT i think a load avg of 100.0 = 100% of the CPU and RAM is used...and the computer stops doing anything.
I have to return some videotapes...
There is a project called lsh with the goal of implementing the ssh protocols in open source. Is anyone familiar with this project or the current quality of the software? This sounds like something that should eventually be in every distribution!
Geeky modern art T-shirts
>Well, based on the same logic Linux must be DOS >because it also has a command line and I can use >some DOS commands (like `dir' and `echo') there.
:)
:)
Um, no, that is a UNIX-like command line.
Now, pop up a GNOME-terminal and NT-cmd and lets see:
dir: Unlike dos/NT this just displays the directory, the closest Linux eqv. would be dir; df.
echo: yes this is similar
then try some dos commands in each like 'copy', 'move'. These will only work in NT/DoS.
And some unix commands:
grep, fgrep, egrep, which, etc... these will only work in Linux/UNIX
I don't see any shame in Linux being UNIX based.
UNIX is the close to being most powerful, flexible and mature OS in existance. It isn't really designed for end-users, but it could form a good basis for one.
There is also nothing wrong with NT being based on DOS. DOS is a little primative (no multi-tasking, no GUI, no security, 16-bit, etc.), but this also means that is simple. It is _very_ easy to admin a DOS box.
What is a little annoying is that MS tends to make such a noise about NT being more modern than UNIX, because it came later and because NT has now moved to 32-bit from 16-bit etc. The original UNIX's may have been 16-bit, but in the UNIX world 32-bits it considered a little behind the times. Every modern Unix (including Linux) supports 64-bits - even the Nintendo 64 (ahem) 'Enterprise Class Games Machine' is 64-bit.
OS's are not a static product, they are improved over time. So the 'newer' product is actually more primitive.
Also more bugs & holes will have been found and fixed, so... toast 'em linuxppc.
We use GNU/SunOS.
What about win9x? ~unyun~
The MS box is also taking a lot of packeting... multiple channels on IRC are bragging about how many packets they can hit the Win2k server with... Regardless of OS, without good firewalling, any sort of box will crash if it is packeted heavy enough...
:P
When i asked a few of them if they were going to packet the PPC box, they called me a blasphemer. Way to advocate linux.
(for the record, i run 2.2.10 with firewalling. so dont jump all over my case.)
"and no, im not the spot working for Transmeta, although i wish i was..." -- ~spot "i'm the epitome of public enemy..."
If you go follow the link that I gave it says that. :P
...the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Boom!
Boom!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Just go to DEFCON next year and play this. It's called capture the flag :P You get to fuck with all sorts of Server OS's.
(`._(`._( , , . JimmyPop[nL] . , , )_.)_.)
They have telnet open, too.
:-)
But no port else.
Good luck
-- bmp System Support - Vienna, Austria
Hi guys, I was thinking about a way to hack the Linux box. The stock linuxppc install comes with X running by default. Hopefully it's still on. If it is, is there a way we could run a remote application to connect to the server? I know you can do this, but I havn't tried it and don't know if you need to add privledges on the server side. Well, just an idea.
-Ed
You just can't ping it (no ping floods/smurf attacks). Try telnet. It'll give you a login prompt (which reminds you that you can't telnet in as root).
I've been collating articles and various observations at
:) Please don't confuse them. ;)
www.linuxppc.com/crack/,
which is not the same as the crack target server, crack.linuxppc.org.
-- haaz.
I believe that crack.linuxppc.org is not on the connection as linuxppc.org, but on a smallish dsl connection of Jeff Carr. So that would help to explain the general hesitation of the site, but I am sure the old 604 132mhz doesn't help out... remember Microsoft2000test.com is on a fast T1 or T3, hooked up to a fast 350mhz PIII.
Don't you just love the way the headline reads "Microsoft hacker challenge foiled" in nice big letters and then in the fine print explains that it wasn't MS foiling hackers but the challenge itself that was foiled. (I said hacker 'cause they did)
("Foil Hackers, cover your equipment with Renyold's Wrap!")
