It's not clear from the article whether encrypting your hard drives prevent this attack from working or not, probably not, becuase I would think they would mention it if encryption didn't help; other than that it's just another rootkit that's virtually impossible to detect. But hey, wasn't there just a story about a rootkit using cache poisoning on intel motherboards in Linux to install an impossible to detect rootkit when you ALREADY have root access? This isn't really that different.
Were you thinking of doing something more sophisticated then booting w/ a live CD to change the root password (or just work on the hard drive as root)? Becuase you could guard against that by setting passwords for your BIOS, which most BIOSes seem to support. Also, I don't see why Vista or a Macintosh wouldn't be vulnerable to this, but I haven't really used either much.
Re:Software RAID completely broken in Jaunty
on
Ubuntu 9.04 Released
·
· Score: 1
I had this same problem give or take, I didn't have to use dd to manually wipe partitions, but I also couldn't get Ubuntu to recognize my raid array, since I was installing to a 512 mb root disk, and wanted/usr/var and/home on the raid array, I couldn't even make it through the install process. And this is an UBUNTU problem, not an installer problem. After I finally gave up on Ubuntu I tried Debiaan, which uses the same installer as Ubuntu, and everything just worked the first time through. Which isn't to say I haven't run into a bunch of other little annoyances with debian, but at least it runs. I should note, I previously had set up a virtual machine with Ubuntu Server and software raid that worked fine, but apparently problems will occur on some real hardware.
This just tsrikes me as stupid, the limitations on Home XP vs. XP pro are bad enough, now Microsoft is just going to piss of anyone who buys something w/ "Win7 Starter" installed, it may be easy to upgrade, but you'll have to pay extra for it, and so it loses MS the advantage of hiding the operating system cost from the user.
I disagree, I think that if I didn't now what linux was, and I saw this commercial enough times, I'd be curious enough to go online and try and find out. And it builds "word recognition" if somebody sees a netbook / phone with Linux OS later, kind of like that "intel inside" flash at the end of OEM commercials, tells you nothing about what an "intel" is, but builds name recognition for the consumer and just might make somebody who knows nothing buy an intel based computer instead of an amd machine.
Of course, there's still a few problems with that approach:
1) You've still got to fork out the cash to get people exposed to the ad repeatedly, I don't think the Linux Foundation has enough dough.
2) First google result for linux is "linux online", which is an OK source for some info, but not a real visually appealing website
Anyway, we'll see what happens, I think most likely the advertising will not change the status quo significantly.
The winning ad doesn't copy either the Apple or Microsoft campaign styles. It's actually pretty good, except for the fact that it doesn't at all make clear WHAT linux is, but it might make some people interested enough to google it.
My opinion is that stable versioning upgrades can be problematic. I like the "rolling release" distros much better, becuase the upgrades are much less massive in scope, and you're ussaully using software that's much more recent then you would be with something like Debian stable. Things occassionally do break on upgrade, but since you are ussaully not upgrading every package on your system, it's ussaully pretty easy to pinpoint what's causing the problem.
Now, I don't have personal experiance with Ubuntu here, but I do know that a lot of the time the latest Xorg releases work just fine without an xorg.conf file, and if you don't need one, why include it?
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you've got Ubuntu, and want to play with you Xorg configuration, all you have to do is basically:
"Windows XP accounts for about 63 percent of all Internet-connected computers, according to March 2009 statistics from Hitslink, while Windows Vista makes up about 24 percent."
I wonder if that counts downgrades? Either way, it's interesting, soon the majority of users will be using an unsupported operating system. And if Vista adoption is so low, when it's impossible to get XP on anything that isn't a netbook, also, this means that Microsoft won't be officially supporting an operating system suitable for a netbook anymore, and that seems like a pretty risky move right now, unless they're planning to release Windows 7 on April 14... and it really will run well on a netbook.
My 2 cents on netbooks:
The way people using computers is changing, and the growing popularity of netbooks is just the tip of the iceberg, I see a lot of people from my generation who only use computers as a platform to launch a browser and connect to the internet, and for that kind of computing, not only is an intel atom more than sufficient power-wise, but it really doesn't matter what OS you run the browser on top of. So I think you'll see a big divide in the market, with high-powered laptops and desktops still being available, but an increasingly large percentage of low-cost, light weight, and comparitively underpowered laptops in non-professional/business computer sales. And this is the one place that linux really has a shot at ending up in the hands of the mainstream consumer, becuase when all your applications are on the web, it doesn;t matter anymore what you're operating system is to the end user, and I think linux provides a lot of potentially desirable qualities to an OEM (although there are downsides as well) and particularly so since Apple apparently has no interest in the market, and it looks like Microsoft isn't giving it the attention it needs, either.
