Mac users won't turn on any of them except for Mac file sharing, which should be pretty safe; I don't know of any AppleTalk exploits.
Just because there are no exploits, doesn't mean you have security. (See my last sentence below.)
I remember from an Apple developer's conference about 1987 (yes that's EIGHY seven) that when the password traverses an AppleTalk network, it is DES encrypted, or something like that.
In recent years, you can use AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) over TCP as well as over AppleTalk. Now I don't know about Apple's implementation of AFP over TCP, but when I use a Netatalk server on a Linux box, the password is in the clear. Apparently, Netatalk doesn't have or use a UAM on the Mac side to scramble the password. Even bad ol' Microsoft does this -- although you need to use a custom UAM from MS to access AFP on an NT Server from a Mac. But it's easy, just drop the UAM into your System Folder. And has been this way for years. (UAM = <something> authentication module, or somesuch.)
At home, on Cable Modem, I have a Linux box, static IP, domain name. At work, using my Mac I sometimes mount my home directory using AFP. It's so easy. Just go to the chooser, mount it, etc. My home directory from Linux at home on my Mac desktop at work!
I've often suspected that the password goes naked (in the clear). I just now positively confirmed it. I ran Ethereal (from a Win98se box), while I mounted my home directory from home (Linux) to my Mac desktop. Yup, the password is in the clear. It's right there in the packets.
The next logical step is to write the cute dude responsible for dsniff to see what the possibilities are to get dsniff to reveal AFP passwords over TCP.
The irony of this is that Mac mounting an AFP server volume is insecure only when the server is a Linux box. (well, actually Netatalk)
You don't see FreeBSD fold vandalizing sidewalks. I guess they don't have anything to prove!
How can I put this so it isn't modded as a troll?
When I first read this, I interpreted it to have just the opposite meaning as you meant it. I then realized how you meant it. There must be a better way to phrase this.
Why should I be required to own a camera to make fair use of the DVD that I paid for, and still have in my posession?
Why should I have to go to lots of trouble setting up a camera simply to exercise my fair use rights?
Why? Because someone else, somewhere, might theoretically pirate DVD's?
Continuing the crowbar analogy, if we make crowbars illegal, there are other alternatives for the legitimate uses of crowbars -- no matter how cumbersome or inconvenient they may be. The people who use crowbars for legitimate purposes should be required to bear the burden of using inferior alternatives, because some people somewhere could potentially use crowbars for illegal purposes.
The opposition who invoked the Digital Crowbar analogy was exactly right! DeCSS is a digital crowbar. It is a tool. Lots of other tools have potential illegal uses as well. Where do we draw the line on banning tools because of their potential for illegal uses? Should we outlaw photocopiers, VCR's? DVD players?
Changing gears again...
Should anyone have the right to build their own DVD player? Should it be illegal for me to build a device in my garage that can play DVD's? What if I want to build a DVD jukebox that copies my DVD's to a big hard disk and then presents me a "jukebox" interface to select and play DVD's in my family room? Should it also be forbidden to build a CD player? An old fashioned phonograph using a straight pin and tin can? Should it be be illegal to use two tin cans and a string? Maybe all engineering at all levels should just be illegal?
Problem: Judges might not understand why it's important to have undegraded material to use in compression experiments. "Why do you need fully-quality material to compress it?", they might ask.
Tomorrow I'm going to contact the patent office and file a claim on the following.......That takes care of me ever having to work again, saving my time and energy for more valuable things like playing all the way through Doom
Clearly, this is abuse of the patent system.
The purpose of patents are to encourage innovation. Not to make you comfortable playing DOOM.
Your patent on verbal/musical tones should encourage you to innovate in other ways, such as vibrating phones, and vibrating phone accessories in assorted shapes.
Re:Some Points to consider:
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
its' possible to install OSX *without* the BSD subsystem
Isn't this the default? That is, only truly wierd people would install the BSD subsystem.:-) Other Mac users would look at you funny, etc.
There was a long span of time between HyperCard and AppleScript.
During that time, the Mac world was afflicted with about (under) 40 different viruses. A free program Disinfectant was developed by Northwestern university.
