There are a lot of people who think he is flat out wrong, and don't believe, like I do, that he substantiated his assertions. If we disagree with an opinion piece and and can back up our assertions in the face of what seem to be wrongful assertions then we should take action and express ourselves. It is not acceptable to allow publication of wrong, unsubstantiated material, it is bad journalism and bad op-ed if nothin you say can in any way be backed up.
One interesting note is that they also provide a proprietary security suite for IIS. So they, I guess, are trusting their software to protect them in the face of MS' issues.
Blaster did ya some harm We just say, hey, another worm But thank you, for trusting me To mind your site's security It's all good, when your server's downed Our dope PR will pass blame around Cuz it's known as such That this is some software, you can't trust
I told ya Homeland U can't trust this Yeah that's why we're giving ya the code U can't trust this Check out eEye, man U can't trust this Yo let 'em bust more funky system U can't trust this
Give 'em a string or recvfrom Like no sweat they got the keys to your kingdom Now ya know You talk about eEye, you're talking about holes Remote and tight Coders still sweating so someone better write A book to learn What it's gonna take in '04 To earn some trust Legit, either secure or ya might as well quit
That's the word because you know U can't trust this U can't trust this
So now I will be able to find exactly where I want to hike up the mountain, be able to know which way I am going, know exactly how far I am from the top, tell how close to verticle I am approaching, take photos as I approach the summit and then have company that will understand me when I trip and crash and go tumbling down said mountain.
You're right. But many theories are devoid of observable phenomenon, one of the key steps in this method. Without being able to observe something science can not prove anything. Much of science is more like religion than scientists and lovers of science are willing to admit because of the pervasive way that theories are treated as facts.
History/Social Sciences are an interesting branch of studies that rely on testimony and physical corroboration to prove if something happened. In this line of study Christianity, specifically, has benefitted. There is strong evidence that much of the historical references in the Bible are true and can be accepted. Other elements are left to our faith, but the historical validity of this document lends somewhat to its credibility in other matters in my estimation. One note is that the Bible is a book of faith, a direct revelation from God, if you believe in it, not a scientific brief. Some elements of the Bible should be viewed through that lens when approaching it. God did not want to explain the forces at play behind the movement of cellestial bodies, but he did say that their movements would reflect times and seasons in Genesis 1. Science explains what religion does not and religion explains what science can not. They are much more complementary than some would like us to believe.
And if some scientists had their way, science would abolish religion, neither side is free from being guilty of mistreating, misunderstanding and misrepresenting themself or the other. Many scientists pronounce theories as facts, and claim that religious types are the dishonest or misguided ones. There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. Especially since both claim to seek the truth either objective or subjective/experiential. One is not superior to the other, but the truth will set us all free.
But many religions question each other. And there are many religions, at least in the Christian world, that are questioning themselves and whether they are right in their assertions. The Evangelical Theological Society is questioning whether Open Theism is compatible with Biblical Inerrancy. The Episcopal church determined that in their view openly homosexual persons should be allowed as Bishops. The Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a part, is having some very interesting debates about Calvinism. Religion is actively questioning itself, but unless you're in on it you probably are missing it.
Religion has also promoted science and 'associated' disciplines. The Catholic Church was one of the driving forces in developing the scientific field in Europe as they sought to prove certain assertions of their faith objectively. Astronomy started as religion in Astrology and then became more ordered and objective in its goals. Much of science got its start because of religion; later on religion sought to control science as science began to attack certain 'truths' and that is when everything got messed up between these two.
Giving guns to minors is a crime in and of itself. A Person under 18 may not own a rifle and a person under 21 may not own a handgun or shotgun, in the US, some states are more restrictive. If I were to give a gun to a person, so long as my action was in compliance with all local laws, it is no different than giving them cash for them to buy a gun. So your analogy to Columbine is inaccurate and simply FUDish.
I hope they catch and punish those that release these viruses into the wild, but I believe the writers are protected under free speech. I think your desire for vengance is a little far reaching. What if these writers included a GPL or other OSS network library for part of its functionality, should the writer of that Library somehow be held accountable for the abuse of their work? Of course not! Viruses have legitimate research value and serve to show that an otherwise 'theoretical' exploit is indeed real.
