I found that link the be quite amusing and I also consider it reason enough to never use any Opera products.
Heh, You've not tried Opera I guess. Opera is small, fast.. (blah.blah.blah). To put it short. There are two things I miss from my windows-days. It's Opera, and its mIRC.
I don't know how many times I've heard that NC's are "the big thing" the last 8 years. But - instead of taking of - terminals has dissapeared more and more. PC's and workstations are replacing them.
Why does this happen? Well, as far as I can tell, there are several reason. One - the most obvious - being that people want the same system that they've got at home. They want to be able to install programs. They want to be able to set the system up to their preferences. The problem with this is of course managing computers with individual setups.
Also, there is a privacy issue. You cannot possibly belive that the workers use all the time *working*. They surf the web, they write personal letters, and so on. Furthermore -- they don't want this to be stored on a central server. They want it to be stored on "their" computer.
Another thingie. With one central server, the companys work is much more vulnerable - if an evilminded cracker breaks system integrity. Don't think "backups!!". If a cracker really want to be bad, he trojans the backupsoftware, and let several weeks pass, before he erases everything. The result? Several weeks worth of work lost. If workers store their work at individual machines, everything won't be lost at the same time. (But, it is a much greater chance of machines getting cracked from time to time).
Finally - I think the NC have a future at the workplace. it's much more easy to configure / maintain for the administrator. But - only in workplaces where the workers know unix. I don't think the NT users are 'ready' for this. They want everything to be the same way as 'at home'.
The prices isn't that bad. If you care to take a look backwards in time, the prices nowadays are extremely cheap. I remember forking out $200 for 4 new megabytes of RAM 6 years ago. And - remember after that epoxy fabric in.. was it taiwan burned some.. 5-6 years ago? The prices was $200 for *one* megabyte of ram at the worst.
So, this isn't *expensive*. It's just 'bad luck' that you didn't buy when ram was a tad cheaper.
Here in Norway, most people I know use either redhat or slackware (a few people use suse and debian, but that isn't many).
Hi Norwolf, my fellow countryman.
The oldschools do still use Slackware - yes. But I really don't see the growth there. A lot of people use RedHat. But, after the gathering ('99), where free SuSE cd's was handed out - more and more people are moving to SuSE. Nearly everyone I've talked to the last 5 months, that has installed Linux -- has installed SuSE.
So - SuSE is growing, RedHat is 'well known', and slackware is on the way out. Debian on the other hand is slowly growing, as more and more people try it out. It's a great distro imho.
Hook. Line and Sinker. I'm taking a bite of the flamebait.
There will only be ONE distribution to survive the coming price and Capitalist war. It will be Red Hat simply because:
Not everybody participates in it. If I remember correctly - Debian doesn't even sell their distro at all, but let third parties take care of that. They cannot lose, and they cannot win.
+ They emply almost all the useful developers
Please define "useful developer".
+ They are the most widespread distro
And? So what? What does it matter?
+ They simply have MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE ELSE
Oh, and therefore Micro$haft should win, in your opinion?
Now stop complaining, code for the Good of OSS and let Red Hat make all the money.
Code for the good of Open Source. Use the distro you want to use. Stop supporting ONE distro. At home, I currently have SuSE installed on my main server. RedHat on my private machine, and Debian on my secondary server. Debian will replace SuSE on the mainserver as soon as I get a temporary server up'n running so that I may build the server and transfer the data -- and have everything up'n running -- and then just.. swap..
Why? Simply because I prefer apt. (Debian installtion-tool-thingie). That's MY opinion, and therefore I go for it.
That's the important thing here. People should get to know each of the major distros, and maybe a couple of the minor ones, and choose the one they prefer.
Standardisation is necessary for a product to succeed - be that the pedal layout in cars, or the user features and API's in an OS. Uniformity and market share are what perpetuates Microsoft Windows and QWERTY.
Standardisation for the directoy structure.. yes, I think it's needed. But it's beeing worked on afaik. Standardisation of programs? Well. Not necesarily. We need standards formats, not standard programs. It is important that the document produced in my editor imports the right way into your editor.
And remember one thing. Installation and so forth should never be done by non-techies. Neither for windows nor for linux. They try to do it all the time. In windows they do it and fails. In linux they wouldn't come that far.
