No it isn't. Two introductory paragraphs talk about sendmail holes, and its inglorious history. Then the vast majority of the article talks about Postfix configuration.
Duh. That's what I was referring to.
Sendmail vulernabilities are the hooks, not the subject.
I know. And my point was that this article should really have been about the hole in sendmail, but instead, Slashdot covers it up by drilling home an alternative, just to drown out the news of the hole.
Sorry. I missed the Unix (Solaris, *BSD, OSX, Linux, etc) variations of SoBig, Blaster, Nachi, etc. I had no idea these recent worms attacked more than Microsoft infrastructure.
Apparently, you miss a lot of vulnerabilities. Blaster was patched already. As for SoBig, that's a user-transmitted worm. If everyone used Linux and an e-mail client, guess what? Stupid users would still run the attachments. Sorry to POP that bubble.
Or it could have had something to do with dates. Namely, the Sendmail exploit mentioned was published on March 3. This article has a Aug 21 date.
Interesting that Slashdot ignores it for so long.
But then - there's that really annoying Sendmail worm that hit everyone just after the Blaster/Nachie and SoBig combo caused so much ruckas. Thank gawd Slashdot and O'Reilly were there to cover it up with a well-timed article on installing and configuring Postfix.
No kidding; otherwise, we might have a headline about a hole in an Open Source app, and that wouldn't be consistent with the necessary string of "Microsoft holes" that Slashdot wants to drive page hits. Instead of a headline about a Sendmail hole, it's magically transformed into an informative article on Postfix. Nice! Hook, line, and sinker.
The article should have been about a new sendmail hole, but the headline, for some reason, was about postfix, and the focus of the summary became "switch to postfix; it's great!" Why not just admit that sendmail had a hole and let us discuss it? Open Source has its faults too, y'know. You don't have to rush in and try to play it down by changing the headline to a competing app, giving a bunch of postfix links, and then acting like things aren't that bad.
All it demonstrates is that large complex pieces of software are inherently more difficult to secure than smaller simpler ones.
What happens to this when it's Windows, and it's suddenly "WINDOWS WAS DESIGNED FROM THE BEGINNING WITHOUT SECURITY IN MIND!!1." You know, the standard hysterical absolutes.
This article was really about a hole in sendmail. However, with all the so-called "Microsoft holes" Slashdot has been reporting non-stop about, they needed to immediately offer a working alternative so they can say, "It's not that big a deal; here are well-known alternatives," and play down the hypocrisy a bit. Meanwhile, there are just as many alternatives to Outlook, but that doesn't stop people from declaring Windows unsafe (never mind that SoBig is a user-transmitted worm). They were just trying to play down the seriousness of it. "You should have been using postfix!"
Because there is a HUGE bias here. Stuff like this gets ignored while the latest dumb-user-hole gets posted as a "Microsoft hole." Windows is not as bad as it is made out to be, and Linux is LIGHT YEARS behind it in the desktop department. Give Linux the market share Windows has and we'll see how secure it really is.
Now the demographic is technical elitists, and most are uninformed (look at the silliness and false claims that gets modded up most of the time). Every "M$" post is another link in the chain of evidence. There is very rarely anything objective around these parts. It's SCO, anime, ham radio, or "M$" articles these days.
Honestly, sounds like you either don't know what you're doing, or there's a problem there that you haven't thought of (i.e., thinking outside the "M$" box, as in, not their fault).
Those are the Slashdot blinders in effect. It doesn't matter that it's a user problem. It doesn't matter that it's something to do with Outlook. It somehow gets grouped as a "Windows hole."
If there was a whole in a userland app for Linux, fanatics would take great pains falling over themselves to point out the difference. But when there's an Office hole, it's lumped with Windows itself.
People HATED XP when it first came out (and most still do) because it was "different" and they couldn't find anything.
Um, no. In fact, Windows XP sold more than Windows 95 did at its launch.
