If you're wondering why companies like EV1 and Oracle are on there, here some food for thought: (IANAL)
Oracle is currently not paying SCO for a license along the same lines as EV1. IBM knows this and want to find out why companies like Oracle are bound to a different agreement on licensing than other companies like EV1.
Basically, IBM *knows* there is something fishy going on with SCO's licensing and plans on pointing it out in court. If any of you have any correspondence with SCO regarding their licensing, I would highly suggest contacting IBM and willingly giving it over, as it will only help their case.
There are two other reasons for the subpoenas that I can tell: 1) IBM wants to dispel the myth that you have to settle with SCO in order to avoid subpoenas. 2) IBM is most likely using this round to prepare for a second round of requests to appear in court. They are doing this to probably scare Microsoft out of ever trying to thwart Linux and Linux development again.
I've known about and been exploiting the ms-its vulnerability for a full week and then some now. I had a Proof-of-Concept within the first 2 hours of the original post by a concerned IRC user on bugtraq.
While this tool doesn't test for IE vulnerabilities like the one I have been exploiting, it covers a lot of commonly used attacks that have already been done by script kiddies for (in some cases like the apache chunked vulnerability) upwards of two years!
It also tests a lot of "duh" kinds of exploits that any serious web, mail, and NT/2000/2003 administrator would want to test. Admins and security consultants have been using Nessus for the last three years or so and people don't question that anymore.
I think the issue here with Metasploit's Framework is that it's modular, so script-kiddies like me can sit back and develop and trade exploits. My response to that is: get over it.
I've been trading exploits for so long now with my *own* PERL code that the only thing this program does is maybe cut my time down in half. And why would I want to release a module for Metasploit when I can make my own EXE's using perlcc and Cygwin?
If anything, perlcc and Cygwin contribute more to proliferation. And I kind of doubt they are going the way of the dodo anytime soon.
Why is this a 5? It's extremely illogical and the "option of aerobraking" exists with the Moon as well. The only reason it hasn't been used is because it's still a relatively new idea.
Dun't worry yurself 'bout the legaltys. 'Ell, I owns one a dem dere new-clear weapons and no one's dun gone'n fussed ta me about it. Course, I ain't told no one 'bout it either. B'Sides, it's my second amender-ment right!
So this declaratory judgement that IBM is not infringing copyright is very tangent to the SCO vs IBM case. But of course, it would give very nice munition against the SCO out-of-court FUD, which is probably why IBM is asking for it.
Wrong.
This is IBM attempting to end all legal concerns with SCO by saying, essentially, the following:
"SCO stated I ate his lunch. This was not the case and I asked him if I stole it where it was. He said he didn't know cause I stole it."
"This court asked SCO to state where and when the lunch was stolen by a particular date, and no date materialized from SCO."
"Instead, SCO said I really didn't steal his lunch, I had taken his lunch money. So I asked how much I stole from him."
"Now SCO claims that I was thinking about stealing the lunch money."
IBM has a very good chance, IMHO (IANAL), of arguing that this case is now without merits. It's like a far-fetched liar accusing you of something, and eventually they downgrade that something till it is of no valid concern and no one even cares.
This guy obviously is not a lawyer and has not even read the argument. He states that IBM would have to:
show that there's no controversy about SCO holding the copyrights to the UNIX code in question, and that's patently false.
Actually, that's *exactly* what they are saying. Because SCO has dropped all arguments of copyright infringement against IBM and is now pursuing contract suits. SCO has stated this is not about them violating copyright anymore. Mod parent down.
IBM is trying to swat a fly that used to be the size of a hummingbird. Less of an easy target, but still annoying. IANAL, but I don't see any reason why the judge wouldn't hand them the flyswatter.
Stolen From Groklaw commentor to give a basic summation of how IBM is approaching this:
57....In its first complaint, SCO principally alleged that IBM had
misappropriated SCO's trade secrets in UNIX System V....
60....SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim
that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a
single trade secret that IBM had allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even
after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned
this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its
Seconded Amended Complaint.
72. Although its initial complaints against IBM did not include a claim for
copyright infringement, SCO stated publicly after it filed suit that IBM had
infringed SCO's copyrights, and threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement
with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum conference, SCO
represented to attendees, including press and financial analysts, that Linux is
an unauthorized derivative of UNIX, that IBM had infringed its rights in Linux,
and that SCO was entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.