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The spelling you're looking for is "unices". Similar to "matrices", "indices" or "vertices" (the plurals of "matrix", "index" and "vertex", respectively).
BTW, I wouldn't normally have mentioned it, except that you put a "(sp?)" in. I took that as a request for the proper spelling.
(Just got off a week of copyediting at my volunteer job, and still haven't quite gotten out of copyediting mode!)
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
I was there at 2.40, or 1.40 my time.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
No, not a completely new OS...
If your careful, you can get OS/2 SYS errors to pop up under NT4 still to this day.
Nuf'said
There are no user accounts on the machine, since this is an default install of user accounts in RedHat Linux Installer / LinuxPPC X Linux Installer.
So there would be no reason for Jeff to add a non-root account, since that just wouldn't make sense.
And yes, the other system generated accounts are locked down, you can not log in to them normally either.
AArthur On a LinuxPPC R5 Machine.
I don't believe they are running X on there, the box has been set up for security, after all, it's not someone who took the machine, installed LinuxPPC and Apache, and then left it on the net with only the essentials of configuration. The only real services running on there are telnet and http.
That's called a type. Geez... W
To be fair to Microsoft (not because they deserve it), shouldn't there be a non-beta to non-beta contest; in other words let Microsoft set up a server running ("the unstoppable")NT 4.0 for people to take a "crack" at, and compare the results of that to the Linux machine.
(NT 4.0 is out of beta, isn't it?)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Just to point this out: finger is disabled by default on LinuxPPC R5, and is usually not even installed by default.
;-)
Next?
Note how much is being used as cache. In Linux, the way the memory management system works, memory listed as "free" is effectively wasted - better to have it used as cache. :)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
> and the K in KDE is just "K" now, no longer standing for "Kool."
Actually I was under the impression that it originally stood for "Kalle's Desktop Environment".
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Just doing some basic tests, the version of LinuxPPC on www.linuxppc.org doesn't match what's on crack.linuxppc.org.
For one thing the Apache server has been modified.
I thought this was supposed to be a clean install?
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Well no, Unix is the OS, Unixen are several instances of the OS. Unix boxen are several boxes running perhaps one flavor of Unix or several Unixen (or "flavors of Unix" if that's your preference).
Unices sounds too much like Unisys.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Hell, you don't even need root for that. Just shut the machine off, turn it on while holding down command-option-pr, you should boot into the Mac OS (assuming that's installed). If BootX comes up, just put for kernel arguments 'linux single'. You'll boot in single user mode.
;-)
If it doesn't have BootX on the machine, try to find Bootvars, and use that to set OpenFirmware to boot into Linux.
You can also use the Apple disk tools disk and pop the bootX Extention on it, and use that to boot into Linux single mode.
Security, the Macintosh way.
Never said that it was the version on the latest CD.
I still have nightmares about disassembling those and 8500s to install RAM in them at my old job.
;)
*yank out logic board*
*cringe* at sound of board bending wayyyy too far..
They're still pretty sweet boxes, especially if you upgrade 'em with a G3 and USB and.. hmm.. you could probably buy a new Blue G3 at that point and get the same stuff at the same price with a new warranty.
-- haaz.
I think the answer is that the guestbook wasn't compromised. Instead, someone took advantage of the fact that the guestbook let you put in arbitrary HTML. So they put in a to go to another site after a specified delay. So we had people sending us to crack.linuxppc.org, slashdot.org, etc. This was not a compromise of the system, just a sneaky use of the guestbook. They seem to have finally fixed this problem by stripping characters from the input.
However, I remember reading yesterday that someone got backorifice on it, and that's a genuine crack. I don't know the details, though.
D
----
Your mower probably is not safe if the "pull here" root password is printed on it.
Why would the MS server necessarilly be getting more hits? There's an incentive to crack the linux box - You get it.
With the MS server, it's only bragging rights while you've given your services away for free.
Why would they want to advertise the product that they will can as soon as WinFuckUp2k hits the streets? M$ is stupid a but they are also tight little bastards.
