Jacques A. Vidrine was recently hired on (leaving Verio) and now holds a high level position in the Apple Information Security. Jacques was the former FreeBSD Security Officer
>The articles read "mac mini hacked in under 30 minutes."
I believe it read: "Mac OS X hacked in under 30 minutes".
> The article(s) also never said that there was a root account enabled (which is not the default setup) nor if a backdoor program had been installed previously by a hacker.
This is ZDnet. 99.999% of ZDnet readers have no idea what a root account is, nor would it make any difference to them.
But this is FUD too. And do you think anyone outside the 'geek' community is going to hear about it? DO you think ZDnet is going to re-post an updated article about how they were wrong and in fact you need to make a distinction between local and remote vulnerabilities and the level of skill and available required for both? Probably not.
And you're missing my point. It's not misinformation. Providing local accounts to unix-based systems isn't uncommon. Sure it's not common on a desktop, but it is on servers. The article was never specific about what type of environment they were replicating. That, if anything, was the problem.
I don't understand the point... Basically all you're saying is "Is the version of SSH vulnerable to a remote exploit? Is the version of Apache vulnerable to a remote exploit?"
Why is it that the world only considers remote vulnerabilities to be of consequence? Somehow local vuls are now irrelavent.
I actually sent out communication to our employees last week requiring users to disable the "Search Across Computers" functionality (which we're monitoring) rather than requiring them to remove it completely. Additionally, I have the Windows administrators investigating the possibility of using the GDS Enterprise solution, which has full AD support and the ability to disable Search Across Computers through Group Policy.
According to the OSS community, everything Microsoft does is supposed to be helping the adoption of Linux... unfortunately it appears it's quite the reverse.
Slashdot Mirror
hi
Jacques A. Vidrine was recently hired on (leaving Verio) and now holds a high level position in the Apple Information Security. Jacques was the former FreeBSD Security Officer
>The articles read "mac mini hacked in under 30 minutes." I believe it read: "Mac OS X hacked in under 30 minutes". > The article(s) also never said that there was a root account enabled (which is not the default setup) nor if a backdoor program had been installed previously by a hacker. This is ZDnet. 99.999% of ZDnet readers have no idea what a root account is, nor would it make any difference to them.
But this is FUD too. And do you think anyone outside the 'geek' community is going to hear about it? DO you think ZDnet is going to re-post an updated article about how they were wrong and in fact you need to make a distinction between local and remote vulnerabilities and the level of skill and available required for both? Probably not.
This is just as retarded as the ZDnet posting.
And you're missing my point. It's not misinformation. Providing local accounts to unix-based systems isn't uncommon. Sure it's not common on a desktop, but it is on servers. The article was never specific about what type of environment they were replicating. That, if anything, was the problem.
I don't understand the point... Basically all you're saying is "Is the version of SSH vulnerable to a remote exploit? Is the version of Apache vulnerable to a remote exploit?"
Why is it that the world only considers remote vulnerabilities to be of consequence? Somehow local vuls are now irrelavent.
It's pretty sad that we've come to this.
Red tape - Check Politices - Check
Welcome to 1999 where we have IP-enabled console access.
We're pretty fucking worried about the new MSN Messenger/MS Office/MS Outlook integration that's going to be available in a few months.
That by 2025 the goiter on George Lucas' neck will grow to such size that he will look more like Jabba the Hutta.
I actually sent out communication to our employees last week requiring users to disable the "Search Across Computers" functionality (which we're monitoring) rather than requiring them to remove it completely. Additionally, I have the Windows administrators investigating the possibility of using the GDS Enterprise solution, which has full AD support and the ability to disable Search Across Computers through Group Policy.
heh... you clearly have you real insight into modern botnet comms.
... on efnet in #conf.
*Barf* Do you have any thoughts of your own? Groupie.
See subject.
Lol. Are you insane? By that rationale you're stating that somehow applications like Mail.app and Safari are somehwo invulnerable... Give me a break.
I was basing it this link from last week, not the math. FYI: A closer look at the 1up article states that the aniversary was in October though.
NES hit 20 on Feb 21, 2006.
Nice one!
See subject.
According to the OSS community, everything Microsoft does is supposed to be helping the adoption of Linux... unfortunately it appears it's quite the reverse.
Studies that are based on an imaginary world where "interoperability" doesn't equate to "suck".
MS to stick their head in the sand and hope OSS will go away? "Know your enemy better than you know yourself."
This link is from Jan 16, 2006.
This is *really* old news. I'm surpised this isn't a dupe from Jan.