At first glance, yes. It looks like they've already given up.
But then I noticed this (check out the dates):
> whois battlebots.net@whois.opensrs.net
[rr-N1-tor.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
Domain Name: BATTLEBOTS.NET
Administrative Contact:
Comito, Virginia kikiinternet@hotmail.com
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
(408)252-6398
Initially you might think this was them (theshell.com) getting battlebots.net (gee, you would have thought if battlebots.com was so desperate for domains they would have got the.net one?), however the addresses differ:
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA
That won't quite work; ssh has no idea when you are typing in a password, and when you're expecting an interactive response. Imagine using the passwd command during an ssh session; how does ssh know?
It can guess to an extent because when you typically enter a password, echoing is switched off.
Yes. For a minute, consider a world where rootkits are not publically distributed - only the "bad" guys make them and keep them to themselves for legal and self worth reasons.
The _only_ way someone can work out how these rootkits work is to get one (probably in binary form) and spend hours reversing it. Since research into techniques is just not done actively, the "good guys" are worse off. The "bad" guys have more of an upperhand.
This means it is that much _harder_ for a system administrator to determine if they have been rooted, etc. because they do not know what to look for.
Just because RedHat post all the security advisories and offer patches doesn't mean they are less secure than another distro who uses the same daemons but yet does not post security any advisories.
Slackware do too. See slackware-security. It's really a good idea to subscribe if you run slackware. Also for each version, there is ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-$v ersion/patches/ and the ChangeLog for that version and its problems.
And as has been said, they use different daemons in some cases and tend towards the more stable side of software. (hence slow uptake on glibc, no pam, etc)
Now before you people get all pissy about M$ ripping you off, and how they force you to buy Office, I am telling you to grow up. Yes, lots of people use office. But you are not forced to use it. Compatibility is a feature of Office, if you want that feature, then buy office.
Office is the "industry" standard. Many, obviously not all, people buy MS Office solely for that percieved reason. Schools buy MS Office because that's the software pupils are most likely to have at home (Since it is bundled with so many computers). So then those students who do not have Office go and buy it so they do not get left behind. Students become used to Office's idosyncracies. Later on in life they always choose Office since it is what they are used to using.
This seems to be a resounding theme throughout Microsoft's marketing strategies.
What happened to IPv5 anyway?
I believe, another protocol developed at the same time as IPv4 had a similar version field to that of IPv4, but the value was 5 instead of 4. So to avoid confusion with this rarely used protocol, they skipped to v6.
What did the NSA provide as evidence that their new hashes are secure?
Despite this lack of evidence, how many commercial products will use this algorithm simply on the basis that it was designed by the NSA, so must be secure?
In essence, the NSAs reputation creates a certain trust that the algorithm will be secure.
No evidence, other than the fact it was designed by the NSA is needed by many.
Slashdot Mirror
But then I noticed this (check out the dates):
> whois battlebots.net@whois.opensrs.net
[rr-N1-tor.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
KiKi Internet
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
Domain Name: BATTLEBOTS.NET
Administrative Contact:
Comito, Virginia kikiinternet@hotmail.com
10339 S. Tantau Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
US
(408)252-6398
Initially you might think this was them (theshell.com) getting battlebots.net (gee, you would have thought if battlebots.com was so desperate for domains they would have got the
8219 La Riviera Dr.
Sacramento, CA 95826 USA
What gives?
This means it is that much _harder_ for a system administrator to determine if they have been rooted, etc. because they do not know what to look for.
And as has been said, they use different daemons in some cases and tend towards the more stable side of software. (hence slow uptake on glibc, no pam, etc)
To hell with compatibility.
.type _start,@function
.globl _start
_start:
jmp 0xd
pushl $0x6f6c6c65
andb %dh,0x6f(%edi)
jb 0x6c
orb %fs:(%eax),%al
movl $0xc, %edx
movl $_start, %ecx
addl $2, %ecx
movl $0x1, %ebx
movl $0x4, %eax
int $0x80
xorl %ebx,%ebx
movl $0x1, %eax
int $0x80
Now before you people get all pissy about M$ ripping you off, and how they force you to buy Office, I am telling you to grow up. Yes, lots of people use office. But you are not forced to use it. Compatibility is a feature of Office, if you want that feature, then buy office.
Office is the "industry" standard. Many, obviously not all, people buy MS Office solely for that percieved reason. Schools buy MS Office because that's the software pupils are most likely to have at home (Since it is bundled with so many computers). So then those students who do not have Office go and buy it so they do not get left behind. Students become used to Office's idosyncracies. Later on in life they always choose Office since it is what they are used to using.
This seems to be a resounding theme throughout Microsoft's marketing strategies.
What happened to IPv5 anyway?
I believe, another protocol developed at the same time as IPv4 had a similar version field to that of IPv4, but the value was 5 instead of 4. So to avoid confusion with this rarely used protocol, they skipped to v6.
What did the NSA provide as evidence that their new hashes are secure?
Despite this lack of evidence, how many commercial products will use this algorithm simply on the basis that it was designed by the NSA, so must be secure?
In essence, the NSAs reputation creates a certain trust that the algorithm will be secure. No evidence, other than the fact it was designed by the NSA is needed by many.