What I wonder is why you try to keep users secure on the internet. Why not pull them back behind a firewall that only lets text email and "safe" web pages through? (Strip out javascript, activeX, etc.)
Somebody puts laptop on external network, gets infected, then puts laptop on internal network. Congratulations - you're toast.
Somebody has laptop or desktop at hjome, gets infected, dials in through your fancy VPN. Congratulations - you're toast.
There may be a simple easy answer, but you haven't overed all the bases yet.
many networks still use Novell to handle their network logins, file sharing, etc. becuase its more secure than Windows.
Nice. So how come every year or two, our internal penetration testers crack some luser's PC, then use that to take advantage of the fact that the Netware clinet stores credentails in RAM IN THE CLEAR? Whiich means they own our network, due to synchonization between the Netware and NT passwords. Which hurts when the luser is also an admin of some sort.
I can honestly say I've no complaints w/ Speakeasy. One of their namservers was flakey one day. Every once in a long while I have to power-cycle my DSL modem, esp. if the've doen somehting at the CO end. Oither than that, all is cool.
I would certainly like an ISP that would connect to a residence and would allow what they call "business use."
I've got Speakeasy, 1,.5M down 384K up all the ports I can handle, a static globally unique IP. I think it's 60$/mo before I added 2 more IPs ($%/mo ea). Not real cheap but good features and policies.
What was it that CA agreed to take? My uinderstanding is that it was UnixWare licenses, to which SCO (possibly retroactively) added the "linux Iintellectual property extortion agreement".
Actually, they may be distrinbuting it w/ Unixware, I'm not sure how it matters. However, PJ at groklaw.net offers her usual clarity:
I know you want me to tell you if his grounds for invoking Section 4 are sufficient. But I can't. I don't have enough facts before me.
Nmap is not part of the kernel, so charging a license fee for use of the kernel wouldn't be a GPL violation that would involve Nmap.
However, it is conceivable that he is of the belief that SCO's assertion of copyright or "derivative works" rights over Linux constitutes a claim that they might make against him, so he is taking prophylactic action by cutting their distribution rights.
Or, he may be of the belief that their public repudiation of the GPL constitutes a refusal to accept the license, and he would like them to assert their acceptance of the GPL or stop distributing his product, which is only available under that license. In other words, he may be calling their bluff, forcing them to say if they do or do not accept the terms of the GPL. We don't know what violations of the GPL he precisely sees in their Open Source CD. If there are such, enforcement actions are inevitable, and not just from Fyodor.
Emphasisi added - I italicized the part showing the point I was trying to make. PJ's further analysis shows that I am either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. So, there, take that!;-P
I had missed that little wrinkle. So if Fyodor owns everything, he can bind others to the GPL while not being bound by it himself.
However, all previous versions were released with a 'vanilla' GPL, so presumably SCO can continue using those, I'd think - and if all newer nmaps no longer build under SCO products, that's their only choice. Legally - they could put back in whatever is needed to build. That wouldn't be legal, (I don't think, IANAL) but when did that ever stop SCO?
The fact that you are using all bold caps does not increase the strength of your arguments.
SCO is not attaching extra licensing requirments to nmap (so far) - only to the stuff they are (wrongly) claiming in the linux kernel. nmap is just along for the ride. Hence my original statment, whose point you missed completely.
But they are NOT violating the GPL with respect to nmap, are they? So can Fyodor really do this? Is he himself not, in fact, violating the GPL, perhaps?
Don't get me wrong - I despise the SCOundels. There needs to be some way top pressure them. But by releasing under GPL, then saying 'oh I changed my mind for you guys', is Fyodor not actually duplicating some aspects of SCO's conduct?
postfix instead of sendmail - that's a good thing
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This caused a fair amount of teeth gnashing when I discovered it had gone the way of all flesh in OS X Panther to be replaced with Postfix
I replaced sendmail wwith postfix on all my non-isiolated machines last year after the sendmail vulnerability-of-the-week treadmill got very old.
A year ago, their stock was worth a tad over a dollar ($1.11), now it's worth $13.84.
But that's on microscopic volume, meaning the SCOundrels are just flipping it amongst themselves. If any real quantity of this crap ever hit the market at once, it would drop like a rock.
The company I work for bought SCO liscenses for our GNU/Linux workstations and servers. We didn't want to have any legal hassles irregardless of how the SCO suits turn out.
Can you please give me the address of your leagal and accounts payable people? I believe you have some of my IP and if your folks are dumb enough to fall for SCO's crap, they'll fall for my rantings, too.