Disinfectant was wonderful. It solved all four problems: (1) Detection [after infection] (2) Repair [after infection] (3) Prevention [hook system traps, alert when virus tries to insert itself] (4) Education [it's detailed documentation was absolutely first rate]
And it was freeware. You could expect an updated Disinfectant to appear online within 24-48 hours after an entirely new Mac virus was discovered. (And this is all prior to the WWW, and even Gopher. Back in the days when Mac users used dial up CompuServe/AOL, and AOL was a Mac-Only service.)
As a result of Disinfectant, after about 30-some-odd viruses were developed for Mac, no more appeared. It just wasn't any fun. Limited market share platform, and your virus can't spread very far with Disinfectant around and widely installed.
There were Word Macro viruses -- but these were cross-platform, not unique to Mac. An AppleScript virus, but wasn't this years later? Didn't AppleScript not appear until about 1992 ish -- years after the original Mac virus wars?
Re:Cracker vs. Cookie
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
Both Cracker and Cookie are computer jargon terms, and nobody seems to get them confused. So why the problems with Cracker vs. Hacker? Or Hacker vs. Ax Murderer?
very few animals were harmed in the making of this post.
I was a VoiceStream customer for 28 months. Until my phones (plural) quit working. Originally I had been with Aerial, which was acquired by VS. Soon after this my phones quit. I then had to deal with VS "Customer Support".
Talk about a bunch of freaking idiots! They just had no clue what was going on. I ended up calling Motorola who was extremely helpful. I knew what was going on. Motorola knew what was going on. VS did not. A bunch of utterly clueless morons. Lots of broken verbal promises. Just horrible customer support overall.
It's as if these people had a script to follow. If your problem isn't on the script, then they are totally clueless.
Changing gears... Why can't any drive through fast food place get a simple order right!?! Here, a college town, I swear we have more fast food places per-capita than anywhere else.:-) Yet none of them can get an order right. They go to great lengths, including the use of multi-thousand dollar machines to make sure they collect your money right. Why can't they use some technology to make sure they get your order right? What if each item they put in your bag had a bar code that had to be scanned. Then the machine would know that the sack they hand you had everything right? Why? Because they don't care!
In fact, customer service in general, anywhere, just generally sucks. It isn't limited to over the phone. It isn't limited to drive thru fast food. It's a more general problem in society. Nobody cares anymore.
Question: Why did people care many decades ago? What was different?
Are you saying that linux isn't a viable alternative?
Yes.
With qualifications. Re-read what I said carefully. This is my opinion. Others have different opinions. For most people Linux is not a viable alternative.
I am truly amazed at how quickly it's getting there.
For some people it is not only a viable alternative, but it is a truly wonderful alternative.
Also from the MS perspective, Linux is not a viable alternative for many unfortunante people, because they simply must use Windows -- even if they would prefer not to. There are various reasons for this, but they all ultimately boil down to how well entrenched MS is.
To be more upbeat, things do change. Not overnight. But just look back at the past 20 years of this industry. Nothing stays the same.
You weren't forced to sign the license or to use MSFT products; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to use their software.
Untrue, IMHO. It's monopoly power at work.
You do have to use their software.
It's like saying you don't have to have a telephone. You don't have to have electricity. They are a monopoly, and they control a product that most people simply must have.
MS is widely used. Imagine the same situation with any other commonly used office product: FAX, cell phone, copier, etc. Now imagine if any one of these could only be obtained from big monopolistic corporation. Sure, there maybe alternatives, but not really. That's why the monopolist has a monopoly -- the fact that there are not alternatives. Sure, free alternatives may be on the horizon. We may advocate freedom. We may celebrate each growing victory for free software. But for most people, the vast majority, these are simply not usable yet.
If you truly believe that free software is at present a viable replacement for MS, for most users, not just a few, then you must necessarily also believe Judge Jackson was dead wrong in declaring MS a monopoly. What does monopoly mean? It doesn't mean the most market share. It means they have you over a barrel. (And now that you're nice and bent over...)
Don't get too excited. Microsoft has a couple options here: change Maryland law, change the TOS, or give up (potentially) billions in revenues by banning Marylanders in order to avoid the onerous task of changing the TOS. Which do you think it will pick?
I see it differently....
Don't get too excited. Microsoft has a couple options here: purchase a new Maryland law, change the TOS, or give up (potentially) billions in revenues by bombing Marylanders in order to avoid the onerous task of changing the TOS. Which do you think it will pick?