73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further
represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement
action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a
week."
102. Yet despite an Order directing SCO, among other things, to "identify
and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the
basis of their action action against IBM" by January 12 2004, SCO failed
adequately to do so. In its supplemental responses purportedly submitted in
compliance with the Order, SCO still failed to identify a single line of UNIX
System V code that IBM allegedly misappropriated or misused.
103. In fact, finally realizing that it could no longer maintain the illusion
that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets, SCO dropped its trade secret
claim altogether. SCO continues, however, to press equally meritless contract
and other claims against IBM, despite being unwilling to identify the UNIX
System V code that IBM allegedly misused in violation of any agreement.
If they were intelligent and wealthy, Caldera would still be around. They're not, their shrewd and ambitious, perhaps, but that's about where the "good traits" end.
How exactly do they expect to get the DAOC players, the AC Darktide players, the original UO PVPers, etc., who feel that it is more important to have something to do other than play a stupid single player game with IRC?
I'm sorry, but those of us that liked Warcraft II, Diablo I, and Starcraft tend to hate Warcraft III. Diablo II was absolutely nothing new and was so damn buggy it was pathetic.
Replay value on their single player games are horrible too. No PvP. The game is going to be a single player game with chat.
Congress told them to scan for only objects 1km or larger. They are out there finding pebbles. The Siberian Explosion has never been confirmed to have actually been an asteroid, and not only that, but it'd be nigh impossible to determine the actual size of it.
I setup a WinXP box and set my parents up as "User". I would suggest using remote administration software like UltraVNC. I actually created little link that says "Something is wrong" and they click on it and it does a reverse connect from their machine (getting around the NAT on their router, no need to open a security risk) and connects to a VNC client in listen mode on my machine.
It's always surprising when a desktop just pops up in a window on my computer, esp when I'm on thehun.net, but there's no mistaking who it is or if there is a problem or not. Thank god they can't see MY screen.
I usually get a phone call 5 seconds later with a message of "sorry it was a mistake" or "yeah, X won't install." where X = Kazaa or some other P2P app.
On the other hand, I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of monitoring (packet sniffing) people do on their parent's machines to make sure they aren't cheating on each other or younger siblings aren't goofing around with Yahoo/AIM/ICQ/ETC. I'm not so much interested in the privacy issues as I am in finding out who "bigcack4u" is on my mom/sister's Yahoo friends list.
I owned a TRS-80 as my first machine as well. Perhaps it's a pre-requisite to be a hacker.
With that said, WHY IN GOD'S NAME is John Perry Barlow on this list? My god, I'd rather see mafiab0y on here than him. You do need to know how to use a computer to be a hacker, right?...right?
Is anyone else hoping that Mace doesn't die off? If Lucas can screw up the history of Boba Fett and get away it, he might as well keep Mace Windu alive.
The fact that I can write code like I do above is a "bad thing". As much as I love the "unless" command, it's bad code. As much as I assign mutually exclusive variables to @dir and $dir, it should not be done, especially when $dir and $dir[0] contain two wildy different items.
Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.
You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.
Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:
The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.
Disney's Pirates... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.
In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.
So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?
If 40% of windows applications are going to have 64-bit support in the next year, isn't that a high enough number to actually *justify* getting the machine for a Windows-based system?
I mean, I understand that Linux applications will most likely have 64-bit support a lot sooner, but 40% of windows application support in the first year sure looks like enough of a reason to purchase the machines now.
I guess I don't see a huge argument in justifying that only %40 of windows applications are going to have 64-bit support when there's virtually no drawback to buying a 64-bit processor from AMD vs. an equally priced 32-bit processor from Intel.
Sure, you can argue that it's a "waste", but even if only three of the big players have 64-bit applications (Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe) within the first year, that's still 90% of the applications that are used on Windows machines in a corporate or even personal environment for the average user.
The driving force is going to be the gaming community, and AFAIK, the major game software companies plan on having 64-bit games available too, so I fail to see what the real issue regarding support is.
If %40,%30,%20,%10 is a fair assessment of compatibility over the next five years, that means that in three years %90 of the Windows applications can be assumed to have 64-bit support, which is perfectly fine for the corporate or average 3-year life cycle of a computer.
