It's totally different. If you run sshd from inetd, you are still processing network data as root. If someone finds a buffer overflow (or whatever) they can execute arbitrary code as root on your system. This strategy uses an unprivileged user to do most of the network data processing, with a privileged parent process for verification and authentication. At worst, a remote attacker could only get access as the unprivileged user.
Here's the real question. Why is SCSI pronounced "scuzzy" while HSSI is pronounced "hizzy"? Both have three consonants and end with an i. Why not "scizzy" and "huzzy" instead?
I guess it's probably because "fetch me that huzzy cable" sounds pretty stupid.:)
I feel your pain. A similar request by my company (an ISP) resulted in two honkin' binders from Qwest. The contents have that dreaded "belched out by a COBOL program" look to them. Yikes!
The XBoxen won't be able to break out of their playpen, but it's only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers the XBox protocol and connects a PC (or an XBox running a full-featured OS) to the network. There's still plenty of fun to be had if you can get inside.
Re:July 14th: The Storming of Redmond
on
Windependence Day
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The Justice Department is already contemplating a lawsuit. Apparently "Windependence Day" is too similar to the US Government trademark "Independence Day." This could cause confusion in the minds of consumers and lead them to believe that Linux has something to do with lighting fireworks. Innocent penguins may be needlessly harmed.
Overall, I think software liability legislation would be bad news for the open source movement.
It seems unlikely that a specific exemption for open software will be included in the liability legislation. The way I understand it, the compiled executable will basically be treated as a "product," which would then fall under standard or slightly modified liability laws. You couldn't consider the source the product because it wouldn't be available for all software. More likely, open source or binary copy would just be considered distribution methods.
It's possible that the law could be written differently for both types software, but the highly paid lobbyist factor makes this unlikely. Even if the law included an open software clause, large companies (the prime target of most software makers) will definitely choose "sue and get your money back" over "no recourse" if they had the option. Put simply, Microsoft and other software companies will be able to buy consumer trust by having funds available to deal with potential liability lawsuits.
Some open source projects could establish legal defense funds so they could offer "quality guarantees" like large software companies. However, one of the main advantages of open software, its customizability, would be completely nullified since any modifications would necessarily eliminate the liability protection.
Perhaps an exemption can be made for all free software, but unfortunately this would include programs such as Internet Explorer and the dreaded security-lax instant messanger and P2P clients. These are arguably the worst places to have security holes, since we have to rely on relatively unskilled end users to recognize and correct the problems.
In my opinion, software liability legislation wouldn't harm Microsoft (and other large companies) that much, but it could have a terrible effect on open software.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 1
The half that voted for Bush are freaks too, so it's still 50% overall.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's totally different. If you run sshd from inetd, you are still processing network data as root. If someone finds a buffer overflow (or whatever) they can execute arbitrary code as root on your system. This strategy uses an unprivileged user to do most of the network data processing, with a privileged parent process for verification and authentication. At worst, a remote attacker could only get access as the unprivileged user.
I guess it's probably because "fetch me that huzzy cable" sounds pretty stupid. :)
I feel your pain. A similar request by my company (an ISP) resulted in two honkin' binders from Qwest. The contents have that dreaded "belched out by a COBOL program" look to them. Yikes!
If we're not careful, we might accidentally make Americans exercise.
Yes.
that brings a smile to my face!!!
Except when it's empty.
Yeah, it's hard to arbitrarily mark up a free product. :)
Don't forget the 50' tall basketball court.
Just ask the aliens on the far side of the moon for construction tips.
This proves the theory that technological advancement is driven solely by the desire for porn and pirated software.
The XBoxen won't be able to break out of their playpen, but it's only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers the XBox protocol and connects a PC (or an XBox running a full-featured OS) to the network. There's still plenty of fun to be had if you can get inside.
Perl Hacking Badass?
There's always VMware. That way, at least your computer isn't tied to Windows.
How is that Commodore 64 treating you? :)
The Justice Department is already contemplating a lawsuit. Apparently "Windependence Day" is too similar to the US Government trademark "Independence Day." This could cause confusion in the minds of consumers and lead them to believe that Linux has something to do with lighting fireworks. Innocent penguins may be needlessly harmed.
I bet this will be a great way to meet women!
The scariest part of gym class was definitely the teachers. Perhaps video game instruction will phase them out eventually.
No, it's an iPackard.
Perfect! Circuit City is full of computers with cheap drives and halfway decent video cards.
If you sent James Brown then it would be funky action at a distance.
Like the speed of light isn't fast enough for you?
It seems unlikely that a specific exemption for open software will be included in the liability legislation. The way I understand it, the compiled executable will basically be treated as a "product," which would then fall under standard or slightly modified liability laws. You couldn't consider the source the product because it wouldn't be available for all software. More likely, open source or binary copy would just be considered distribution methods.
It's possible that the law could be written differently for both types software, but the highly paid lobbyist factor makes this unlikely. Even if the law included an open software clause, large companies (the prime target of most software makers) will definitely choose "sue and get your money back" over "no recourse" if they had the option. Put simply, Microsoft and other software companies will be able to buy consumer trust by having funds available to deal with potential liability lawsuits.
Some open source projects could establish legal defense funds so they could offer "quality guarantees" like large software companies. However, one of the main advantages of open software, its customizability, would be completely nullified since any modifications would necessarily eliminate the liability protection.
Perhaps an exemption can be made for all free software, but unfortunately this would include programs such as Internet Explorer and the dreaded security-lax instant messanger and P2P clients. These are arguably the worst places to have security holes, since we have to rely on relatively unskilled end users to recognize and correct the problems.
In my opinion, software liability legislation wouldn't harm Microsoft (and other large companies) that much, but it could have a terrible effect on open software.
The half that voted for Bush are freaks too, so it's still 50% overall. :)
Now someone will need to invent the "soldering ion."
a) have so low market penetration
All of those Netware users are still waiting for VoIPX.