Well, Win9x sucks.
The question might be why have Microsoft's business customers consistantly chose to run crappy DOS/Win over better alternatives such as OS/2 and Windows NT. (Although, everyone runs as root under OS/2 also.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
EROS sure is secure: it doesn't run on anything and there are no usable apps for it.
My paperweight is pretty secure too.
Nice theory though, perhaps we'll see it in practice someday.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
If you look on the RPM site for linuxppc 4 you can download sshd and ssh. Also you can always 'su' to root.
it was writen by the same people, and uses some of the same ideas, but it is a completly new OS
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
any OS that *needs* (what is it... umm) 300MHz minimum and 64Mb ram??
Vindoz "u VILL uz dis end u vill have expect it suck vith such high demands" 2000
or
Vindoz "poorly designed so u need a 300MHz cpu" 2000
puhleez...
granted hardware prices are dropping etc etc but this seems a *bit* too much for requirements
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
Works better without the comma. ;-) Profiles, including desktop, e-mail, etc. are stored in C:\WINNT\Profiles. Basically, the security is that if you can write to it with any application, you can write to it with _ANY_ application.
If no one with a roaming profile can logon, it should be secure enough
I hope all you fucking denial of service assholes get what's coming to you... a big bill from the telcos and isps and a trip to federal prison. I see that as no different than tying someone up in your basement and not letting them go to work. You probably don't even have a clue of what the real use of denial-of-service is.
Actually, it wasn't. The 9600 was. Now let me tell you, the 8600/9600 pair are damn nice machines. I have a 8600/300 and I'll *never* get rid of it. Its my baby... A nice overclockable G3 upgrade goes for very little now too. Mine will be here tomorrow! Yippee!!
You could very well be right, but everything that I've seen has talked about "Kool" being the original word (Do a web search on "KDE" AND "Kool"). I've never seen any clarification from the KDE team, though.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Just looked at the website, if you read the updates, it says that JCarr is playing xsoldier on the machine over the network, so that says that there is a user account, and even better, the machine has games installed!
Joshua Coombs
(AC 'cause I'm too lazy to creat an account)
PermitRootLogin no
IgnoreRhosts yes
PermitEmptyPasswords no
--
Try loggin in as jcarr, jeff, carr, jeffrey, carr, jc,jef and mutilate his name as a password, then toss on a 30 meg dictionary file while your at it.
Unless someone has a remote buffer overflow for telnet or apache 1.3.6?
If his password is like Osd&j23O you loose.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
I was one of them. I saw his posted, shot out an answer, and by the time I reloaded the page, another 6 or so were there. Poor guy. I hope he doesn't shy away from answering questions in the future. I'm sure I would be a little intimidated if I opened my mouth and in response 7 people turned immediately with the answer.
I don't think Unixen is the popular plural form. Its usually referred to as Unix boxen. The Jargon file also lists VAXen which is more or less dervied from oxen being the plural of ox. The Jargon file also says that VAXen might have been influenced by 'vixen'. I think Unices is correct if you are referring to Unix distributions, but Unix boxen if you are referring to the boxes themselves.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
And it is a good idea too.
Maybe they'll tell us where the box is sitting - does breaking and entering count?
...who would have thunk?
This is morbidly cool
screenshot
It is exceedingly unlikely that a lack of memory would change the system's state in such a way as to allow you to gain any elevated priviledges. In other words a waste of your time if you want to crack it. However if you merely want to keep their web server down, go to rootshell and download something like syn4k.c or whatever the hell the latest / greatest is. This way you probably won't get your account canceled and it may actually deny service. Hint, if they know your real ip they can simply block it. Further hint, using a raw socket, you can build your own packet including the source ip . Congrats you are well on your way to becoming a script kiddie.
Maybe the powerpc site should have a guestbook to bring up the load.
If you could simply telnet in as root then you didn't crack it; you just logged in. That's not very damn hard. It would be harder for you to wipe the crack of your ass than it would be to open a telnet session. /.'s has taken a nosedive lately. Anyone else?
