Forntunatly this doesn't mean 'root' is wide open. It's a local exploit. As I mentioned in another post this doesn't mean that you can rest on your laurels if nobody else but you logs into your box but it beats the crap out of being remotely vulnerable.
Btw, you'll never hear me laughing about vulnerabilities in Windows. Only crying. I've spent a lot more tears on that than on people dissing Linux.
(remark aside: why do I get these 'key' errors?)
Re:2.2.x where x=19 also vulnerable
on
Linux Kernel Bugs
·
· Score: 1
And so much for shooting from the hip. The title should've read '2.2.x where x=19 also vulnerable'. My bad.
But the message stays the same, Go patch. FAST.
(_If_ you have a multi-user system. Btw, think twice about if you have a 'multi-user' system. A buffer-overflow in a non-root daemon that is reachable from outside your box can now suddenly become a root vulnerability.)
2.2.x where x=19 also vulnerable
on
Linux Kernel Bugs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Additionally the 2.2 'superstable' series are also vulnerable. Better get out those patches on multi-user systems and be snappy too. Don't want to look like an M$-admin now do we?:D
To turn your argument around: what incentive does a company have to upgrade if the cash is in the bank? Rake in new customers? In the case of M$ their monopoly alone is enough to keep people from running away. A lock-in for 3 years will give them the opportunity to come up with a new grand marketing scheme to continue raking in the money.
No. When CIO's are given the opportunity of choice _and_ are held responsible for the cost of their choices only then will we see better quality software. Not before. A minor addition is the necesity for a way to make TCO more transparent and comparable.
Is Charles Babbage the best you can come up with?
This sounds like blatant European propoganda to me.
I must admit I have to agree with you. Alan Turing would perhaps been a better example, together with a load of other Dutch, German, French and Italian people that contributed to the stuff that makes your economy tick like it does these days. (Marconi, anyone?).
But from a more global perspective, about every 2nd part in your PC is manufactured in the Far East and Japan is _way_ ahead in wireless on all of us.
Short version: if it weren't for the rest of the world, the Americans would still _all_ call themselves indians. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I resent that you make me out to chastise the USA over this. I'm not. I'm making the point that the big display of righteous innocence is a load of bull-shit. There are very clear reasons as to why this happened. The terrorists attack was only the last event in a long chain and that chain could've been broken along the way in so many locations that I don't even want to think about it. I place the blame for the terrorists attack squarly with the terrorists and I do not in any way condone attacks on civilians through whatever twisted way of designating them military targets or other ways. I place the blame for nursing large amounts of people into hating the US with the US. That make it clear?
Funny. You provide my arguments for me. Since the CIA trained these people, you think that all they were taught was to hold firearms and sidewinders? Not so. They were taught to _think_ and _be creative_ in a very _distructive_ manner. So yes the CIA and the SAS are very much to blame for the effectiveness of these new terrorists. Deny that and you turn a blind eye. These people may have been given matches and 'invented' the zippo but they were taught _how_ to invent. The afghans are human beings and therefore very capabable of original thought. The difference here being that this destructive mindset does not come natural, it was exported to them by the US governament.
To clarify the duality in my post. I would have rather had that they had fought the moral wars instead of the interest wars. That way I would've had both my wishes: less bombing (because those moral battles could have been fought without wars or bombings) _and_ less _meddeling_ in US economic an political interest. Nice huh, two birds, one stone.
As to how you could sell this to the public: if you were to do the 'right thing' as defined in the US constitution for others, meaning defending democracy instead of perverting it to fend of communism to name one how could you _not_ defend this to the public. Especially as it would only have taken monetary pressure and not the waste of US soldiers' lives. (And less money at that, at 1-2M$ a pop those 50 tomahawks are a nice budget, not to mention the rest of this effort.) To add to that you would've created goodwill instead of 'badwill' which would have saved the US people a lot of trouble and money now wouldn't it have?
Your comment about this drill-sergeant is wasted on me. If you're going to even consider a nuke as 'proportional' you're not worth talking to, you're insane.