As long as the techies know what they're doing, we only need standards for "the things people see and use". And, standard 'inwards' in each company, so that the company-network is easily maintainable.. and so forth
*ach. i'll stop ranting, i think you got my meaning*
come to think of it, could RedHat be becoming a sort of M$ ?
No. As long as they keep all their tools opensourced they can't. They may kill of competitors by delivering a better product or having better marketing, but quite frankly - it doesn't worry me.
If you want to swap from one distro of linux to another, it doesn't take you more than a couple of days getting to know the other distros installation tools. And -- except for that they *are* quite much alike.
M$ has gone too far, let's hope RedHat doesn't. If it does, it might get some users like M$ has. ie. "i must use it, its the standard, but i don't want to" kind of deal (even though it might not happen b/c its linux, so it'll run on any other distro).
*exactly*. I can take redhat linux, make improvements, and sell it as 'arcade linux'. Provide my own tech support and so on.
Personally I don't like the RedHat distro. I personally prefer Debian. So what? If someone uses redhat - that's their problem. And if I get an account on their box, I won't notice any big difference anyways. The programs I want will install on RedHat just as they will on Debian... AND, the other way around works just as well.
So, stop worrying. RedHat and competition is a Good Thing.
I disagree with it being an attempt at "world domination". If people in Europe prefer SuSE RedHat just won't be sucessful over there. RedHat won't be able to force people to use it, but since I like RedHat, I wish them the best.
People buy the distros that is *available*. I for one first bought a "combo-distro" from infomagic with debian 1.3 (it said 2.0 on the package.. booohoo), slackware, redhat and suse. I ended up using SuSE simply because it was the best (most up to date imho) distro on the cd's.
When I recently wanted to buy a newer distro.. I only found slackware 4.0 at a decent price. RedHat beeing sold at $70 , no debian or suse in my stores.
Then I got a friend of mine to burn out a copy of Debian -- which is my absolute favorite distro.
Point is -- if you don't have a cd-writer, you need to buy what is available. If suse is most widespread in europe -- My guess is that its most available for those without much bandwidth.
Their department of science is no match for our thousands of annoying Script Kiddies! It's time to organize these young punks and get more strategic with packet flooding!
Their department of science is probably, just like the US' schools equivalent filled to the brims with wannabe eLiTe packeteers.
*yawn* Why can't the packet kiddies realize that smurfing and SYNflooding (and so on) is a *bad thing*
(A) You're missing the fact that TCP isn't the only protocol you can blindly spoof. So, if we're talking about spoofing in general, there's a UDP and ICMP-sized hole there waiting for poorly written applications.
This is of course well known to the australians. You've got to be pretty damn stupid if you say that someone was involved in attacking you -- because of the sourceaddress of icmp / udp packets (or tcp-syn packets). I assume that we're talking about a successfull tcp-handshake. If not - I don't get why this got into the media at all.
(B) Lag has _nothing_ to do with a blind spoof attack, since you can either flood the spoofee or pick a host that's behind a network that doesn't report unreachables.
Very wrong. If you've followed bugtraq the last week or so, you would've noticed the "bug" in the linux 2.2 kernel that makes blindspoofing easy on a network with little lag. On the internet the blindspoofing would be difficult, because of lag. Also - if i remember correctly - the two machines would need to have quite syncronized clocks.
(C) Very diffuclt to predict sequence numbers are a relatively new occurance. I wouldn't bet my hard-earned money on everything using them either.
Any recent tcpip implementation should should have difficult to predict sequence numbers. I don't know how older systems works, so you're probably right.
(D) Why are you ok with cracked end-boxes, but not anything cracked in the path? You wouldn't believe the number of poorly administered routers, older routers with vulnerabilities, and new Web browser configuarble routers set up by morons.
I have a tendency to believe that most core-routers are well-configured. Of course, there are extreme amounts of poorly administered routers... but are there extreme amounts of poorly administred core-routers?
Of course, it may be that I'm not paranoid enough about THIS.:-)
The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all?
Eh. Say you run a company. Your server serves vital information to your employees - so that they can do their work. Your employees also need to use the internet.
Ok, what do you do? Well, you put everything on the same network, and make a hell of a firewall. You should be able to connect out -- but nobody should be able to connect from the outside to any of your machines. If you need a machine to be accessible from the internet, you put it outside the firewall -- or enable special rules for that machine. Furthermore, that machine should now be treated as 'non-trustable' by the rest of your network -- so that if it gets compromised, the rest of your network should not suffer at all.