It's common for me to play a MMORPG till I get bored of it then sell my account for $100+. I figure if someone wants it, more power to them. We both get something out of it
Slashdot Mirror
If you're wondering why companies like EV1 and Oracle are on there, here some food for thought: (IANAL)
Oracle is currently not paying SCO for a license along the same lines as EV1. IBM knows this and want to find out why companies like Oracle are bound to a different agreement on licensing than other companies like EV1.
Basically, IBM *knows* there is something fishy going on with SCO's licensing and plans on pointing it out in court. If any of you have any correspondence with SCO regarding their licensing, I would highly suggest contacting IBM and willingly giving it over, as it will only help their case.
There are two other reasons for the subpoenas that I can tell: 1) IBM wants to dispel the myth that you have to settle with SCO in order to avoid subpoenas. 2) IBM is most likely using this round to prepare for a second round of requests to appear in court. They are doing this to probably scare Microsoft out of ever trying to thwart Linux and Linux development again.
They exist. And no, they're not going to talk to anyone except the guys that they catch infiltrating their honeypots like me. :)
I've known about and been exploiting the ms-its vulnerability for a full week and then some now. I had a Proof-of-Concept within the first 2 hours of the original post by a concerned IRC user on bugtraq.
While this tool doesn't test for IE vulnerabilities like the one I have been exploiting, it covers a lot of commonly used attacks that have already been done by script kiddies for (in some cases like the apache chunked vulnerability) upwards of two years!
It also tests a lot of "duh" kinds of exploits that any serious web, mail, and NT/2000/2003 administrator would want to test. Admins and security consultants have been using Nessus for the last three years or so and people don't question that anymore.
I think the issue here with Metasploit's Framework is that it's modular, so script-kiddies like me can sit back and develop and trade exploits. My response to that is: get over it.
I've been trading exploits for so long now with my *own* PERL code that the only thing this program does is maybe cut my time down in half. And why would I want to release a module for Metasploit when I can make my own EXE's using perlcc and Cygwin?
If anything, perlcc and Cygwin contribute more to proliferation. And I kind of doubt they are going the way of the dodo anytime soon.
WTH?
Why is this a 5? It's extremely illogical and the "option of aerobraking" exists with the Moon as well. The only reason it hasn't been used is because it's still a relatively new idea.
Dun't worry yurself 'bout the legaltys. 'Ell, I owns one a dem dere new-clear weapons and no one's dun gone'n fussed ta me about it. Course, I ain't told no one 'bout it either. B'Sides, it's my second amender-ment right!
I did, refute it.
Wrong .
This is IBM attempting to end all legal concerns with SCO by saying, essentially, the following:
IBM has a very good chance, IMHO (IANAL), of arguing that this case is now without merits. It's like a far-fetched liar accusing you of something, and eventually they downgrade that something till it is of no valid concern and no one even cares.
This guy obviously is not a lawyer and has not even read the argument. He states that IBM would have to:
show that there's no controversy about SCO holding the copyrights to the UNIX code in question, and that's patently false.
Actually, that's *exactly* what they are saying. Because SCO has dropped all arguments of copyright infringement against IBM and is now pursuing contract suits. SCO has stated this is not about them violating copyright anymore. Mod parent down.
IBM is trying to swat a fly that used to be the size of a hummingbird. Less of an easy target, but still annoying. IANAL, but I don't see any reason why the judge wouldn't hand them the flyswatter.
57. ...In its first complaint, SCO principally alleged that IBM had
misappropriated SCO's trade secrets in UNIX System V....
60. ...SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim
that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a
single trade secret that IBM had allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even
after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned
this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its
Seconded Amended Complaint.
72. Although its initial complaints against IBM did not include a claim for copyright infringement, SCO stated publicly after it filed suit that IBM had infringed SCO's copyrights, and threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum conference, SCO represented to attendees, including press and financial analysts, that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX, that IBM had infringed its rights in Linux, and that SCO was entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.
73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a week."
102. Yet despite an Order directing SCO, among other things, to "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action action against IBM" by January 12 2004, SCO failed adequately to do so. In its supplemental responses purportedly submitted in compliance with the Order, SCO still failed to identify a single line of UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misappropriated or misused.
103. In fact, finally realizing that it could no longer maintain the illusion that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets, SCO dropped its trade secret claim altogether. SCO continues, however, to press equally meritless contract and other claims against IBM, despite being unwilling to identify the UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misused in violation of any agreement.
If they were intelligent and wealthy, Caldera would still be around. They're not, their shrewd and ambitious, perhaps, but that's about where the "good traits" end.