9/11 _is_ entirely Bin Ladens fault if the evidence is really as hard as we're being told. He lit the zippo. The fact that the US is being hated so much that he could gather followers to act out his perverseties is in a large part the US' fault. I think that the people who have hatred as their first motive should be found and contained or killed if necesarry including Mr. Bin Laden. I do not think that the current way of 'solving' this problem is going to achieve that goal. We'll see. Just don't be surprised if BL lives to see 90 as a respected Mulah while the US gets it's share of foreign terror attacks the coming years because of this 'retalliation'. (I quote it because that's the way its going to be perceived by the terrorists and their followers, not because I see it that way.)
"Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror."
Your point being exactly what? The original poster was rightfully pointing out that if you give a child matches you should not be surprised if it sets your house on fire. To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate.
"Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests [..], it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. [..]"
I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period. Your comment about American interests is very nice though. It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world. To hell with woman and children dying, the gas-prizes will rise! Especially ironic if you remember that the US are the largest consumer of energy per head (2 times as much as Europeans per head, the source for this is slightly dated and in Dutch, my native toungue. Use Google for material on this.) President Bush even went as far as to block any environmental regulation because of economic consequences. Remember, I'm considered a right-wing sympathathizer (to European standards).
Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit.
"Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person."
Maybe not, but if the US is on moral high-ground like it likes to think than it would rather have others make money off of it than get a bit of extra cash from poverty stricken people that are pressured out of their last belongings by a dictator that uses the money to buy the weapons. Not to mention the fact that those weapons get sold on and used against US troops in new conflicts not at all related to the original ones. You are right however that we will never be able to assess what governements have had influenced what conflicts. Whether the publics inability to gauge any such influence means that it doesn't happen I'll leave up to your own conscience *cough*Nicaragua*cough*.
It may now seem that I'm a pacifist. Not so. I think force can be very well justified especially if you can take out the people that are waging war against you. The problem with your reasoning is that you're turning the argument upside down. You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US. I'm sorry to shatter your reality here but countless people the world over feel mis-treated or left alone by the US, justifiable or not. Like you do now, they feel that the US waged war on _them_. You better learn to deal with that reality because if you don't you will be in for a world of hurt. You may end up being the next Israel, and there will be the (western) world to support you and you will still have handled the situation wrong.
To use your own words as a conclusion: "But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis."
Please don't blindly follow that star spangled banner, please. I say this for your own good.
Unfortunatly only the first part of your post is true. To use your phrase: Like hell you need computers to store stuff. Hence the 'stuff' isn't encoded in (binary) numbers but still very much protectable by copyright.
Btw, to say that the first part alone is worth being moderated up to 5 is somewhat scary.
Over here in Europe where we at least _think_ privacy is a right still, the base-stations for our standard of cell-phone (GSM) keeps record of what phone was in its vicinity. Phone companies can therefore tell about a cell-phone's whereabouts quite accuratly (and therefore a persons whereabouts). To make it more interesting, this 'feature/bug' has been used by law-enforcement to trace people believed criminal and as evidence that someone made a call while driving and causing an accident.
I would suspect this trick is being used by US phone compies as well. It may be a far better way of tracing burried phones or would it?
I still like the European solution to this problem far better than this crazed pro-gun lobby at the most inappropriate time.
GET YOUR BLOODY AIRPORT SECURITY UP TO STANDARD!
In other words, if checks would have been better this wouldn't have been fully prevented but you sure as hell wouldn't have had 4 planes hijacked.
Guns in the possession of private people through a whole society is a _bad_ idea. At least over here in Europe you can die of cancer first and get shot later. For those that don't believe me go compare crime-rates over here with yours. If guns are omni-present the chance of some random asshole getting his hands on one when in a bad mood is way too high. Getting hit and kicked a few times by a disgruntled person is no walk in the park but usually you live... (Columbine anyone?)
Me: Mr. Gates, your company decides on its own what compensation it requires for its products does it not?
BG: Yes.
Me: Would your company accept that said compensation would be decided by, say, Apple Computers?
BG: No.
Me: Your company enforces their wish for compensation through a legally binding contract, a so-called License, does it not?
BG: Yes.
Me: Do you think your company has the right to decide what clauses are in that license?
BG: Yes.
Me: Why do you then presume to decide for others what compensation they can ask for their 'product' or what license they choose to achieve their goal for compensation?
BG:...
(GPL, BSD, CSS, whatever license you want. Because _you_ want it, not because you're told to. It is _your_ work after all.)