*puh*
In other words -- the moment you put the host behind a secure firewall, it's not on a "public network" anymore. Now the next question is "what on earth may be looked upon as a 'secure firewall' -- does it exist?
Spoofing is very real, and if you believe otherwise, you're being illogical.
Either there need to be a cracked host in the route between the.mil box and the australien box, or a cracker resided on the same LAN (non-switched..) as the.mil box, or the australian box. if not, the only possibility would be blindspoofing -- and since that is next-to-impossible to accomplish on the net (due to lag, and pretty random numbers used in the handshakes) -- we can pretty much rule that out.
And, since I guess the.mil is connected 'straight to the backbone' -- and the australian site the same.. I really doubt any of the backbone routers are cracked -- and -- I really doubt any of them are on unswitched networks.
Now if one of those systems was an NT box, or a socks5 proxy (perhaps an open insecure wingate) with open access, then there would be little chance of the hacker/cracker being found.
My guess it that he did two or three bounces via insecure @home boxes. (there are hundreds of open wingates there..) Then via some.gov domain - to a.mil domain (so that the.mil wouldn't get too suspicious) - and then finally to australia.
Of course, just a guess, but thats what I would've done if i wanted to go on a cracking run. (@home really should start blocking port 23, 1080 and so forth)
1. a military host was compromised [..] or, 2. the US Army decided to audit [..] Quite frankly, I hope it's the latter.
But, it's probably the first alternative that's correct. The US military have thousands of *nix'es up'n running, some for years without any upgrades. There are bound to be hundreds of easily crackable boxes in the.mil domain.
and the.gov domain.. oh, don't get me started. I'm getting tired of all the EFNet scriptkiddies bragging by using.gov-domains as vanitydomains.
its trivial to spoof your IP into a different ADDRESS when portscanning a box...
You've got to get packets back to yourself, to get to know what ports are open. In other words -- it's not that easy. You've got to be "in between" so that you can packetsniff the packets coming from the host you're scanning, and the address you've spoofed.
I assume US military installations have at least a firewall protecting us from them?
Why should they filter outgoing packets?
And, no, I don't think all US-.mil sites filter outgoing packets. Not when you think about the amount of.mil domains you see on irc during a year. Scriptkiddies have a tendency to 'brag' by using them as vanitydomains.
this is a possible. I dont know if any slashdotters at the moment realise australian troops are in east timor enforcing the peace. This could be an indonesian 'crack' posing as a US IP.
Blah. Blindspoofing a tcpconnection isn't exactly easy. So my guess is that spoofed ip packets are out of the question. The american military got a box cracked again. Or maybe they forgot to close their wingate.
And if you don't think this is a realistic explanation, then start using IRC and visit a couple of "eLiTe takeover-kiddie-channels". you'll be surprised when you see how many who uses.gov and.mil domains.
Making this into a media-thingie about "US attacking australia" is absurd. The.mil box was obviously cracked. Some scriptkiddie playing around with a remote-exploitable bufferoverflow-script-thingie that the military has been to lazy to plug. Then the australian site was attempted for some reason. Maybe some australian from the 'attempted cracked domain' had @ status on some big IRC channel..
Congrats, whoever you are. I had a few good chuckles. (but I wouldn't want to be your ISP's complaint department right now)
Why not? Afraid that the American Family Organization are attacking him?;> Quite frankly, I would've loved working for his ISP. I would've loved answering all those mails to abuse@isp with sarcastic answers.:)
If someone is dumb enough to complain at this website, they deserve all the sarcasm they get thrown in their face. Humour should never be attacked. I don't exactly like dead-baby jokes, but I read alt.tasteless.jokes nevertheless. (But ignore the jokes I don't like).
I don't really get it. What's so private about my ip address? Right now it's 129.240.96.123 and anyone in the world can finger me at runevi@aristoteles.uio.no -- do I care? Nope. Not at all. I really don't get it why we should be so "anonymous" on the net. Of course, it's not fun beeing packeted on IRC. I've been smurfed and synflooded one to many times. (heh, one was stupid enough to do a ping -f.. sorry to say that i nailed his ass.;)
The point is. Your IP isn't anything special. If you're stupid enough to run BO / Netbus - that's your problem - and if someone exploits it -- of course, they're morally bankrupt. But, it's still not anyone except your own fault if you open up your system for exploiting.