You're full of shit if you lied and worse if you told the truth.
Enderle is a fool and/or is a bought-and-paid-for shill of MS. See in particular his rants equating Linux users to terrorists, and his past statements that his opinions are for sale. There isn't anything this guy can see that lots of others couldn't - so, even if Enderle manages to say something true (a very rare occurence, I guarantee you) you should find someone else to link to.
Slashdot Mirror
We'd only haveto do it once to get the message across. This asshole has got it coming.
Somebody puts laptop on external network, gets infected, then puts laptop on internal network. Congratulations - you're toast.
Somebody has laptop or desktop at hjome, gets infected, dials in through your fancy VPN. Congratulations - you're toast.
There may be a simple easy answer, but you haven't overed all the bases yet.
IBM is the defendant, remember?
Once IBM demonstrates how you get screwed by suing them for crap, maybe some of this stuff will settle down.
Oh, yeah, like Darl is going to do that. The cloven hooves should be clue.
Nice. So how come every year or two, our internal penetration testers crack some luser's PC, then use that to take advantage of the fact that the Netware clinet stores credentails in RAM IN THE CLEAR? Whiich means they own our network, due to synchonization between the Netware and NT passwords. Which hurts when the luser is also an admin of some sort.
JUST KILL THE STUPID SOB
I can honestly say I've no complaints w/ Speakeasy. One of their namservers was flakey one day. Every once in a long while I have to power-cycle my DSL modem, esp. if the've doen somehting at the CO end. Oither than that, all is cool.
Go to https://www.recallverisign.com/ and sign the petition to get Verisign to stop abusing their control of .com and .net TLDs
Go to https://www.recallverisign.com/ and sing the petition to get Verisign to stop abusing their control of .com and .net TLDs
I've got Speakeasy, 1,.5M down 384K up all the ports I can handle, a static globally unique IP. I think it's 60$/mo before I added 2 more IPs ($%/mo ea). Not real cheap but good features and policies.
What was it that CA agreed to take? My uinderstanding is that it was UnixWare licenses, to which SCO (possibly retroactively) added the "linux Iintellectual property extortion agreement".
Why did a *contractor* have root on your *main* nfs server? Sounds like somebody besides the ocntractor (you, maybe?) screwed up, big-time.
Actually, they will wait 10 days, then sue 1024 users.
Where and when? What 'success stories' are you referring to?
However, all previous versions were released with a 'vanilla' GPL, so presumably SCO can continue using those, I'd think - and if all newer nmaps no longer build under SCO products, that's their only choice. Legally - they could put back in whatever is needed to build. That wouldn't be legal, (I don't think, IANAL) but when did that ever stop SCO?
SCO is not attaching extra licensing requirments to nmap (so far) - only to the stuff they are (wrongly) claiming in the linux kernel. nmap is just along for the ride. Hence my original statment, whose point you missed completely.
But they are NOT violating the GPL with respect to nmap, are they? So can Fyodor really do this? Is he himself not, in fact, violating the GPL, perhaps? Don't get me wrong - I despise the SCOundels. There needs to be some way top pressure them. But by releasing under GPL, then saying 'oh I changed my mind for you guys', is Fyodor not actually duplicating some aspects of SCO's conduct?
I replaced sendmail wwith postfix on all my non-isiolated machines last year after the sendmail vulnerability-of-the-week treadmill got very old.
it was *really* simple to do.
postfix: the ultimate sendmail patch.
But that's on microscopic volume, meaning the SCOundrels are just flipping it amongst themselves. If any real quantity of this crap ever hit the market at once, it would drop like a rock.
Can you please give me the address of your leagal and accounts payable people? I believe you have some of my IP and if your folks are dumb enough to fall for SCO's crap, they'll fall for my rantings, too.
You're full of shit if you lied and worse if you told the truth.
Enderle is a fool and/or is a bought-and-paid-for shill of MS. See in particular his rants equating Linux users to terrorists, and his past statements that his opinions are for sale. There isn't anything this guy can see that lots of others couldn't - so, even if Enderle manages to say something true (a very rare occurence, I guarantee you) you should find someone else to link to.
The eval $string requires compilation from source at run-time, hence my original post.
But how does eval $string work in a runtime with no compiler?
The "Programming Perl" book voers it, as does (briefly) the "Perl Cookbook", which is a must-have.
Most CPAN modules have an OO interface, so it's worth understanding at least a little of it.
or were you just kidding and/or trolling?