What is more pointless is WORRYING about moderation, and if your POV got moderated up or down.
It seems some people take it WAY to seriously. I used to moderate my points I got down all the trolls/flames. But, given there is no reward for beating down the noise, there is no incentive.
If a moderation change is needed, it should be to allow for some people (oh how to choose!) to have massive points to beat down the trolls. If the trolls can't be seen, they will eventually go away. Perhaps 'congratz! U have 20 trol beat'n points. Thump away!'
Right now, as they admit...they only exist to burn moderation points.
Re:Free BSD with trusted base without OpenBSD audi
on
TrustedBSD Announced
·
· Score: 2
>Last I checked FreeBSD and NetBSD both had "sub-optimal" code that had been fixed during the OpenBSD audit.
*yawn*
If this kind of comment was made about RedHat vs Mandrake vs (anyone but) LinuxOne, it would have been labeled as flamebait/troll.
Audit issues found in OpenBSD that were appropriate to Net and FreeBSD were applied to the release. And, I'd bet some of these issues were then applied to the package they came from, in addition to Linux.
That is the beauty of OpenSource. Unless you can prove that no patches from OpenBSD were applied to Net/FreeBSD then you are either ignorant or spreading FUD.
Now, you seem to be expressing these 2 ideas: 1) lets all work together so we move faster/better 2) OpenBSD has the 'best security'
Lets all work together...each project has different goals. And now a group want to improve FreeBSD. Good for them. If working together is #1, why 150 different Linux distros? And, what about 'many eyes make bugs shallow', does this not apply to design ideas? Many minds working in different directions provide the different lines of thinks that will find a better path.
Best security....Charles Hannum (root@ihack.net) pointed out at a BSD dinner that OpenBSD security isn't, FreeBSD memory management isn't, and NetBSD portability isn't. OpenBSD is as secure as a sysadmin makes it, FreeBSD's VM doesn't work quite right (this statement was made months ago...), and unless you have the toaster that NetBSD runs on and WANT to turn it from a toaster to a NEtBSD Box...it is kind of pointless. Security/VM/Portability is nothing more than examples of successful marketing...taking a small difference and making the biggest possible deal about it. Is the ability to run the OS on Dreamcast worth a better VM? Or, is good security worth giving up a 2500+ ports collection? Or is it worth giving up the ability to run voice recognition software? OS choice is about choice. And when one makes a choice, one gives up something in favor of something else.
Personalites and problems, + other BSD news.
on
TrustedBSD Announced
·
· Score: 1
Lets do the news 1st.
Looks like FreeBSD is going to branch out! FreeBSD-i18n Dedicated to internationalizing FreeBSD (hopefully the disable will be better addressed in this release...code for the blind, the deaf, etc.) FreeBSD-PPC Dedicated to making FreeBSD run on PPC platforms. The web pages don't show it yet...but go for instructions on how to get on a list.
>This kinda attitude seems prevalent across among the posts to this article and I find it somewhat annoying.
Hate to break this to ya, but the big reason there WAS a split in OpenBSD's case is it *WAS* personality.
There was a big thread about this on daily.daemonnews.org, but it got deleted by the people who run the site.
The thread went into acusations involving the FBI, malicious code deletion, etc la.
It all reminds me of what the head of EE told me in college. Most technical staffers are never fired/let go because of their lack of technical skills, but because of personality/personal issues. This thread has the 'annoying' comments about personal loyalities because there is much truth to them.
Hint: If Kerberos WAS under under MPL or APSL Microsoft would have engineered their version to be different.
Microsoft WANTS to be different, either thru gross incompentancy, or as the Halloween document outlines, to destroy standards.
Nice try at a GPL/BSD flamewar. The way to do the flamewar tho is to take an lay down a token ring of protection about yourself and say Brett Glass Brett Glass Brett Glass
and the defender of the BSD licence will appear. Then, by virtue of Brett being here, a horde of GPL daemons will appear and the flames will drive out any reason from the posts!