I , as a serveradmin WANT to know the IP of those who request webpages from me. When i'm on irc, i WANT to be able to see what IP i'm talking to. Am I talking to someone in the same country as I am? Where in the country are they? (The major isp in norway, "telenor" (online.no..) gives out hosts according to where in the country you are.. ti01*, ti08* and ti34* or something is for example OSLO (the capital).
If I wanted privacy I wouldn't have used IRC, or I would've used a socks proxy. If people don't know how to bounce, well, it's their problem.
Well, these kids were in grade school but for high school,
Doesn't matter. The kids who play with computers (not those who steal mouseballs) are those who learn to use them effectively later. First they learn to destroy with programs. Then they learn to make their own destructive programs. Then they realize how stupid all that was -- but hey - they *learned* from it. They learned increadibly much from it.
Linux is NOT ready for the market MS owns now and won't be for some time ( and don't forget,it is unlikely that MS will be waiting for them to catch up.)
Actually I think it is "next-to" ready. The only real problem is how to configure X to work with an unbranded monitor. Windows did mine ok, but it was hell to configure it for linux.
Installing Red Hat with 'everything' isn't difficult choose 'everything' and let everything run smoothly. You might have to enter domain and hostname. But what the heck - installing the OS shouldn't be the end users job anyways.
Once set up, and configured with, say, KDE - Linux is extremely userfriendly. OK, we don't have the option to slap a cd in the cdrom drive and let it install at once (afaik) -- but that's one less source of trojans / viri as far as i'm concerned.
I'm looking forward to installing Linux on my fathers computer. He want linux on the one he's got now, and is going to use windows on the new one. I think it'll be interesting to see what he thinks of linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that link the be quite amusing and I also consider it reason enough to never use any Opera products.
.. (blah.blah.blah). To put it short. There are two things I miss from my windows-days. It's Opera, and its mIRC.
Heh, You've not tried Opera I guess. Opera is small, fast
--
Yes, we all are all waiting for this new browser that will be replacing netscape.... Are they planning to distributed it like netscape?
Opera isn't a new browser. It's been around for windows for at least 3 or 4 years. It's small (2MB), fast, configurable. It does follow the standards.
The only setback is that you've got to pay for it. But, I gladly fork out $35 or whatever the price was for a browser as good as Opera.
--
I don't know how many times I've heard that NC's are "the big thing" the last 8 years. But - instead of taking of - terminals has dissapeared more and more. PC's and workstations are replacing them.
Why does this happen? Well, as far as I can tell, there are several reason. One - the most obvious - being that people want the same system that they've got at home. They want to be able to install programs. They want to be able to set the system up to their preferences. The problem with this is of course managing computers with individual setups.
Also, there is a privacy issue. You cannot possibly belive that the workers use all the time *working*. They surf the web, they write personal letters, and so on. Furthermore -- they don't want this to be stored on a central server. They want it to be stored on "their" computer.
Another thingie. With one central server, the companys work is much more vulnerable - if an evilminded cracker breaks system integrity. Don't think "backups!!". If a cracker really want to be bad, he trojans the backupsoftware, and let several weeks pass, before he erases everything. The result? Several weeks worth of work lost. If workers store their work at individual machines, everything won't be lost at the same time. (But, it is a much greater chance of machines getting cracked from time to time).
Finally - I think the NC have a future at the workplace. it's much more easy to configure / maintain for the administrator. But - only in workplaces where the workers know unix. I don't think the NT users are 'ready' for this. They want everything to be the same way as 'at home'.
--
The prices isn't that bad. If you care to take a look backwards in time, the prices nowadays are extremely cheap. I remember forking out $200 for 4 new megabytes of RAM 6 years ago. And - remember after that epoxy fabric in .. was it taiwan burned some .. 5-6 years ago? The prices was $200 for *one* megabyte of ram at the worst.
So, this isn't *expensive*. It's just 'bad luck' that you didn't buy when ram was a tad cheaper.
--
Here in Norway, most people I know use either redhat or slackware (a few people use suse and debian, but that isn't many).
Hi Norwolf, my fellow countryman.
The oldschools do still use Slackware - yes. But I really don't see the growth there. A lot of people use RedHat. But, after the gathering ('99), where free SuSE cd's was handed out - more and more people are moving to SuSE. Nearly everyone I've talked to the last 5 months, that has installed Linux -- has installed SuSE.