Also I think your use of the term 'hacker' to describe these 'crackers' is a bit indicative of your vindictive attitude in this matter. Your attitude and tone betray an ignorance of the whole issue. This is about free speech, code is speech, and should be protected just like the destructive things newspapers and other media have exposed in their use of free speech. That's why source code is copyright in the same class as literary works.
I think that what virus writers do is to some degree helpful and harmless, the idiots that distribute the viruses are the people that should be drawn-and-quartered. Writing something is not the same as doing something with it. These 'programmers' have every right to produce and publish their programs. But the fact that these programs are destructive is why it's illegal to distribute/release/run them. I have no problem with these folks writing these things and publishing them, it allows me to see what they are up to and at least keep up with them when I can't get ahead of them security wise.
The article paints an interesting contrast between the writers and the 'script kiddies' we all loathe who are the real evil dolts behind most virus and worm activity.
Of course I use a Mac desktop and GNU/Linux servers so until these guys start using something other than VB I am not too terribly worried about them trying to exploit any hidden flaws in my systems, but it is helpful to know what they are up to, same reason I subscribe to 2600.
"It's Just a crash" is among the dumbest things anyone could say about a bug. Not quite as bad as "It's just a remote root exploit" but very disturbing none the less. The only thing that seems to offer any reassurance is that it requires a patched kernel or custom stack to exploit but a person bent on bringing down a system *could* do these things without too much trouble I would think. My question is for a serious cracker wouldn't taking down a system in a manner like this be much more inviting if all they want to do is bring a system down?
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of people who think he is flat out wrong, and don't believe, like I do, that he substantiated his assertions. If we disagree with an opinion piece and and can back up our assertions in the face of what seem to be wrongful assertions then we should take action and express ourselves. It is not acceptable to allow publication of wrong, unsubstantiated material, it is bad journalism and bad op-ed if nothin you say can in any way be backed up.
I just emailed the author and his editor, and suggest any interested folks do the same:
Author: rjones@devx.com
Editor: lpiquet@devx.com
One interesting note is that they also provide a proprietary security suite for IIS. So they, I guess, are trusting their software to protect them in the face of MS' issues.
Mod Parent Up Informative!
Add a F.A. Porsche design Lacie drive [http://www.lacie.com/products/range.htm?id=10032] and a pine tree air freshener and one would be set no?
It was part of the security alert...thought it was amusing none the less...
U Can't Trust This
By: MCSE Hammer
Blaster did ya some harm
We just say, hey, another worm
But thank you, for trusting me
To mind your site's security
It's all good, when your server's downed
Our dope PR will pass blame around
Cuz it's known as such
That this is some software, you can't trust
I told ya Homeland
U can't trust this
Yeah that's why we're giving ya the code
U can't trust this
Check out eEye, man
U can't trust this
Yo let 'em bust more funky system
U can't trust this
Give 'em a string or recvfrom
Like no sweat they got the keys to your kingdom
Now ya know
You talk about eEye, you're talking about holes
Remote and tight
Coders still sweating so someone better write
A book to learn
What it's gonna take in '04
To earn some trust
Legit, either secure or ya might as well quit
That's the word because you know
U can't trust this
U can't trust this
I was amazed myself...moderators really do lurk as much as I do....
NEVER! BUT NEVER! Install Windows unless you want openly relayed spam from space!
So now I will be able to find exactly where I want to hike up the mountain, be able to know which way I am going, know exactly how far I am from the top, tell how close to verticle I am approaching, take photos as I approach the summit and then have company that will understand me when I trip and crash and go tumbling down said mountain.
You're right. But many theories are devoid of observable phenomenon, one of the key steps in this method. Without being able to observe something science can not prove anything. Much of science is more like religion than scientists and lovers of science are willing to admit because of the pervasive way that theories are treated as facts.