The 1st few episodes requires the watcher to be patient and wait for the large holes to be filled. The loose ends are all over the place. Most ugly americans arn't willing to wait to get their package all wrapped up in a neat bundle. Or, at least that is what the TV exec believe.
In the one episode with the white stars blowing up asteroids, Sheridan lays out the problem in the 1st 5 minutes, how to get the other races to sign. And before the show is done, they have signed.
It is traditional American TV fair, and makes the episode a good one to show to a 1st time viewer and have them feel like they 'saw all' they 'needed to see'. A B5 viewer can then point out how all the other items are linked together...and how some of the underlying plot threads have went on for many seasons.
I'm betting the Sci-fi seires will get a whole new set of viewers with short attention spans....because they can wait a day (or 3) for 'the next chunk' of the puzzle that is B5. The ones that can't wait a month, can go read the web pages about B5.
In most American TV, each episode can stand alone. B5 RARELY had an epesode that, by itself, stands alone.
The only one I can think of is, after the shadow war, he send the white star fleet to destroy asteroids (with the intent of the other races to believe the enemy is invisible to their sensors....but not the white star fleet)
What episodes do you think could stand alone? Episodes that are self-explanitory, and could be pulled out of the series, and someone would feel that from a plot context-wrapup in an hour match normal American TV?
The offical archives of Tolkien are at Marquette University in Milwaukee. So, if you plan on being at GenCon, take a walk up Water Street and see if MU will let you look upon his original works:-)
Do you have the TIME it takes to dedicate to the honeypot?
Most sysadmin jobs have 10 hours of work each day to fit into 8 hours. So sysadminning become more like triage, or the gerbil on the excersise wheel. If you run fast or go slow, you end up in the same place at the end of a day of running. And some days, some jerk comes into your cage, rattles it or, while you are on the wheel running your little heart out for that paycheck, they jam something in the wheel to make it stop suddenly.
A possible way to run the honeypot: Use VMware/virtual PC/bochs and have it run the honeypot environment. The honeypot then has the ports open to the outside world. To fix the pot-a simple file copy.
Will this help? Depends on if you have the time to drop EVERYTHING to watch the box when something happens. Me personally, I watched some dud break into my box. (It alerted me at the point of the break-in) At the point when s/he started deleting files, I typed in halt. About all I learned is they were using 2 porn sites and one at MIT. They used a known issue with BIND. (bad me, I didn't upgrade bind.) Had I been busy/at a client site, they would have been able to poke around on the box. This particular attack showed me I had a problem with bind. (big whoop. I KNEW that, and chose to ignore it.) And the ISP's who were used in the attack? One was rude "who the hell are you to call me that I have problems with my systems, I can't control the internet" and the other was "they are not affecting production, so I don't want to disturb them"
And, had they been GOOD, they would have not set off my alert system. But, they wern't GOOD enough. So, depending on how you work your system, they might just be better than you, and your honeypot becomes a host to launch the next attack from. The truly skilled break-in artist is nearly impossible to detect.
About all you may be able to add to the world of computer security is YOU might be lucky to report the 1st break-in of type X, or help trace back someone. But, most likely, any traceback will dead-end with people who don't want to take the time to care, and they will use a known hole you should know about via bugtraq/cert.
Again, you are sighting the PAST....Apple's model has changed.
I have a 486 slc based laptop that ran DOS when it was bought, still runs DOS and the accounting program. Just as servicable as the day it was aquired.
And the Pentium 90 still runs FreeBSD. From 2.X to 3.4, just as servicable. Now, it it was Microsoft Windows, this would not be the case. So, don't confuse the hardware with the software...
No. Have you actually used Dragon dictate? The 'speech' on a Mac in the timeframe you state was a joke, a parlor trick to show off. Could you use it to dictate this post to/.? You can do that with dragon dictate.
>Can you say that most any PC is still functional?