I think they'll pick the bombing option, which is similar to the crashing option. Just give Marylander's some free MS software designed specifically for Maryland. Continue doing this without mercy until Maryland submits. It's cheaper than buying a new law.
Yes they can. They can say anything they want. So can the lawyers.
They could even say that their original intent was not for the service to be used the way it is today -- for the illegal trade in copyrighted material.
How could you proove that such a statement is untrue?
Now, you and I might find such a story unlikely or we might not believe it. But that's a different thing than what they could plausibly say.
Much though we love to hate Microsoft, there was no way that this kind of land grab was what was intended.
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to agree with your whole overzealous lawyer bit. But still, think about this quote from the article...
if Microsoft doesn't know what's in its own terms of service regarding personal information, then what hope do its customers have for the privacy of their own information?
Maybe Microsoft does know what is in their own terms of service. Obviously somebody wrote it. A manager's manager's manager probably had to approve it, etc.
We'll probably never know. You're probably right. But I'm cynical enough about corporations at this point not to just assume it was all an honest mistake, now that they got caught.
Finally, Microsoft is easy to hate. And rightfully so. They have earned it. How? By doing crap like this. Did you pay attention to the day by day testimony of the antitrust trial? (I did.) OTOH, maybe we should all just have Love and warm fuzzies for Microsoft. Seems to work for some people.
Maybe they want humans to integrate into their biotech?
I just love the way the technology of the really old races is shown on B5. It really made me think.
We've only been doing things this way for 50 years, some things 100 years, some things 150 years. Sure we've invested a lot in building on what we've got, and then building on top of that. But there are other fundamental ways of doing some things which we might just be on the verge of discovering this century. Consider where the state of electronics in, say, 1920. Might biotech/nanotech be about the same right now compared to the turn of the next century? How might we do things in 1000 years from now? 5000? 100,000?
What would happen as we learn to exploit biotech and nanotech? We would eventually be able to live forever. At some point, you want your population to quit expanding. Eventually your technology is indistinguishable from magic.:-) [Crell?] Do you eventually learn enough that you become bored? [Q?] Do you no longer desire any contact with the younger races? [B5 First Ones?]
Anyway, back to the question. If aliens are much more advanced, their technology might not even resemble ours. Heck, their lifeform might not even resemble ours. In fact, they might consider us as resources, or as having fewer rights. They might consider earth uninhabited by intelligent life, and ripe for development/colonization, as we might a jungle or rain forest. Just clear back some of the natural habitat and animals.
The assumption of technology compatibility is assuming a lot. Can we recognize them as intelligent? Can they recognize us as (sufficiently) intelligent? Can we learn to communicate? Finally, if all of the above, then do we have products/services/culture of interest to the other? [Example: how B5 Centuari Prime first traded jumpgate technology in exchange for Earth's improved hair moose formulas.] If so, then the issue of technology integration might arise.
Unless governments stop bending everytime the corporate puppet WIPO wants it, we're clearly headed that way.
WIPO. Hmmm. Sounds like a brand of toilet paper. Maybe that's why government won't stop bending.
Re:Use DJBDNS instead of BIND.
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
UNIX philosophy: Small utilities that only do one thing really well, then chain them together to form a bigger whole.
Linux distribution philosophy is similar: Small utilities that only do one thing really well, then chain them together to form a bigger hole.
Most Linux distros follow this philosophy quite well. They form a really big hole by chaining together things like: telnet, wuftp, bind, rhost, nfs, etc.:-)
"The key is a Microsoft key -- it is not shared with any party, including the NSA," Windows NT security product manager Scott Culp said. "We don't leave backdoors in any products."
Notice that he didn't say "We don't put backdoors in any products". He just said that we don't leave them there.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac users won't turn on any of them except for Mac file sharing, which should be pretty safe; I don't know of any AppleTalk exploits.
Just because there are no exploits, doesn't mean you have security. (See my last sentence below.)
I remember from an Apple developer's conference about 1987 (yes that's EIGHY seven) that when the password traverses an AppleTalk network, it is DES encrypted, or something like that.
In recent years, you can use AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) over TCP as well as over AppleTalk. Now I don't know about Apple's implementation of AFP over TCP, but when I use a Netatalk server on a Linux box, the password is in the clear. Apparently, Netatalk doesn't have or use a UAM on the Mac side to scramble the password. Even bad ol' Microsoft does this -- although you need to use a custom UAM from MS to access AFP on an NT Server from a Mac. But it's easy, just drop the UAM into your System Folder. And has been this way for years. (UAM = <something> authentication module, or somesuch.)