So - SuSE is growing, RedHat is 'well known', and slackware is on the way out. Debian on the other hand is slowly growing, as more and more people try it out. It's a great distro imho.
--
Hook. Line and Sinker. I'm taking a bite of the flamebait.
.. swap..
There will only be ONE distribution to survive the coming price and Capitalist war. It will be Red Hat simply because:
Not everybody participates in it. If I remember correctly - Debian doesn't even sell their distro at all, but let third parties take care of that. They cannot lose, and they cannot win.
+ They emply almost all the useful developers
Please define "useful developer".
+ They are the most widespread distro
And? So what? What does it matter?
+ They simply have MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE ELSE
Oh, and therefore Micro$haft should win, in your opinion?
Now stop complaining, code for the Good of OSS and let Red Hat make all the money.
Code for the good of Open Source. Use the distro you want to use. Stop supporting ONE distro. At home, I currently have SuSE installed on my main server. RedHat on my private machine, and Debian on my secondary server. Debian will replace SuSE on the mainserver as soon as I get a temporary server up'n running so that I may build the server and transfer the data -- and have everything up'n running -- and then just
Why? Simply because I prefer apt. (Debian installtion-tool-thingie). That's MY opinion, and therefore I go for it.
That's the important thing here. People should get to know each of the major distros, and maybe a couple of the minor ones, and choose the one they prefer.
--
Standardisation is necessary for a product to succeed - be that the pedal layout in cars, or the user features and API's in an OS. Uniformity and market share are what perpetuates Microsoft Windows and QWERTY.
Standardisation for the directoy structure.. yes, I think it's needed. But it's beeing worked on afaik. Standardisation of programs? Well. Not necesarily. We need standards formats, not standard programs. It is important that the document produced in my editor imports the right way into your editor.
And remember one thing. Installation and so forth should never be done by non-techies. Neither for windows nor for linux. They try to do it all the time. In windows they do it and fails. In linux they wouldn't come that far.
As long as the techies know what they're doing, we only need standards for "the things people see and use". And, standard 'inwards' in each company, so that the company-network is easily maintainable.. and so forth
*ach. i'll stop ranting, i think you got my meaning*
--
come to think of it, could RedHat be becoming a sort of M$ ?
No. As long as they keep all their tools opensourced they can't. They may kill of competitors by delivering a better product or having better marketing, but quite frankly - it doesn't worry me.
If you want to swap from one distro of linux to another, it doesn't take you more than a couple of days getting to know the other distros installation tools. And -- except for that they *are* quite much alike.
M$ has gone too far, let's hope RedHat doesn't. If it does, it might get some users like M$ has. ie. "i must use it, its the standard, but i don't want to" kind of deal (even though it might not happen b/c its linux, so it'll run on any other distro).
*exactly*. I can take redhat linux, make improvements, and sell it as 'arcade linux'. Provide my own tech support and so on.
Personally I don't like the RedHat distro. I personally prefer Debian. So what? If someone uses redhat - that's their problem. And if I get an account on their box, I won't notice any big difference anyways. The programs I want will install on RedHat just as they will on Debian... AND, the other way around works just as well.
So, stop worrying. RedHat and competition is a Good Thing.
--
I disagree with it being an attempt at "world domination". If people in Europe prefer SuSE RedHat just won't be sucessful over there. RedHat won't be able to force people to use it, but since I like RedHat, I wish them the best.
.. booohoo), slackware, redhat and suse. I ended up using SuSE simply because it was the best (most up to date imho) distro on the cd's.
.. I only found slackware 4.0 at a decent price. RedHat beeing sold at $70 , no debian or suse in my stores.
People buy the distros that is *available*. I for one first bought a "combo-distro" from infomagic with debian 1.3 (it said 2.0 on the package
When I recently wanted to buy a newer distro
Then I got a friend of mine to burn out a copy of Debian -- which is my absolute favorite distro.
Point is -- if you don't have a cd-writer, you need to buy what is available. If suse is most widespread in europe -- My guess is that its most available for those without much bandwidth.
--
Their department of science is no match for our thousands of annoying Script Kiddies! It's time to organize these young punks and get more strategic with packet flooding!
Their department of science is probably, just like the US' schools equivalent filled to the brims with wannabe eLiTe packeteers.