Yeah, I'll add a +1 to that; I mean, could imagine how FAST the web would be? And you could browse sites from a console!
I mean, yeah, no youtube, no pictures, no streaming audio, that's a bit of loss, so I wouldn't want to see it all the time, but if all you want to do is read slashdot, why does it have to be so hard to do using links?
I don't think they should mandate a browser, but if government pages were required to adhere strictly to standards, maybe IE family browsers wouldn't have been let of the hook for being so non-compliant for so long. Or maybe Opera would be the number one browser now...
I would recommend setting up a test network of real or virtual machines and doing things like:
Setting up a name server
Setting up a dhcp server
Setting up shared printing with Linux / Windows
via Samba + Cups
Set up a webserver
Set up a mail server
Play around Samba and nfs file sharing
Learn how to use OpenLDAP
Learn how to write shell scripts.
Not neccessarily in that order.
Qoute from TFA:
"They could breach the contract or they could decide not to renew," Baker says. While she says she doesn't expect Google to take either approach, she's nonetheless considering alternatives."
Which is just good, common sense. And even if they *knew* google was going to renew their contract, there's no reason not to shop for a better deal.
At some point last year (or the year before?) PCLinuxOS beat Ubuntu out for first place on the distrowatch rankings. I don't know why it happened, I don't remember how long it lasted, and I don't really know why it matters.
This is really just me guessing, but I wonder if the problem with KDE 4.2 being slow on your current machine is an issue of the graphics card as opposed to either processor speed or insufficient memory.
At any rate, if you've got hardware that can handle it, KDE 4.2 is very bueatiful, usable desktop.
I've also got a working install of FreeBSD, I haven't done a build world, but I've buillt a number of ports, and it seems fine, using the IDE controller. The only quirk is that if I try and use any non-default option in the boot loader, including, ironically "safe mode", then the vm will fail to mount the virtual drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Opinions as to whether or not Ubuntu is "slick" or non-slick are completely determined by how much you like brown.
It's on compact flash, I simply replace it with a copy.
It's not clear from the article whether encrypting your hard drives prevent this attack from working or not, probably not, becuase I would think they would mention it if encryption didn't help; other than that it's just another rootkit that's virtually impossible to detect. But hey, wasn't there just a story about a rootkit using cache poisoning on intel motherboards in Linux to install an impossible to detect rootkit when you ALREADY have root access? This isn't really that different.
Were you thinking of doing something more sophisticated then booting w/ a live CD to change the root password (or just work on the hard drive as root)? Becuase you could guard against that by setting passwords for your BIOS, which most BIOSes seem to support. Also, I don't see why Vista or a Macintosh wouldn't be vulnerable to this, but I haven't really used either much.
I had this same problem give or take, I didn't have to use dd to manually wipe partitions, but I also couldn't get Ubuntu to recognize my raid array, since I was installing to a 512 mb root disk, and wanted /usr /var and /home on the raid array, I couldn't even make it through the install process. And this is an UBUNTU problem, not an installer problem. After I finally gave up on Ubuntu I tried Debiaan, which uses the same installer as Ubuntu, and everything just worked the first time through. Which isn't to say I haven't run into a bunch of other little annoyances with debian, but at least it runs.
I should note, I previously had set up a virtual machine with Ubuntu Server and software raid that worked fine, but apparently problems will occur on some real hardware.
This just tsrikes me as stupid, the limitations on Home XP vs. XP pro are bad enough, now Microsoft is just going to piss of anyone who buys something w/ "Win7 Starter" installed, it may be easy to upgrade, but you'll have to pay extra for it, and so it loses MS the advantage of hiding the operating system cost from the user.
So ... this code is being used to maliciously cheat on calculus tests?
I disagree, I think that if I didn't now what linux was, and I saw this commercial enough times, I'd be curious enough to go online and try and find out. And it builds "word recognition" if somebody sees a netbook / phone with Linux OS later, kind of like that "intel inside" flash at the end of OEM commercials, tells you nothing about what an "intel" is, but builds name recognition for the consumer and just might make somebody who knows nothing buy an intel based computer instead of an amd machine.
Of course, there's still a few problems with that approach:
1) You've still got to fork out the cash to get people exposed to the ad repeatedly, I don't think the Linux Foundation has enough dough.
2) First google result for linux is "linux online", which is an OK source for some info, but not a real visually appealing website
Anyway, we'll see what happens, I think most likely the advertising will not change the status quo significantly.
He's using the new beta, they ported it to his arm.