Slashdot Mirror
Forntunatly this doesn't mean 'root' is wide open. It's a local exploit. As I mentioned in another post this doesn't mean that you can rest on your laurels if nobody else but you logs into your box but it beats the crap out of being remotely vulnerable.
Btw, you'll never hear me laughing about vulnerabilities in Windows. Only crying. I've spent a lot more tears on that than on people dissing Linux.
(remark aside: why do I get these 'key' errors?)
And so much for shooting from the hip. The title should've read '2.2.x where x=19 also vulnerable'. My bad.
But the message stays the same, Go patch. FAST.
(_If_ you have a multi-user system. Btw, think twice about if you have a 'multi-user' system. A buffer-overflow in a non-root daemon that is reachable from outside your box can now suddenly become a root vulnerability.)
Additionally the 2.2 'superstable' series are also vulnerable. Better get out those patches on multi-user systems and be snappy too. Don't want to look like an M$-admin now do we? :D
Karma? what's that again?
To turn your argument around: what incentive does a company have to upgrade if the cash is in the bank? Rake in new customers? In the case of M$ their monopoly alone is enough to keep people from running away. A lock-in for 3 years will give them the opportunity to come up with a new grand marketing scheme to continue raking in the money.
No. When CIO's are given the opportunity of choice _and_ are held responsible for the cost of their choices only then will we see better quality software. Not before. A minor addition is the necesity for a way to make TCO more transparent and comparable.
Is Charles Babbage the best you can come up with?
This sounds like blatant European propoganda to me.
I must admit I have to agree with you. Alan Turing would perhaps been a better example, together with a load of other Dutch, German, French and Italian people that contributed to the stuff that makes your economy tick like it does these days. (Marconi, anyone?).
But from a more global perspective, about every 2nd part in your PC is manufactured in the Far East and Japan is _way_ ahead in wireless on all of us.
Short version: if it weren't for the rest of the world, the Americans would still _all_ call themselves indians. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I'm afraid you're right. My bad for reacting.
I resent that you make me out to chastise the USA over this. I'm not. I'm making the point that the big display of righteous innocence is a load of bull-shit. There are very clear reasons as to why this happened. The terrorists attack was only the last event in a long chain and that chain could've been broken along the way in so many locations that I don't even want to think about it. I place the blame for the terrorists attack squarly with the terrorists and I do not in any way condone attacks on civilians through whatever twisted way of designating them military targets or other ways. I place the blame for nursing large amounts of people into hating the US with the US. That make it clear?
Funny. You provide my arguments for me. Since the CIA trained these people, you think that all they were taught was to hold firearms and sidewinders? Not so. They were taught to _think_ and _be creative_ in a very _distructive_ manner. So yes the CIA and the SAS are very much to blame for the effectiveness of these new terrorists. Deny that and you turn a blind eye. These people may have been given matches and 'invented' the zippo but they were taught _how_ to invent. The afghans are human beings and therefore very capabable of original thought. The difference here being that this destructive mindset does not come natural, it was exported to them by the US governament.
To clarify the duality in my post. I would have rather had that they had fought the moral wars instead of the interest wars. That way I would've had both my wishes: less bombing (because those moral battles could have been fought without wars or bombings) _and_ less _meddeling_ in US economic an political interest. Nice huh, two birds, one stone.
As to how you could sell this to the public: if you were to do the 'right thing' as defined in the US constitution for others, meaning defending democracy instead of perverting it to fend of communism to name one how could you _not_ defend this to the public. Especially as it would only have taken monetary pressure and not the waste of US soldiers' lives. (And less money at that, at 1-2M$ a pop those 50 tomahawks are a nice budget, not to mention the rest of this effort.) To add to that you would've created goodwill instead of 'badwill' which would have saved the US people a lot of trouble and money now wouldn't it have?
Your comment about this drill-sergeant is wasted on me. If you're going to even consider a nuke as 'proportional' you're not worth talking to, you're insane.
9/11 _is_ entirely Bin Ladens fault if the evidence is really as hard as we're being told. He lit the zippo. The fact that the US is being hated so much that he could gather followers to act out his perverseties is in a large part the US' fault. I think that the people who have hatred as their first motive should be found and contained or killed if necesarry including Mr. Bin Laden. I do not think that the current way of 'solving' this problem is going to achieve that goal. We'll see. Just don't be surprised if BL lives to see 90 as a respected Mulah while the US gets it's share of foreign terror attacks the coming years because of this 'retalliation'. (I quote it because that's the way its going to be perceived by the terrorists and their followers, not because I see it that way.)