*yawn* Why can't the packet kiddies realize that smurfing and SYNflooding (and so on) is a *bad thing*
--
(A) You're missing the fact that TCP isn't the only protocol you can blindly spoof. So, if we're talking about spoofing in general, there's a UDP
... but are there extreme amounts of poorly administred core-routers?
:-)
and ICMP-sized hole there waiting for poorly written applications.
This is of course well known to the australians. You've got to be pretty damn stupid if you say that someone was involved in attacking you -- because of the sourceaddress of icmp / udp packets (or tcp-syn packets). I assume that we're talking about a successfull tcp-handshake. If not - I don't get why this got into the media at all.
(B) Lag has _nothing_ to do with a blind spoof attack, since you can either flood the spoofee or pick a host that's behind a network that doesn't report unreachables.
Very wrong. If you've followed bugtraq the last week or so, you would've noticed the "bug" in the linux 2.2 kernel that makes blindspoofing easy on a network with little lag. On the internet the blindspoofing would be difficult, because of lag. Also - if i remember correctly - the two machines would need to have quite syncronized clocks.
(C) Very diffuclt to predict sequence numbers are a relatively new occurance. I wouldn't bet my hard-earned money on everything using them either.
Any recent tcpip implementation should should have difficult to predict sequence numbers. I don't know how older systems works, so you're probably right.
(D) Why are you ok with cracked end-boxes, but not anything cracked in the path? You wouldn't believe the number of poorly administered routers, older routers with vulnerabilities, and new Web browser configuarble routers set up by morons.
I have a tendency to believe that most core-routers are well-configured. Of course, there are extreme amounts of poorly administered routers
Of course, it may be that I'm not paranoid enough about THIS.
--
The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all?
Eh. Say you run a company. Your server serves vital information to your employees - so that they can do their work. Your employees also need to use the internet.
Ok, what do you do? Well, you put everything on the same network, and make a hell of a firewall. You should be able to connect out -- but nobody should be able to connect from the outside to any of your machines. If you need a machine to be accessible from the internet, you put it outside the firewall -- or enable special rules for that machine. Furthermore, that machine should now be treated as 'non-trustable' by the rest of your network -- so that if it gets compromised, the rest of your network should not suffer at all.
*puh*
In other words -- the moment you put the host behind a secure firewall, it's not on a "public network" anymore. Now the next question is "what on earth may be looked upon as a 'secure firewall' -- does it exist?
--
Also, spoofing should be possible in one way attacks, like some denial of service attacks.
;)
DoS attacks cannot really be called 'cracking'
SYNflooding / smurfing / udp-flooding with spoofed sender-addresses is nothing new. But I really, really doubt that is what this is all about.
--
Spoofing is very real, and if you believe otherwise, you're being illogical.
.mil box and the australien box, or a cracker resided on the same LAN (non-switched..) as the .mil box, or the australian box. if not, the only possibility would be blindspoofing -- and since that is next-to-impossible to accomplish on the net (due to lag, and pretty random numbers used in the handshakes) -- we can pretty much rule that out.
.mil is connected 'straight to the backbone' -- and the australian site the same .. I really doubt any of the backbone routers are cracked -- and -- I really doubt any of them are on unswitched networks.
.. american military has a crackec box..
Either there need to be a cracked host in the route between the
And, since I guess the
Therefore
--
Now if one of those systems was an NT box, or a socks5 proxy (perhaps an open insecure wingate) with open access, then there would be little chance of the hacker/cracker being found.
.gov domain - to a .mil domain (so that the .mil wouldn't get too suspicious) - and then finally to australia.
My guess it that he did two or three bounces via insecure @home boxes. (there are hundreds of open wingates there..) Then via some
Of course, just a guess, but thats what I would've done if i wanted to go on a cracking run. (@home really should start blocking port 23, 1080 and so forth)
--
1. a military host was compromised [..] or,
.mil domain.
.gov domain .. oh, don't get me started. I'm getting tired of all the EFNet scriptkiddies bragging by using .gov-domains as vanitydomains.
2. the US Army decided to audit [..] Quite frankly, I hope it's the latter.
But, it's probably the first alternative that's correct. The US military have thousands of *nix'es up'n running, some for years without any upgrades. There are bound to be hundreds of easily crackable boxes in the
and the
--
its trivial to spoof your IP into a different ADDRESS when portscanning a box...