It seems to me that the quality of
crack is running LPPC 1999, the current glibc 2.1-based distro. it's a plain installation from the cd-rom, with the X-based installer. only difference is that telnet's been enabled; it's not on in the default install.
-- haaz.
I'm sure anyone can do this with any Unix distribution. If you have the bandwidth available for something like this, and have a machine you'd like to give away, hell, why not go for it.
Trust me. It really is stock, but with additions. The truly stock install has no httpd or telnet services running. So, you're right. Kinda. ;) The stock install includes X.
We haven't done anything to enhance its security. Bare box, running Linux and a few services. I'll ask Jeff if X is running on it.
-- haaz.
Did anyone find it amusing that the MSNBC article about the windows2000test server is listed under "Technology goofs and glitches"? First time in quite a while I've seen reporting so accurate.
I haven't managed to find any info anywhere about the hardware of crack.linuxppc.org.
I mean, if it's going to be a prize, we should know what we're getting, no?
crack is running LinuxPPC 1999 (glibc2.1, kernel 2.2.whatever). It's a default LPPC 1999 install, except telnet and httpd are active. Those are turned off by default in normal installs.
-- haaz.
To be fair, it seems that we should be doing the same to the crack.linuxppc.org box.
Da.
To be fair, I pushed the 'reload' button on the LinuxPPC page a few times. That should get 'em.
Oh, wait. It was cached.
NT is officially just a designation, it no longer stands for "New Technology" or anything else. Just like the CE in Windows CE no longer stands for "Consumer Electronics," and the K in KDE is just "K" now, no longer standing for "Kool."
In other words, saying "NT technology" isn't redundant.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You were supposed to click the link and find additional story links there.
Actually, I've seen near-identical versions of the story in several places, so I'm wondering whether one of the newswires has picked it up. But none are prefixed with "AP" are anything like that.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No. According to Intel Payola W2K requires a PII. As a workstation, the beta seems faster than NT4 on my P-133.
As for the 64MB part - try 128MB instead. Maybe the faster processor is an attempt to make up for all of the swapping.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Hehe, that meant it runs faster so it can crash faster. Gee isn't M$ great (not!!!!). Patrick
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
An act of God beat both hackers and beta testers to the punch this week when lightning crashed a Microsoft test site. - CNET News
Cool. God wins the contest! The greatest hacker of them all. Nobody ever taught me about this trick in kiddie hacker school.
Unless this is considered a DoS attack. Whoops. Guess He's disqualified.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
The guestbook itself is sick. It's not properly blocking malicious HTML or Javascript, so last time I checked it was redirecting to a site that spews infinitely many JavaScript dialog boxes. I had to switch to a console session and kill Netscape. I wonder what would've happened if I'd been running Windows...
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
According to the virus scanner logs at the mail gateway, we haven't got a Windows virus mailed in for several months that wasn't either a MS Office macro virus or some sort of trojan that attacks IE or Netscape. These viruses all run on NT in user space -- If the workstations are properly set up (of course here they're not), NT is no more vulerable to these sorts of 'viruses' than a unix workstation. We haven't got a boot virus or any of the classic DOS types in a long time.
The attitude in the unix security community seems to be "oh that's only user space - the *system* wasn't comprimised", but that's litte condolence if some VP is pissed because lost all of his porn files and his account spammed the entire company.
Basically the only virus protection advantage that Linux has over NT is that MS Office doesn't run on Linux. You can get the same 'protection' on Windows by running corel, Lotus, Star or something else.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I always assumed you could force a server to stop responding or drop packets with packeting, but I didn't know that you could crash all servers that way. Is this the case? If so, can it be fixed?