At home, on Cable Modem, I have a Linux box, static IP, domain name. At work, using my Mac I sometimes mount my home directory using AFP. It's so easy. Just go to the chooser, mount it, etc. My home directory from Linux at home on my Mac desktop at work!
I've often suspected that the password goes naked (in the clear). I just now positively confirmed it. I ran Ethereal (from a Win98se box), while I mounted my home directory from home (Linux) to my Mac desktop. Yup, the password is in the clear. It's right there in the packets.
The next logical step is to write the cute dude responsible for dsniff to see what the possibilities are to get dsniff to reveal AFP passwords over TCP.
The irony of this is that Mac mounting an AFP server volume is insecure only when the server is a Linux box. (well, actually Netatalk)
You don't see FreeBSD fold vandalizing sidewalks. I guess they don't have anything to prove!
How can I put this so it isn't modded as a troll?
When I first read this, I interpreted it to have just the opposite meaning as you meant it. I then realized how you meant it. There must be a better way to phrase this.
This might backfire on MS. But then again, this is nothing that a little 'education' cannot overcome
And if 'education' fails, there is always 'legislation'.
Then there's always monopoly power. ("We're the only $monopoly in town", where $monopoly is one of ["bakery", "DSL provider", "undertaker"], etc.)
This is yet another example of how the Apple Macintosh has led the industry and everyone else follows.
Apple had flaming Mac PowerBooks years ago. PC vendors are just now getting around to copying.
Why should I be required to own a camera to make fair use of the DVD that I paid for, and still have in my posession?
Why should I have to go to lots of trouble setting up a camera simply to exercise my fair use rights?
Why? Because someone else, somewhere, might theoretically pirate DVD's?
Continuing the crowbar analogy, if we make crowbars illegal, there are other alternatives for the legitimate uses of crowbars -- no matter how cumbersome or inconvenient they may be. The people who use crowbars for legitimate purposes should be required to bear the burden of using inferior alternatives, because some people somewhere could potentially use crowbars for illegal purposes.
The opposition who invoked the Digital Crowbar analogy was exactly right! DeCSS is a digital crowbar. It is a tool. Lots of other tools have potential illegal uses as well. Where do we draw the line on banning tools because of their potential for illegal uses? Should we outlaw photocopiers, VCR's? DVD players?
Changing gears again...
Should anyone have the right to build their own DVD player? Should it be illegal for me to build a device in my garage that can play DVD's? What if I want to build a DVD jukebox that copies my DVD's to a big hard disk and then presents me a "jukebox" interface to select and play DVD's in my family room? Should it also be forbidden to build a CD player? An old fashioned phonograph using a straight pin and tin can? Should it be be illegal to use two tin cans and a string? Maybe all engineering at all levels should just be illegal?
Problem: Judges might not understand why it's important to have undegraded material to use in compression experiments. "Why do you need fully-quality material to compress it?", they might ask.
Tomorrow I'm going to contact the patent office and file a claim on the following.......That takes care of me ever having to work again, saving my time and energy for more valuable things like playing all the way through Doom
Clearly, this is abuse of the patent system.
The purpose of patents are to encourage innovation. Not to make you comfortable playing DOOM.
Your patent on verbal/musical tones should encourage you to innovate in other ways, such as vibrating phones, and vibrating phone accessories in assorted shapes.
its' possible to install OSX *without* the BSD subsystem
:-) Other Mac users would look at you funny, etc.
:-)
Isn't this the default? That is, only truly wierd people would install the BSD subsystem.
too bad it doesn't have a Linux subsystem.
There was a long span of time between HyperCard and AppleScript.
During that time, the Mac world was afflicted with about (under) 40 different viruses. A free program Disinfectant was developed by Northwestern university.
Disinfectant was wonderful. It solved all four problems: (1) Detection [after infection] (2) Repair [after infection] (3) Prevention [hook system traps, alert when virus tries to insert itself] (4) Education [it's detailed documentation was absolutely first rate]
And it was freeware. You could expect an updated Disinfectant to appear online within 24-48 hours after an entirely new Mac virus was discovered. (And this is all prior to the WWW, and even Gopher. Back in the days when Mac users used dial up CompuServe/AOL, and AOL was a Mac-Only service.)