You bet. See my post about a 286 and 386 boxes still in use.
But remember, even you state: >I run for the nearest newer machine whenever I get find the need to use Netscape. Still, the 6100 is servicable. I can do anything on it,
On the one hand, you can do anything on it, yet you run for other machines....it either is fully serviceable or it isn't.
1997 bought mac can't run speech rec., or Mac OS X.
2000-1997 = 3 year old mac is useless with new OS X and voice to text. Yes it still runs other software....but so does the 166 mhz X86 that can't run latest OS/voice rec.
Remember too: Rhapsody (uname -a on mac os x) was to run on any mac sold in 1997 by apple. There is no reason to have Mac OS X run on only G3's or better other than to force hardware upgrades. The 6 month upgrades will drive software makers to use the higher speed boxes (just like in the PC world). So if you want that hi-frame rate in quake, you gotta buy that new box. And, as more makers of code do G3 or Altavec, the old PPC boxes will be left in the dust.
>The 1990-era Macintoshes in our office work just great for the desktop publishing tasks they've been doing for 10 years now. No problems printing to the newest postscript printer, either.
Ok, so that is your outerbound.
Here are mine: A masonic lodge has a 386 with windows 3.11 and Pagemaker. New printer there...and that system works fine.
A 286 that drives a ROM burner/chip tester.
Face it, if the software doesn't change, the old machines will continue to work fine. So to use unchanging software as the basis of a 2-3 year extra life claim is bogus.
I have 386's and 486's in service still as print servers. Hell, a 286 is still a print server.
Old machines are as useful as you want to make them. And this is no different in the X86 vs mac world.
Correction: for the money that Be wanted, for Apple to get an OS that *NO* printing and was not mature, Be *DID* want too much money.
>was that in buying NeXT Apple also wound up with Steve Jobs again
Correction: Look back into the commentary of the time. Stewart Alsop had said that the Next Purchase did *NOT* include Jobs (as Steve said he wanted little to do with Apple when the whole buyout thing started) Would Gil have worked to hire Jobs if he thought Jobs would put him out as CEO?
Like it or not, neither BSD, Linux, Unix *OR* Mac OS X is 'mainstream'-if the definition is one can go to mega-chain-superstore-and-buy-hardware-preloaded-w ith-the-OS. When Mac OS X is the default pre-load, then I'll consider it mainstream via the mega-chainstore definition of mainstream.
If you want to say "Linux is Mainstream" then you have to be including BSD. If you are unwilling to say BSD is mainstream, yet call Linux mainstream, I'd LOVE to see your definition of mainstream.
The reaction for the 'linux bigots' is LESS interesting than the reaction from the Mac OS bigots. These are the SAME people who, when you would mention how Unix had both Mac OS AND Windows beat WRT multi-processing and stability (note the Apple page... Welcome to the Brave New World of Crash-Resistant Computing), they would slam Unix even harder than Windows. As Apple comes closer to making Unix the default OS, the "Mac OS bigots" have to come to terms with Mac OS now being what they loathed....Unix!
>What LAWS do I break, entering a door beliving it to be my destination? And your purpose is? To find a Open Relay and publish it? No sane person will welcome you coming through their doors for you to publish that you've found unlocked/open telephone lines? Guess that is why you are taking drugs under the guidance of a therapist....because you are not sane.
And, as far as I can tell, you are lying about your destination.
>What LAWS do I break, if as a janator if I check the building for open doors. When did YOU become the janitor for MY building?
>Do I break any LAW doing the same as a security guard, friendly neightbor, police and so on. Again, when did you become the guard or my neighbor? Being a neighbor, when did YOU introduce yourself? You haven't.
>There are reasonable limits to any action, and it varies depending on the situation. So blindly attacking hosts looking for open relays is OK in your book? ORBS could not provide ANY reason for attacking my host. If ORBS would have provided a reason, then it would not have been a blind attack, just an attack.