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Quite probably
It just isn't too reliable, but that could be because of other things.
plr@murasaki:~>
PING crack.linuxppc.org: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=0. time=504. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=1. time=408. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=2. time=514. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=3. time=662. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=4. time=526. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=5. time=616. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=6. time=511. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=7. time=519. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=9. time=463. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=12. time=658. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=13. time=575. ms
^C
----crack.linuxppc.org PING Statistics----
17 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 35% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 408/541/662
Trying the same with the W2Ktest box it pinged reliably even with 1KB packets, but for some reason didn't like 5KB packets. Again I don't know where on the link between here and there the deficiency would be.
plr@murasaki:~>
PING www.windows2000test.com: 1000 data bytes
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=0. time=344. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=1. time=267. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=2. time=277. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=3. time=640. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=4. time=264. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=6. time=440. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=7. time=381. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=8. time=459. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=9. time=469. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=10. time=277. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=11. time=463. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=12. time=291. ms
1008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=13. time=269. ms
^C
----www.windows2000test.com PING Statistics----
14 packets transmitted, 13 packets received, 7% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 264/372/640
plr@murasaki:~>
PING www.windows2000test.com: 5000 data bytes
5008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=1. time=745. ms
5008 bytes from 207.46.171.196: icmp_seq=2. time=958. ms
^C
----www.windows2000test.com PING Statistics----
43 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 95% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max = 745/851/958
Perhaps the AC means it's been a little slow. Right when it was first announced the /. effect slowed it down a bit, and it may have appeared to be down, but if you were patient it would eventually reply.
The w2k box, on the other hand, has almost always been slow, and appears to have spent more time down than up.
The reality is that MicroSoft LIE when it gets broken (or broken into) - the pitiful "weather" excuse being clearly visible on globally accessible weather-radar images for the farce that it is
_ ________________________________
Well, as a resident of the Seattle area I can attest to the unusual electrical storms we were having last week, but that doesn't explain all their downtime.
______________________________________
Auditing and dentistry are excellent career choices for people who don't like other people but aren't coordinated enough
The press are picking up on this, including some non-IT rags (see Linux Today). This is going to be a PR disaster of the finest water.
Expect a(nother) name change for NT5/W2K sometime during the fall. That'll let them pretend it's a different product.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A VAX is HARDWARE!
Helloooooooo!
I think you meant VMS. I also belive that discussion
is OLD. Let's face it.. if it IS based on VMS...
They did a royally screwed up job of it.
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
Damn...do these people have an unusually hard time keeping boxen up or what!!?? I guess they're lucky this isn't "break the ms campus network" because they seem to have done that already.
q 142/6/41.asp."
"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, and rebooted.
See http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/
Sure thing.
"Set Valid Retransmission Times Elapsed to 3 seconds
Set Enable Dynamic Backlog to 1 (enabled)
6:00am - All network traffic stopped. Router down."
BTW, is Slashdot slashdotted? terrible response time...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
right now I can't even seem to get telnet access to the machine and even if I could I'd have no idea what to do?
how does one crack into a system anyways?
is there a "Cracking-FAQ" out there?
MJ
finger crack.linuxppc.org Login name: crack.linuxppc.org In real life: ???
Your finger program is trying to do exactly what you told it to do...find a user on your system with the username 'crack.linuxppc.org' you have to use the command
finger @crack.linuxppc.org
to do what you thought you were doing in the first place.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The Mindcraft Results didn't really prove anything. (Not even a superior threading model.)
except that a finely honed OS/hardware/app combo in an envirnment that favors it above all others can beat others that are neither honed nor in their forte environment. Everybody knows Arnold Schwartzanigger could of lifted more weight that bruce lee, but bruce would of kicked his ass.
The NT box had each interrupt from each
of the 4 network adapters bound to a processor.
That makes the job of thread scheduler (for
that benchmark anyway) significantly easier.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
www.rootshell.com
someone had a crack at it and won.
It was touted as a secure server.
The main problem I have with OpenBSD is someone (oh theo) doesn't think a local kernel panic is a bug. While linux has more malicious DOS vulnerabilities, OpenBSD crashed much more often during casual use.
In fairness, OpenBSD is my second favorite OS, next to an inspected and patched linux 2.2.10-int.