As a result of Disinfectant, after about 30-some-odd viruses were developed for Mac, no more appeared. It just wasn't any fun. Limited market share platform, and your virus can't spread very far with Disinfectant around and widely installed.
There were Word Macro viruses -- but these were cross-platform, not unique to Mac. An AppleScript virus, but wasn't this years later? Didn't AppleScript not appear until about 1992 ish -- years after the original Mac virus wars?
Both Cracker and Cookie are computer jargon terms, and nobody seems to get them confused. So why the problems with Cracker vs. Hacker? Or Hacker vs. Ax Murderer?
very few animals were harmed in the making of this post.
It's a more pervasive problem in society.
:-) Yet none of them can get an order right. They go to great lengths, including the use of multi-thousand dollar machines to make sure they collect your money right. Why can't they use some technology to make sure they get your order right? What if each item they put in your bag had a bar code that had to be scanned. Then the machine would know that the sack they hand you had everything right? Why? Because they don't care!
I was a VoiceStream customer for 28 months. Until my phones (plural) quit working. Originally I had been with Aerial, which was acquired by VS. Soon after this my phones quit. I then had to deal with VS "Customer Support".
Talk about a bunch of freaking idiots! They just had no clue what was going on. I ended up calling Motorola who was extremely helpful. I knew what was going on. Motorola knew what was going on. VS did not. A bunch of utterly clueless morons. Lots of broken verbal promises. Just horrible customer support overall.
It's as if these people had a script to follow. If your problem isn't on the script, then they are totally clueless.
Changing gears... Why can't any drive through fast food place get a simple order right!?! Here, a college town, I swear we have more fast food places per-capita than anywhere else.
In fact, customer service in general, anywhere, just generally sucks. It isn't limited to over the phone. It isn't limited to drive thru fast food. It's a more general problem in society. Nobody cares anymore.
Question: Why did people care many decades ago? What was different?
Are you saying that linux isn't a viable alternative?
Yes.
With qualifications. Re-read what I said carefully. This is my opinion. Others have different opinions. For most people Linux is not a viable alternative.
I am truly amazed at how quickly it's getting there.
For some people it is not only a viable alternative, but it is a truly wonderful alternative.
Also from the MS perspective, Linux is not a viable alternative for many unfortunante people, because they simply must use Windows -- even if they would prefer not to. There are various reasons for this, but they all ultimately boil down to how well entrenched MS is.
To be more upbeat, things do change. Not overnight. But just look back at the past 20 years of this industry. Nothing stays the same.
You weren't forced to sign the license or to use MSFT products; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to use their software.
Untrue, IMHO. It's monopoly power at work.
You do have to use their software.
It's like saying you don't have to have a telephone. You don't have to have electricity. They are a monopoly, and they control a product that most people simply must have.
MS is widely used. Imagine the same situation with any other commonly used office product: FAX, cell phone, copier, etc. Now imagine if any one of these could only be obtained from big monopolistic corporation. Sure, there maybe alternatives, but not really. That's why the monopolist has a monopoly -- the fact that there are not alternatives. Sure, free alternatives may be on the horizon. We may advocate freedom. We may celebrate each growing victory for free software. But for most people, the vast majority, these are simply not usable yet.
If you truly believe that free software is at present a viable replacement for MS, for most users, not just a few, then you must necessarily also believe Judge Jackson was dead wrong in declaring MS a monopoly. What does monopoly mean? It doesn't mean the most market share. It means they have you over a barrel. (And now that you're nice and bent over...)
Don't get too excited. Microsoft has a couple options here: change Maryland law, change the TOS, or give up (potentially) billions in revenues by banning Marylanders in order to avoid the onerous task of changing the TOS. Which do you think it will pick?
I see it differently....
Don't get too excited. Microsoft has a couple options here: purchase a new Maryland law, change the TOS, or give up (potentially) billions in revenues by bombing Marylanders in order to avoid the onerous task of changing the TOS. Which do you think it will pick?
I think they'll pick the bombing option, which is similar to the crashing option. Just give Marylander's some free MS software designed specifically for Maryland. Continue doing this without mercy until Maryland submits. It's cheaper than buying a new law.