Like the rude AC, I re-iterate more politely:
The winning ad doesn't copy either the Apple or Microsoft campaign styles. It's actually pretty good, except for the fact that it doesn't at all make clear WHAT linux is, but it might make some people interested enough to google it.
My opinion is that stable versioning upgrades can be problematic. I like the "rolling release" distros much better, becuase the upgrades are much less massive in scope, and you're ussaully using software that's much more recent then you would be with something like Debian stable. Things occassionally do break on upgrade, but since you are ussaully not upgrading every package on your system, it's ussaully pretty easy to pinpoint what's causing the problem.
Now, I don't have personal experiance with Ubuntu here, but I do know that a lot of the time the latest Xorg releases work just fine without an xorg.conf file, and if you don't need one, why include it?
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you've got Ubuntu, and want to play with you Xorg configuration, all you have to do is basically:
Xorg -configure /root/etc/xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf
mv
emacs
Well, this article would suggest that the upgrade process is smoother.
"Windows XP accounts for about 63 percent of all Internet-connected computers, according to March 2009 statistics from Hitslink, while Windows Vista makes up about 24 percent."
I wonder if that counts downgrades? Either way, it's interesting, soon the majority of users will be using an unsupported operating system. And if Vista adoption is so low, when it's impossible to get XP on anything that isn't a netbook, also, this means that Microsoft won't be officially supporting an operating system suitable for a netbook anymore, and that seems like a pretty risky move right now, unless they're planning to release Windows 7 on April 14 ... and it really will run well on a netbook.
My 2 cents on netbooks:
The way people using computers is changing, and the growing popularity of netbooks is just the tip of the iceberg, I see a lot of people from my generation who only use computers as a platform to launch a browser and connect to the internet, and for that kind of computing, not only is an intel atom more than sufficient power-wise, but it really doesn't matter what OS you run the browser on top of. So I think you'll see a big divide in the market, with high-powered laptops and desktops still being available, but an increasingly large percentage of low-cost, light weight, and comparitively underpowered laptops in non-professional/business computer sales. And this is the one place that linux really has a shot at ending up in the hands of the mainstream consumer, becuase when all your applications are on the web, it doesn;t matter anymore what you're operating system is to the end user, and I think linux provides a lot of potentially desirable qualities to an OEM (although there are downsides as well) and particularly so since Apple apparently has no interest in the market, and it looks like Microsoft isn't giving it the attention it needs, either.
Yeah, I'll add a +1 to that; I mean, could imagine how FAST the web would be? And you could browse sites from a console!
I mean, yeah, no youtube, no pictures, no streaming audio, that's a bit of loss, so I wouldn't want to see it all the time, but if all you want to do is read slashdot, why does it have to be so hard to do using links?
"'open source' is new," if you consider things that have been around since the 80's new and if you consider that the GNU stuff and linux stuff is basically cloning Unix, and that for all intents and purposes BSD IS Unix, which has been around since the 70's, then Microsoft is the new kid on the block. In fact, Microsoft used to SELL unix systems.
I don't think they should mandate a browser, but if government pages were required to adhere strictly to standards, maybe IE family browsers wouldn't have been let of the hook for being so non-compliant for so long. Or maybe Opera would be the number one browser now...
I would recommend setting up a test network of real or virtual machines and doing things like: Setting up a name server Setting up a dhcp server Setting up shared printing with Linux / Windows via Samba + Cups Set up a webserver Set up a mail server Play around Samba and nfs file sharing Learn how to use OpenLDAP Learn how to write shell scripts. Not neccessarily in that order.
I thought the American primary educational system was supposed to grind this out of you? It worked pretty well on me.
Qoute from TFA: "They could breach the contract or they could decide not to renew," Baker says. While she says she doesn't expect Google to take either approach, she's nonetheless considering alternatives." Which is just good, common sense. And even if they *knew* google was going to renew their contract, there's no reason not to shop for a better deal.
The GP wasn't talking about market-share, the GP was talking about reported user satisfaction, which isn't neccessarily linked to market-share.
At some point last year (or the year before?) PCLinuxOS beat Ubuntu out for first place on the distrowatch rankings. I don't know why it happened, I don't remember how long it lasted, and I don't really know why it matters.
This is really just me guessing, but I wonder if the problem with KDE 4.2 being slow on your current machine is an issue of the graphics card as opposed to either processor speed or insufficient memory. At any rate, if you've got hardware that can handle it, KDE 4.2 is very bueatiful, usable desktop.
I've also got a working install of FreeBSD, I haven't done a build world, but I've buillt a number of ports, and it seems fine, using the IDE controller. The only quirk is that if I try and use any non-default option in the boot loader, including, ironically "safe mode", then the vm will fail to mount the virtual drive.
try looking here .