It like all works of man is imperfect, but its contribution to the open source OS community cannot be over-estimated.
Some people's kids...
crack.linuxppc.org looks to be a DSL connection which might help explain the packet loss and ping times, as well as the general speed of the site. DSL may have high throughput but the latencies are much higher than a T1 or other digital line since there is convolutional encoding to eliminate the effect of "spiky" noise.
/usr/sbin/traceroute crack.linuxppc.org
/usr/sbin/traceroute www.windows2000test.com
[mcope@PhatLinus ~]$
traceroute to crack.linuxppc.org (169.207.154.108), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
.
.
.
9 mae-west.nap.net (198.32.136.13) 24.966 ms 40.785 ms 26.910 ms
10 NChicago2-core0.nap.net (207.112.247.150) 119.067 ms 108.029 ms 128.163 m
s
11 chi2-e3.execpc.com (207.112.240.178) 127.603 ms 151.088 ms 146.931 ms
12 2-20.atm1-0-0.rtr0.nbl-wi.execpc.net (169.207.50.165) 164.168 ms 176.232 m
s 159.049 ms
13 vl2.sw1.nbl-wi.execpc.net (169.207.50.250) 166.004 ms 172.551 ms 160.264
ms
14 dslmux0.execpc.net (169.207.36.202) 140.090 ms 189.482 ms 167.609 ms
15 169.207.154.108 (169.207.154.108) 704.637 ms 390.105 ms 438.217 ms
www.windows2000test.com is, needless to say hung straight off a fat pipe at microsoft.
[mcope@PhatLinus ~]$
traceroute to www.windows2000test.com (207.46.171.196), 30 hops max, 40 byte pac
kets
.
.
.
11 sl-microsoft-4-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.192.6) 38.162 ms 38.811 ms 38.
168 ms
12 iuscgsrfec7502-a4-00-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.190.46) 38.590 ms 39.038 ms 39
.998 ms
13 iuscb11ixc7502-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.129.8) 39.729 ms 39.334 ms 40.
140 ms
14 iusd27nt5c7201-a2-0-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.168.68) 39.859 ms 40.737 ms 39.
445 ms
15 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 41.040 ms 44.067 ms 45.815 ms
16 * * *
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
OK, so now we even have the root password. Great. We're definitely getting closer to cracking that baby! The only thing we need is for Jeff to enable remote root logins. And I'm sure he will. Just to make things interesting. Come on, Jeff! Then I'll be sure to crack it!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I have to be honest and say I am unimpressed by both. For example the Windows box is still pingable and the Linux box is not and thus not vulnerable to ping flooding/smurf attacks. As a example (result?) of the configuration differences the bulk of the attacks on the Windows box also simply appear to be DOS attacks, not anything really effective at testing the security. I find myself wondering what the percentage of attacks on the Linux box are DOS boxes as opposed to the percentage on the MS box. When Microsoft can come out and say "all the attacks on the box were DOS attacks (which of course all OSes are vulnerable to in some way or another) they are going to have a MAJOR PR coup. I hope those crackers who are simply running DOS attacks on the Windows box stop, or else the Linux community is going to end up with egg on it's face big time, when MS can say: "But they never once managed to compromise the security and access information they were not supposed to be able to."
DOS = Denial of Server
umm.. was that supposed to be funny or something ? better luck next time :)
DOS = Denial of Service
Idiot anonymous coward.
DOS, in this context, means "Denial of Service".
use Alt+reload (or is it shift... i forget. have to use winderz at werk) and it'll pull up a non-cached version.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
At this URL
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/8410.html
Gist is, Win anything is inherently insecure due to lack of ground up security architecture.
4 nics will only do any good for an intranet. Unless you have a 400mbit connection to the internet. It's not a very realistic setup.
-matt
Why do I only see ACs claiming this?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
DOS == Denial Of Service
Read the previous post again with this definition in hand and all will be made clear, Grasshopper.
I can't believe the stats on the Windoze box
s /q142/6/41.asp
:^P
It says memory usage around 114Mbs...