Thank you for the mind-jog.
"Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror."
Your point being exactly what? The original poster was rightfully pointing out that if you give a child matches you should not be surprised if it sets your house on fire. To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate.
"Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests [..], it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. [..]"
I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period. Your comment about American interests is very nice though. It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world. To hell with woman and children dying, the gas-prizes will rise! Especially ironic if you remember that the US are the largest consumer of energy per head (2 times as much as Europeans per head, the source for this is slightly dated and in Dutch, my native toungue. Use Google for material on this.) President Bush even went as far as to block any environmental regulation because of economic consequences. Remember, I'm considered a right-wing sympathathizer (to European standards).
Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit.
"Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person."
Maybe not, but if the US is on moral high-ground like it likes to think than it would rather have others make money off of it than get a bit of extra cash from poverty stricken people that are pressured out of their last belongings by a dictator that uses the money to buy the weapons. Not to mention the fact that those weapons get sold on and used against US troops in new conflicts not at all related to the original ones. You are right however that we will never be able to assess what governements have had influenced what conflicts. Whether the publics inability to gauge any such influence means that it doesn't happen I'll leave up to your own conscience *cough*Nicaragua*cough*.
It may now seem that I'm a pacifist. Not so. I think force can be very well justified especially if you can take out the people that are waging war against you. The problem with your reasoning is that you're turning the argument upside down. You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US. I'm sorry to shatter your reality here but countless people the world over feel mis-treated or left alone by the US, justifiable or not. Like you do now, they feel that the US waged war on _them_. You better learn to deal with that reality because if you don't you will be in for a world of hurt. You may end up being the next Israel, and there will be the (western) world to support you and you will still have handled the situation wrong.
To use your own words as a conclusion: "But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis."
Please don't blindly follow that star spangled banner, please. I say this for your own good.
Unfortunatly only the first part of your post is true. To use your phrase: Like hell you need computers to store stuff. Hence the 'stuff' isn't encoded in (binary) numbers but still very much protectable by copyright.
Btw, to say that the first part alone is worth being moderated up to 5 is somewhat scary.
Over here in Europe where we at least _think_ privacy is a right still, the base-stations for our standard of cell-phone (GSM) keeps record of what phone was in its vicinity. Phone companies can therefore tell about a cell-phone's whereabouts quite accuratly (and therefore a persons whereabouts). To make it more interesting, this 'feature/bug' has been used by law-enforcement to trace people believed criminal and as evidence that someone made a call while driving and causing an accident.
I would suspect this trick is being used by US phone compies as well. It may be a far better way of tracing burried phones or would it?
Just a few thoughts.
I still like the European solution to this problem far better than this crazed pro-gun lobby at the most inappropriate time.
GET YOUR BLOODY AIRPORT SECURITY UP TO STANDARD!
In other words, if checks would have been better this wouldn't have been fully prevented but you sure as hell wouldn't have had 4 planes hijacked.
Guns in the possession of private people through a whole society is a _bad_ idea. At least over here in Europe you can die of cancer first and get shot later. For those that don't believe me go compare crime-rates over here with yours. If guns are omni-present the chance of some random asshole getting his hands on one when in a bad mood is way too high. Getting hit and kicked a few times by a disgruntled person is no walk in the park but usually you live... (Columbine anyone?)
Hell, they'd probably like us to pay royalties on the memories we have in our heads!
Do NOT _give_ these people any ideas they're too stupid to think of themselves please?
Patent it and ask royalties...
Me: Mr. Gates, your company decides on its own what compensation it requires for its products does it not?
...
BG: Yes.
Me: Would your company accept that said compensation would be decided by, say, Apple Computers?
BG: No.
Me: Your company enforces their wish for compensation through a legally binding contract, a so-called License, does it not?
BG: Yes.
Me: Do you think your company has the right to decide what clauses are in that license?
BG: Yes.
Me: Why do you then presume to decide for others what compensation they can ask for their 'product' or what license they choose to achieve their goal for compensation?
BG:
(GPL, BSD, CSS, whatever license you want. Because _you_ want it, not because you're told to. It is _your_ work after all.)