History/Social Sciences are an interesting branch of studies that rely on testimony and physical corroboration to prove if something happened. In this line of study Christianity, specifically, has benefitted. There is strong evidence that much of the historical references in the Bible are true and can be accepted. Other elements are left to our faith, but the historical validity of this document lends somewhat to its credibility in other matters in my estimation. One note is that the Bible is a book of faith, a direct revelation from God, if you believe in it, not a scientific brief. Some elements of the Bible should be viewed through that lens when approaching it. God did not want to explain the forces at play behind the movement of cellestial bodies, but he did say that their movements would reflect times and seasons in Genesis 1. Science explains what religion does not and religion explains what science can not. They are much more complementary than some would like us to believe.
And if some scientists had their way, science would abolish religion, neither side is free from being guilty of mistreating, misunderstanding and misrepresenting themself or the other. Many scientists pronounce theories as facts, and claim that religious types are the dishonest or misguided ones. There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. Especially since both claim to seek the truth either objective or subjective/experiential. One is not superior to the other, but the truth will set us all free.
But many religions question each other. And there are many religions, at least in the Christian world, that are questioning themselves and whether they are right in their assertions. The Evangelical Theological Society is questioning whether Open Theism is compatible with Biblical Inerrancy. The Episcopal church determined that in their view openly homosexual persons should be allowed as Bishops. The Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a part, is having some very interesting debates about Calvinism. Religion is actively questioning itself, but unless you're in on it you probably are missing it.
Religion has also promoted science and 'associated' disciplines. The Catholic Church was one of the driving forces in developing the scientific field in Europe as they sought to prove certain assertions of their faith objectively. Astronomy started as religion in Astrology and then became more ordered and objective in its goals. Much of science got its start because of religion; later on religion sought to control science as science began to attack certain 'truths' and that is when everything got messed up between these two.
Sorry, your analogy to Columbine doesn't hold up.
Giving guns to minors is a crime in and of itself. A Person under 18 may not own a rifle and a person under 21 may not own a handgun or shotgun, in the US, some states are more restrictive. If I were to give a gun to a person, so long as my action was in compliance with all local laws, it is no different than giving them cash for them to buy a gun. So your analogy to Columbine is inaccurate and simply FUDish.
I hope they catch and punish those that release these viruses into the wild, but I believe the writers are protected under free speech. I think your desire for vengance is a little far reaching. What if these writers included a GPL or other OSS network library for part of its functionality, should the writer of that Library somehow be held accountable for the abuse of their work? Of course not! Viruses have legitimate research value and serve to show that an otherwise 'theoretical' exploit is indeed real.
Also I think your use of the term 'hacker' to describe these 'crackers' is a bit indicative of your vindictive attitude in this matter. Your attitude and tone betray an ignorance of the whole issue. This is about free speech, code is speech, and should be protected just like the destructive things newspapers and other media have exposed in their use of free speech. That's why source code is copyright in the same class as literary works.
I think that what virus writers do is to some degree helpful and harmless, the idiots that distribute the viruses are the people that should be drawn-and-quartered. Writing something is not the same as doing something with it. These 'programmers' have every right to produce and publish their programs. But the fact that these programs are destructive is why it's illegal to distribute/release/run them. I have no problem with these folks writing these things and publishing them, it allows me to see what they are up to and at least keep up with them when I can't get ahead of them security wise.
The article paints an interesting contrast between the writers and the 'script kiddies' we all loathe who are the real evil dolts behind most virus and worm activity.
Of course I use a Mac desktop and GNU/Linux servers so until these guys start using something other than VB I am not too terribly worried about them trying to exploit any hidden flaws in my systems, but it is helpful to know what they are up to, same reason I subscribe to 2600.
"It's Just a crash" is among the dumbest things anyone could say about a bug. Not quite as bad as "It's just a remote root exploit" but very disturbing none the less. The only thing that seems to offer any reassurance is that it requires a patched kernel or custom stack to exploit but a person bent on bringing down a system *could* do these things without too much trouble I would think. My question is for a serious cracker wouldn't taking down a system in a manner like this be much more inviting if all they want to do is bring a system down?