They aren't going to even have a PVP server?
How exactly do they expect to get the DAOC players, the AC Darktide players, the original UO PVPers, etc., who feel that it is more important to have something to do other than play a stupid single player game with IRC?
but Blizzard has a flawless record.
I'm sorry, but those of us that liked Warcraft II, Diablo I, and Starcraft tend to hate Warcraft III. Diablo II was absolutely nothing new and was so damn buggy it was pathetic.
Replay value on their single player games are horrible too. No PvP. The game is going to be a single player game with chat.
I swear they come up with the worst FUD ever.
Congress told them to scan for only objects 1km or larger. They are out there finding pebbles. The Siberian Explosion has never been confirmed to have actually been an asteroid, and not only that, but it'd be nigh impossible to determine the actual size of it.
... might help prevent all the double posts we get regarding VOIP articles.
The image from Voyager was the same thing, some really tiny dot. Puts things in perspective and blah, blah, blah.
What I want to see is this image and then three or four ultra-zoomed in images in sequence, to see just how detailed the cameras are.
This is a good idea. Right?
I setup a WinXP box and set my parents up as "User". I would suggest using remote administration software like UltraVNC. I actually created little link that says "Something is wrong" and they click on it and it does a reverse connect from their machine (getting around the NAT on their router, no need to open a security risk) and connects to a VNC client in listen mode on my machine.
It's always surprising when a desktop just pops up in a window on my computer, esp when I'm on thehun.net, but there's no mistaking who it is or if there is a problem or not. Thank god they can't see MY screen.
I usually get a phone call 5 seconds later with a message of "sorry it was a mistake" or "yeah, X won't install." where X = Kazaa or some other P2P app.
On the other hand, I'd be interested in hearing what kinds of monitoring (packet sniffing) people do on their parent's machines to make sure they aren't cheating on each other or younger siblings aren't goofing around with Yahoo/AIM/ICQ/ETC. I'm not so much interested in the privacy issues as I am in finding out who "bigcack4u" is on my mom/sister's Yahoo friends list.
We already saw this exact article two weeks ago.
I'm actually kind of surprised.
...right?
I owned a TRS-80 as my first machine as well. Perhaps it's a pre-requisite to be a hacker.
With that said, WHY IN GOD'S NAME is John Perry Barlow on this list? My god, I'd rather see mafiab0y on here than him. You do need to know how to use a computer to be a hacker, right?
Is anyone else hoping that Mace doesn't die off? If Lucas can screw up the history of Boba Fett and get away it, he might as well keep Mace Windu alive.
I've yet to see why a rewrite is a bad thing.
die "Need argument containing valid directory" unless $loc = $ARGV[0];
[...]
@dir = split(/\n/,$dir);
unshift(@dir, $loc);
$dir = join("\t",@dir);
The fact that I can write code like I do above is a "bad thing". As much as I love the "unless" command, it's bad code. As much as I assign mutually exclusive variables to @dir and $dir, it should not be done, especially when $dir and $dir[0] contain two wildy different items.
It's from the article in the story, do you read before you post?
Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.
You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.
Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:
The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.
Disney's Pirates ... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.
In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.
So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?
I mean, I understand that Linux applications will most likely have 64-bit support a lot sooner, but 40% of windows application support in the first year sure looks like enough of a reason to purchase the machines now.
I guess I don't see a huge argument in justifying that only %40 of windows applications are going to have 64-bit support when there's virtually no drawback to buying a 64-bit processor from AMD vs. an equally priced 32-bit processor from Intel.
Sure, you can argue that it's a "waste", but even if only three of the big players have 64-bit applications (Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe) within the first year, that's still 90% of the applications that are used on Windows machines in a corporate or even personal environment for the average user.
The driving force is going to be the gaming community, and AFAIK, the major game software companies plan on having 64-bit games available too, so I fail to see what the real issue regarding support is.
If %40,%30,%20,%10 is a fair assessment of compatibility over the next five years, that means that in three years %90 of the Windows applications can be assumed to have 64-bit support, which is perfectly fine for the corporate or average 3-year life cycle of a computer.
Or am I missing something?
It's common for me to play a MMORPG till I get bored of it then sell my account for $100+. I figure if someone wants it, more power to them. We both get something out of it
cult: a small, unpopular religion.
religion:a group of fanatics so devoted to their cause they abandon all science, reason, and logic. See also: Global Warming.