What's different about XP? I keep seeing this FUD about how "everything's moved around," and "nobody can find anything," when the only major things that are changed from 2000 is a bunch of icons moved from the desktop to the Start menu (configurable). Oh, and Common Tasks (also configurable). The only other thing I can think of is file permissions, but Simplified File Sharing can be turned off so that it's like--you guessed it--Windows 2000.
In other words, I never get what's so radically different about XP other than better application/driver support, as well as minor interface changes like thumbnails, camera integration, etc. It's Windows 2000 but designed for home use. When I upgraded some 98 machines to XP for a network once, I found that nothing had even been moved around at all, because it was smart enough to retain all settings. The users didn't even know any better (except less crashing and faster startup times).
Wrong. Nihilism holds that all values are baseless, and one can have faith in nothing. My assertion, which you describe as "out of the blue," was clearly over your head. My point is that cynical self-awareness is dead. Nothing can be enjoyed in that mindset because you don't allow yourself to. You don't experience a conversation because you view it as a series of patterns. You expose it from an external perspective. In this case, I merely pointed out that fact regarding the parent post. Rather than being a part of the conversation, the parent stood outside of it and treated it as a pattern devoid of merit.
Slashdot Mirror
*cracks knuckles*
No it isn't. Two introductory paragraphs talk about sendmail holes, and its inglorious history. Then the vast majority of the article talks about Postfix configuration.
Duh. That's what I was referring to.
Sendmail vulernabilities are the hooks, not the subject.
I know. And my point was that this article should really have been about the hole in sendmail, but instead, Slashdot covers it up by drilling home an alternative, just to drown out the news of the hole.
Sorry. I missed the Unix (Solaris, *BSD, OSX, Linux, etc) variations of SoBig, Blaster, Nachi, etc. I had no idea these recent worms attacked more than Microsoft infrastructure.
Apparently, you miss a lot of vulnerabilities. Blaster was patched already. As for SoBig, that's a user-transmitted worm. If everyone used Linux and an e-mail client, guess what? Stupid users would still run the attachments. Sorry to POP that bubble.
Or it could have had something to do with dates. Namely, the Sendmail exploit mentioned was published on March 3. This article has a Aug 21 date.
Interesting that Slashdot ignores it for so long.
But then - there's that really annoying Sendmail worm that hit everyone just after the Blaster/Nachie and SoBig combo caused so much ruckas. Thank gawd Slashdot and O'Reilly were there to cover it up with a well-timed article on installing and configuring Postfix.
No kidding; otherwise, we might have a headline about a hole in an Open Source app, and that wouldn't be consistent with the necessary string of "Microsoft holes" that Slashdot wants to drive page hits. Instead of a headline about a Sendmail hole, it's magically transformed into an informative article on Postfix. Nice! Hook, line, and sinker.
The article should have been about a new sendmail hole, but the headline, for some reason, was about postfix, and the focus of the summary became "switch to postfix; it's great!" Why not just admit that sendmail had a hole and let us discuss it? Open Source has its faults too, y'know. You don't have to rush in and try to play it down by changing the headline to a competing app, giving a bunch of postfix links, and then acting like things aren't that bad.
All it demonstrates is that large complex pieces of software are inherently more difficult to secure than smaller simpler ones.
What happens to this when it's Windows, and it's suddenly "WINDOWS WAS DESIGNED FROM THE BEGINNING WITHOUT SECURITY IN MIND!!1." You know, the standard hysterical absolutes.
Oh? You mean nothing is 100% secure? You mean Linux has more monthly than Windows? People need to get off their high horse and gain some perspective.
This article was really about a hole in sendmail. However, with all the so-called "Microsoft holes" Slashdot has been reporting non-stop about, they needed to immediately offer a working alternative so they can say, "It's not that big a deal; here are well-known alternatives," and play down the hypocrisy a bit. Meanwhile, there are just as many alternatives to Outlook, but that doesn't stop people from declaring Windows unsafe (never mind that SoBig is a user-transmitted worm). They were just trying to play down the seriousness of it. "You should have been using postfix!"