It seems to me as if IBMs involvement with the KDE is more harmful than good at this point.
Okay. So does this mean that IBM should get involved with a competing project instead of KDE?
They can't say it isnt
Yes they can. They can say anything they want. So can the lawyers.
They could even say that their original intent was not for the service to be used the way it is today -- for the illegal trade in copyrighted material.
How could you proove that such a statement is untrue?
Now, you and I might find such a story unlikely or we might not believe it. But that's a different thing than what they could plausibly say.
Answers for the tests were fine as long as the reasoning was sound and the result was within one or two factors of ten of the one he had in mind.
Perhaps you mean... as long as the reasoning sounded plausible....
Business will ALWAYS take advantage of uneducated workers, and that is why we have unions
Maybe that's also why we have teachers unions. So that business can continue to have a steady supply of uneducated workers.
If its good for business, it must be good for the country.
Also, don't unions take advantage of uneducated workers?
[ ] Check this box if you are an idiot, please
My impression was that the lawyers don't want people with critical thinking skills on the jury. They might decide the outcome based on facts.
If so, then this one question would be all you need to qualify.
Did the parrot project decide to use the Penis Bird as their logo?
Much though we love to hate Microsoft, there was no way that this kind of land grab was what was intended.
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to agree with your whole overzealous lawyer bit. But still, think about this quote from the article...
if Microsoft doesn't know what's in its own terms of service regarding personal information, then what hope do its customers have for the privacy of their own information?
Maybe Microsoft does know what is in their own terms of service. Obviously somebody wrote it. A manager's manager's manager probably had to approve it, etc.
We'll probably never know. You're probably right. But I'm cynical enough about corporations at this point not to just assume it was all an honest mistake, now that they got caught.
Finally, Microsoft is easy to hate. And rightfully so. They have earned it. How? By doing crap like this. Did you pay attention to the day by day testimony of the antitrust trial? (I did.) OTOH, maybe we should all just have Love and warm fuzzies for Microsoft. Seems to work for some people.
This is vaguely a spoiler.
:-) [Crell?] Do you eventually learn enough that you become bored? [Q?] Do you no longer desire any contact with the younger races? [B5 First Ones?]
Maybe they want humans to integrate into their biotech?
I just love the way the technology of the really old races is shown on B5. It really made me think.
We've only been doing things this way for 50 years, some things 100 years, some things 150 years. Sure we've invested a lot in building on what we've got, and then building on top of that. But there are other fundamental ways of doing some things which we might just be on the verge of discovering this century. Consider where the state of electronics in, say, 1920. Might biotech/nanotech be about the same right now compared to the turn of the next century? How might we do things in 1000 years from now? 5000? 100,000?
What would happen as we learn to exploit biotech and nanotech? We would eventually be able to live forever. At some point, you want your population to quit expanding. Eventually your technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Anyway, back to the question. If aliens are much more advanced, their technology might not even resemble ours. Heck, their lifeform might not even resemble ours. In fact, they might consider us as resources, or as having fewer rights. They might consider earth uninhabited by intelligent life, and ripe for development/colonization, as we might a jungle or rain forest. Just clear back some of the natural habitat and animals.
The assumption of technology compatibility is assuming a lot. Can we recognize them as intelligent? Can they recognize us as (sufficiently) intelligent? Can we learn to communicate? Finally, if all of the above, then do we have products/services/culture of interest to the other? [Example: how B5 Centuari Prime first traded jumpgate technology in exchange for Earth's improved hair moose formulas.] If so, then the issue of technology integration might arise.
Unless governments stop bending everytime the corporate puppet WIPO wants it, we're clearly headed that way.
WIPO. Hmmm. Sounds like a brand of toilet paper. Maybe that's why government won't stop bending.
UNIX philosophy: Small utilities that only do one thing really well, then chain them together to form a bigger whole.
:-)
Linux distribution philosophy is similar: Small utilities that only do one thing really well, then chain them together to form a bigger hole.
Most Linux distros follow this philosophy quite well. They form a really big hole by chaining together things like: telnet, wuftp, bind, rhost, nfs, etc.
"The key is a Microsoft key -- it is not shared with any party, including the NSA," Windows NT security product manager Scott Culp said. "We don't leave backdoors in any products."
Notice that he didn't say "We don't put backdoors in any products". He just said that we don't leave them there.