It's not about one person. If a million, or 10 or 100 million armed people are ready to fight for their rights, then the government will stand up and listen, they will have to.
I hope it never comes to that, but the story has played out in history thousands of times. Do you really think it's different this time around?
The "right to bear arms" in the USA is ridiculous.
Is it? Do you think the First Amendment is also rediculous? Without the right to bear arms, how are you supposed to protect your other rights, just whine louder and louder?
Bash does have the feature, it is not part of the filesystem, read the bash man page. As another person noted, Debian disables this behavior by default.
It's not the cat part that matters, you can redirect to and from any socket with the normal redirection operators, and any executable./dev/tcp doesn't exist in the file system, I believe it's a special bash thing.
Thanks. It may come in handy. It is messy though, as it is, I have to fight my fellow "sysadmins" to keep them from doing a chmod 777 to "fix" permission problems, explaining this to them is going to be hell.
Well, I posted on the root level that license keys are probably the most expensive byte for byte, because in that case it is different, usually you have the full software installed, for free, and you just need to pay for the license key to use it. Almost all expensive software comes with a demo key before you buy it, but it ships with the full software package, so you can just unlock it once you get it integrated into your workflows.
To extend your analogy, it's like getting the house built on your land with the option to tear it down if you don't want to pay for the keys.
No, it wouldn't be hard to fix. Here is what I propose. Feel free to implement this idea, and critique it.
Basically, user private groups already have many advantages, all we need to do is patch things to allow the "owner" to be a group, rather than a user. Under user private groups, this would be pretty trivial, since the default owner group is the user private group of the owner.
This provides an easier way to get finer grained access control, without messing with ACLs or breaking backward compatibility.
It's a bad analogy, but we all know what you were arguing, it's been hashed over millions of times before.
The bottom line is, obscurity can be effective, when combined with real security. If I write an in-house program and give no one the source, and I also make it pretty secure, then the security is helped a little by the obscurity.
Obscurity of source code of a program that is available to the public in binary form is no real security at all. The binary contains the same instructions as the source code, just in a more obfuscated form. With sufficient effort, a binary could be translated back into source code of some sort.
Obscurity only works under very specific circumstances, and it is no substitute for real security, in any case.
A lot of the "bugs" in Unix type software are unexploited, and very difficult to exploit, or are local only. People generally don't look for these as often in MS products because it's assumed that once you have one account, you will pretty much have run of the system, since most services run with a high level of priveledge.
Really UNIX permissions are not very strong, they just aren't as braindead as MS ones, and most importantly, most people follow them, and don't requre root unnecessarily.
For example, as far as I know it is impossible to do this with normal UNIX permissions:
Allow group "A" read/write access to the directory Allow group "B" read only access to the directory Allow world no access to the directory
This is a very common need, which is unfulfilled by UNIX style permission systems.
My friend here informs me that I am incorrect, there is limited ownership of guns, but many types are highly restricted. Mostly they are only allowed to own shotguns and level action rifles.
But in the end, the Aussie government can do whatever they want to. It's not like they have to listen to the people, since they banned all private ownership of guns.
UL seems to be targeted at the business, the same place Red Hat is targeted. What advantage over Red Hat does UL offer? What is the compelling reason to switch from something that is already established in many companies, that comes from a company with a proven track record of comittment to open source?
I think you are missing the point. The people that are selling used books are acting as very effective market makers, going around to the small book stores and grabbing up anything of worth that is being sold for pennies.
Sure, if you are into reading paperbacks for pleasure, it's not going to affect you as much, but if you were the bargian hunter type, then you might be facing some new professional competition.
They filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, they are not bankrupt, and they are still operating.
It had nothing to do with their prices, Echostar defrauded them on their contract to turn over accounts in Feburary. Starband has not seen any of the revenue from their customers, because Echostar has been illegally intercepting it.
Starband is about $700 US startup costs, including one TV reciever and the "everything pack" of programming. The service is about $110 US a month for Internet and TV. It is two-way, unmetered.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about one person. If a million, or 10 or 100 million armed people are ready to fight for their rights, then the government will stand up and listen, they will have to.
I hope it never comes to that, but the story has played out in history thousands of times. Do you really think it's different this time around?
The "right to bear arms" in the USA is ridiculous.
Is it? Do you think the First Amendment is also rediculous? Without the right to bear arms, how are you supposed to protect your other rights, just whine louder and louder?