Perfmon info from 8/6/99 10:00am
Datagrams Received/sec Avg: 250
Fragments Received/sec Avg: 4
Total Fragment Reassembly Errors 30000 in the last hour
Connections Avg: 500
% Processor Time Avg: 40
Memory use steady at about 114000K
They also posted a new support document explaining how what is happening to the machine is normal :
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
I would like to learn some more on this mega server, more specs (steady size of the swap file, cpu idle time, if someone can use the machine to play minesweeper right now...)
This really is fun to see... Happy happy joy joy!!
I played with a beta of Windows 2000 server earlier this year. The BASE install on my PII 400 ate 86 mb of RAM just to run. Then when I started gutting all the stuff I DIDN'T NEED i got it down to a "measely" 68 mb. Pretty pathetic.
Actually it's Denial of Service
;-)
Yes, I know I'm being a bit pedantic
oh you *sad animal*
DOS here stands for Denial of Service, not Disk Operating System
This being a different use of the word "pingable" to the normal one?
# ping -s crack.linuxppc.org
PING crack.linuxppc.org: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=0. time=455. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=1. time=373. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=4. time=301. ms
64 bytes from 169.207.154.108: icmp_seq=5. time=427. ms
=DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER ERROR: REINSTALL UNIVERSE AND REBOOT=
I remeber reading somewhere (might be ESR's article on linuxtoday.com) that the holly MS box had been broken into (mentions of guestbook changes). Sorry don't have a URL but it still seems to be an interesting point
Really, who is going to keep M$ honest about the results of this PR event? Admitedly I don't know a whole lot about the subject (I do back-end almost exclusively), but it would seem easy enough to simply moniter the system and take it down when it was cracked. Redmond could claim a DoS, or fake the logs, or whatever. The Mindcraft imbroglio showed that there isn't much that they aren't willing to stoop to. Maybe I'm missing something here, but who in their right mind thinks that they would ever admit to being cracked?
...disciplining the ronkeys since 3/2000...
Really, who is going to keep M$ honest about the results of this PR event? Admitedly I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but it would seem easy enough to simply moniter the system and take it down when it was cracked. Redmond could claim a DoS, or fake the logs, or whatever. The Mindcraft imbroglio showed that there isn't much that they aren't willing to stoop to. Maybe I'm missing something here, but who in their right mind thinks that they would ever admit to being cracked?
...disciplining the ronkeys since 3/2000...
Okay. This is off-topic. What the hell'sa bogoMIP? I see it listed in the stats, there, and I see it zoom by in my kernel boot. Is it some simplistic benchmark?
Dirk
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Go for it.
They ride our network, this would be a cool test.
Start on Monday though.
Good. ;-) I haven't been able to ping it all morning.
well, i think you slowed it down, but it was still kind enough to give me that nice screenshot posted above.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Actually NT is built on the parts of OS/2 that MS took with them when they put the screws to IBM. Of course, given 4+ years, it is amazing to see just how badly they have broken OS/2... I guess this is what happens when you give a thousand monkeys a shakespear novel and have them re-write it. Oh sure some of the book will there, but it sure as hell wouln't make sense anymore. ;p
Ouch! Seriously????
But but but that means I won't be able to put it on my little machine....
Oh no wait! I wouldn't anyway!
You are totally right about this...
If we want this experiment to show that MickeySoft tool is not as secure as MickeySoft wants us to believe, we must not use known ways that will bring down almost any server (newest stable kernel has anti-DOS methods, still I do not know if this is enough to stop any attack, sorry).
We must show that it cannot support the same amount of traffic the surveys said it could.
Still, whatever press releases come out of this, you can rest assured that DOS attacks will be pointed out, and show that under normal climatic conditions nothing could crack the server... I can't wait to see MickeySoft having a linux box and saying that they want to redo the tests on the real live internet... What would you think of such a test being down... Let's redo the Mindcraft tests but on the web... and have some support teams available to support the servers...
Éric Desfonds