You've got to get packets back to yourself, to get to know what ports are open. In other words -- it's not that easy. You've got to be "in between" so that you can packetsniff the packets coming from the host you're scanning, and the address you've spoofed.
(correct me if i'm wrong)
--
I assume US military installations have at least a firewall protecting us from them?
.mil domains you see on irc during a year. Scriptkiddies have a tendency to 'brag' by using them as vanitydomains.
Why should they filter outgoing packets?
And, no, I don't think all US-.mil sites filter outgoing packets. Not when you think about the amount of
--
this is a possible. I dont know if any slashdotters at the moment realise australian troops are in east timor enforcing the peace. This could be an indonesian 'crack' posing as a US IP.
.gov and .mil domains.
Blah. Blindspoofing a tcpconnection isn't exactly easy. So my guess is that spoofed ip packets are out of the question. The american military got a box cracked again. Or maybe they forgot to close their wingate.
And if you don't think this is a realistic explanation, then start using IRC and visit a couple of "eLiTe takeover-kiddie-channels". you'll be surprised when you see how many who uses
--
Making this into a media-thingie about "US attacking australia" is absurd. The .mil box was obviously cracked. Some scriptkiddie playing around with a remote-exploitable bufferoverflow-script-thingie that the military has been to lazy to plug. Then the australian site was attempted for some reason. Maybe some australian from the 'attempted cracked domain' had @ status on some big IRC channel..
--
All threads given daemon privaleges.
No. They swap daemon with demon - and give all threads demon priviledges.
--
Congrats, whoever you are. I had a few good chuckles. (but I wouldn't want to be your ISP's complaint department right now)
;> Quite frankly, I would've loved working for his ISP. I would've loved answering all those mails to abuse@isp with sarcastic answers. :)
Why not? Afraid that the American Family Organization are attacking him?
If someone is dumb enough to complain at this website, they deserve all the sarcasm they get thrown in their face. Humour should never be attacked. I don't exactly like dead-baby jokes, but I read alt.tasteless.jokes nevertheless. (But ignore the jokes I don't like).
--
I don't really get it. What's so private about my ip address? Right now it's 129.240.96.123 and anyone in the world can finger me at runevi@aristoteles.uio.no -- do I care? Nope. Not at all. I really don't get it why we should be so "anonymous" on the net. Of course, it's not fun beeing packeted on IRC. I've been smurfed and synflooded one to many times. (heh, one was stupid enough to do a ping -f .. sorry to say that i nailed his ass .;)
The point is. Your IP isn't anything special. If you're stupid enough to run BO / Netbus - that's your problem - and if someone exploits it -- of course, they're morally bankrupt. But, it's still not anyone except your own fault if you open up your system for exploiting.
I , as a serveradmin WANT to know the IP of those who request webpages from me. When i'm on irc, i WANT to be able to see what IP i'm talking to. Am I talking to someone in the same country as I am? Where in the country are they? (The major isp in norway, "telenor" (online.no..) gives out hosts according to where in the country you are.. ti01*, ti08* and ti34* or something is for example OSLO (the capital).
If I wanted privacy I wouldn't have used IRC, or I would've used a socks proxy. If people don't know how to bounce, well, it's their problem.
--
Well, these kids were in grade school but for high school,
Doesn't matter. The kids who play with computers (not those who steal mouseballs) are those who learn to use them effectively later. First they learn to destroy with programs. Then they learn to make their own destructive programs. Then they realize how stupid all that was -- but hey - they *learned* from it. They learned increadibly much from it.
--
Linux is NOT ready for the market MS owns now and won't be for some time ( and don't forget,it is unlikely that MS will be waiting for them to catch up.)
Actually I think it is "next-to" ready. The only real problem is how to configure X to work with an unbranded monitor. Windows did mine ok, but it was hell to configure it for linux.
Installing Red Hat with 'everything' isn't difficult choose 'everything' and let everything run smoothly. You might have to enter domain and hostname. But what the heck - installing the OS shouldn't be the end users job anyways.
Once set up, and configured with, say, KDE - Linux is extremely userfriendly. OK, we don't have the option to slap a cd in the cdrom drive and let it install at once (afaik) -- but that's one less source of trojans / viri as far as i'm concerned.
I'm looking forward to installing Linux on my fathers computer. He want linux on the one he's got now, and is going to use windows on the new one. I think it'll be interesting to see what he thinks of linux.
--