Just had to say it. Mod me down if you disagree.
Because there is a HUGE bias here. Stuff like this gets ignored while the latest dumb-user-hole gets posted as a "Microsoft hole." Windows is not as bad as it is made out to be, and Linux is LIGHT YEARS behind it in the desktop department. Give Linux the market share Windows has and we'll see how secure it really is.
No, it wasn't. I did do tech support, all last year. I also administered a Windows network for a while.
What would Windows Classic have to do with anything? That's just the look of the widgets, nothing more.
P.S. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/16555.html. Nothing is completely secure, even Linux.
JESUS H. CHRIST.
You are the third person to respond to my sig. It was a joke. I have changed it as a result!
Gotta love humor that people take seriously.
And check LinuxSecurity's list of numerous holes for Linux. There are many.
Tell your "friend" he's wrong. Not only that, the 2004 version has even more information on it.
Congratulations for taking an intended joke seriously. You fill me with awe, you veritable joy pendant, you.
That used to be the main demographic.
Now the demographic is technical elitists, and most are uninformed (look at the silliness and false claims that gets modded up most of the time). Every "M$" post is another link in the chain of evidence. There is very rarely anything objective around these parts. It's SCO, anime, ham radio, or "M$" articles these days.
So where are all the IIS holes? Your post implies that there are many.
Meanwhile, Linux has been so bad that the "turkey" filesystem-corrupting kernel was released. I still remember the hypocrisy of that day.
Honestly, sounds like you either don't know what you're doing, or there's a problem there that you haven't thought of (i.e., thinking outside the "M$" box, as in, not their fault).
Those are the Slashdot blinders in effect. It doesn't matter that it's a user problem. It doesn't matter that it's something to do with Outlook. It somehow gets grouped as a "Windows hole."
If there was a whole in a userland app for Linux, fanatics would take great pains falling over themselves to point out the difference. But when there's an Office hole, it's lumped with Windows itself.
You know what it will take? A better alternative.
People HATED XP when it first came out (and most still do) because it was "different" and they couldn't find anything.
Um, no. In fact, Windows XP sold more than Windows 95 did at its launch.
What's different about XP? I keep seeing this FUD about how "everything's moved around," and "nobody can find anything," when the only major things that are changed from 2000 is a bunch of icons moved from the desktop to the Start menu (configurable). Oh, and Common Tasks (also configurable). The only other thing I can think of is file permissions, but Simplified File Sharing can be turned off so that it's like--you guessed it--Windows 2000.
In other words, I never get what's so radically different about XP other than better application/driver support, as well as minor interface changes like thumbnails, camera integration, etc. It's Windows 2000 but designed for home use. When I upgraded some 98 machines to XP for a network once, I found that nothing had even been moved around at all, because it was smart enough to retain all settings. The users didn't even know any better (except less crashing and faster startup times).
...which is why there's a free Microsoft Powertoy for virtual desktops.
Next.
The people who don't trust MS use Windows because they have to.
Why?
Windows still has 95+% marketshare. See how secure Linux is then.
Speaking of corporately-funded websites with agendas, who owns Slashdot again?
Just injecting some perspective.
I guess you ignored the fact that they label those top results as sponsered links. Just like Google does.
Another non-story. Next.
Facts and reasoning in a Slashdot article? No need for us to get in a hissy-fit over nothing? How dare thee blaspheme our view of the world!
Wrong. Nihilism holds that all values are baseless, and one can have faith in nothing. My assertion, which you describe as "out of the blue," was clearly over your head. My point is that cynical self-awareness is dead. Nothing can be enjoyed in that mindset because you don't allow yourself to. You don't experience a conversation because you view it as a series of patterns. You expose it from an external perspective. In this case, I merely pointed out that fact regarding the parent post. Rather than being a part of the conversation, the parent stood outside of it and treated it as a pattern devoid of merit.
Don't get in too deep for yourself. Next.