Bash does have the feature, it is not part of the filesystem, read the bash man page. As another person noted, Debian disables this behavior by default.
It's not the cat part that matters, you can redirect to and from any socket with the normal redirection operators, and any executable. /dev/tcp doesn't exist in the file system, I believe it's a special bash thing.
It's not a directory per se. You can't cd to it. Look in you bash man page for it and see if it is mentioned there.
Thanks. It may come in handy. It is messy though, as it is, I have to fight my fellow "sysadmins" to keep them from doing a chmod 777 to "fix" permission problems, explaining this to them is going to be hell.
What can I say? It works here, and it's in the bash man page. Maybe you aren't running ssh? :)
If you check your freaks list, you will find that I already am aware of your trolling, so there is no point in trying it on me.
Well, I posted on the root level that license keys are probably the most expensive byte for byte, because in that case it is different, usually you have the full software installed, for free, and you just need to pay for the license key to use it. Almost all expensive software comes with a demo key before you buy it, but it ships with the full software package, so you can just unlock it once you get it integrated into your workflows.
To extend your analogy, it's like getting the house built on your land with the option to tear it down if you don't want to pay for the keys.
It would have to be license keys. Probably involving SGI.
A license key is a string of maybe 30 bytes usually, and cost up to the millions of dollars.
cat < /dev/tcp/localhost/22
No, it wouldn't be hard to fix. Here is what I propose. Feel free to implement this idea, and critique it.
Basically, user private groups already have many advantages, all we need to do is patch things to allow the "owner" to be a group, rather than a user. Under user private groups, this would be pretty trivial, since the default owner group is the user private group of the owner.
This provides an easier way to get finer grained access control, without messing with ACLs or breaking backward compatibility.
It's a bad analogy, but we all know what you were arguing, it's been hashed over millions of times before.
The bottom line is, obscurity can be effective, when combined with real security. If I write an in-house program and give no one the source, and I also make it pretty secure, then the security is helped a little by the obscurity.
Obscurity of source code of a program that is available to the public in binary form is no real security at all. The binary contains the same instructions as the source code, just in a more obfuscated form. With sufficient effort, a binary could be translated back into source code of some sort.
Obscurity only works under very specific circumstances, and it is no substitute for real security, in any case.
A lot of the "bugs" in Unix type software are unexploited, and very difficult to exploit, or are local only. People generally don't look for these as often in MS products because it's assumed that once you have one account, you will pretty much have run of the system, since most services run with a high level of priveledge.
Really UNIX permissions are not very strong, they just aren't as braindead as MS ones, and most importantly, most people follow them, and don't requre root unnecessarily.
For example, as far as I know it is impossible to do this with normal UNIX permissions:
Allow group "A" read/write access to the directory
Allow group "B" read only access to the directory
Allow world no access to the directory
This is a very common need, which is unfulfilled by UNIX style permission systems.
cat < /dev/tcp/localhost/22
Keep forgetting to htmlize < >
Not many people know this but:
/dev/tcp/localhost/22
cat
SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.1p1
Bash has built in socket access stuff. A worm could be written in shell script, as could backdoors, etc.
NYSE doesn't let you take a camera onto the floor
They must really have some realistic computer graphics at CNBC then.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/ch11.html
You cite a Canadian site... this is US law we are talking about here.
My friend here informs me that I am incorrect, there is limited ownership of guns, but many types are highly restricted. Mostly they are only allowed to own shotguns and level action rifles.
But in the end, the Aussie government can do whatever they want to. It's not like they have to listen to the people, since they banned all private ownership of guns.
UL seems to be targeted at the business, the same place Red Hat is targeted. What advantage over Red Hat does UL offer? What is the compelling reason to switch from something that is already established in many companies, that comes from a company with a proven track record of comittment to open source?
I think you are missing the point. The people that are selling used books are acting as very effective market makers, going around to the small book stores and grabbing up anything of worth that is being sold for pennies.
Sure, if you are into reading paperbacks for pleasure, it's not going to affect you as much, but if you were the bargian hunter type, then you might be facing some new professional competition.
They filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, they are not bankrupt, and they are still operating.
It had nothing to do with their prices, Echostar defrauded them on their contract to turn over accounts in Feburary. Starband has not seen any of the revenue from their customers, because Echostar has been illegally intercepting it.
Starband is about $700 US startup costs, including one TV reciever and the "everything pack" of programming. The service is about $110 US a month for Internet and TV. It is two-way, unmetered.