>But you are obviously far from realising this, in this and in any exampel you have used. No, ma'am. You are the one with the problem. You are the one who is Pro-ORBS, no matter what the reason.
>Unfortunately, your methology of "shoot first, be reasonable later" aren't as good as you think. Miss, ask your psychoanalyst to change your psychotropics ORBS is the one who attacks a host with 17+ scanning probes on port 25. ORBS does NOT contact the host before the attack, nor do they respond to the question WHY my host was attacked, and they do not provide any proof that the host has ever been USED as an open relay for spam.
So ORBS not only shoots first, but they aren't reasonable later.
I, on the other hand, have offered up how ORBS would operate if they were not a cover for hunting down Open Relays for spammers.
1) contact the target before attacking, asking if they want to be attacked. 2) provide proof of the host having an open relay. 3) do not publish known open relays.
Given the way ORBS operates, they act JUST like an organization who's goal would be to help spammers find open relays. What is sad is you believe ORBS when they say they are here to help. ORBS actions show they are a net-terrorist, helping spammers do their work.
>> They blindly attack hosts, >The only blind attack I've seen so far is yours, and it's against the fabric of reason and judgement. Given my pager went off letting me know there were excessive relay attempts, and that this ORBS machine I had never heard of was doing the attack, lets see.
17+ probes scanning my mail port looking for an open relay - attack ORBS - never heard of them, and when asked for a reason they gave none - blind
Hence the phase BLIND ATTACK.
You ask that ORBS be judged by their "intentions". Linux One says they are a valued member of the Linux community. Sanford Wallace said he was intending to move Internet commerce forward
ORBS *CLAIMS* to be 'working to stop spam', yet they are WORSE than any spammer has ever been on my box.
Now in a 6 day period, ORBS just HAPPENED to be the only site that probe attacked me.
Looks like ORBS is worse than any spammer.
>You logic is not only flawed, it's lame. >WHY should they give "proof of spam" when they are surveing for Open Relays? What part of "if they probe me they have to have a reason" are you not understanding? What part of "provide some proof to WHY you selected my host to probe" are you not understanding?
As you admit however, they are "surveying for Open Relays". The only reason to do that is to use them for spam. And, in fact they DO publish the list for spammers to use.
>WHY do you make up fact to support you argument? From http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/default.as p?String=fact*1%2B0&ACT=SELECT
fact noun something which is known to have happened or to exist, esp. something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
So how can you make up facts? To say "make up facts" indicates you need your shrink to adjust your drugs.
> (Is it to weak to stand on it's own "feet"?) Where are YOUR logs? Your statistics?
>>The difference is the spammer tries once. ORBS keeps trying. >This is, as every statment you make, not true! I have logs I posted. Seems I'm correct and YOU are not. Just like my posts have said....ORBS is a net-terrorist.
>SPAMMERS port-scan entiry NET-BLOCKS, ORBS doesn't do this. Show me the code ORBS uses. What? No proof?
As *I* have said, they scanned *MY* host. Where did I say they scan net-blocks? All my claims are based on what I have logs for.
And the basis of your counter-claims are? Oh, let me guess, the web pages of ORBS? *yawn* The actions of ORBS show different than the web pages.
>Spammers won't stop ABUSEing your server, even if you try asking og pleading. Really? Given my e-mail logs, spammers try once, and then go away.
>ORBS stops if you ask them to, and add you to their list as "asked not to be tested". With a flag of 'cartoonie threats' also? If you ask not to be tested, it is assumed that you ARE a open relay.
>Spammer try over and over til they find an Open Relay, then they ABUSE this security problem. Prove this. My logs shows any given spammer tries ONCE, perhaps two times, then goes away. No abuse, no over and over.
ORBS on the other hand, scanned port 25 17+ times looking for a hole to publish.
>ORBS report it, the DON'T ATTACK or ABUSE it! Yea, they just publish the open relay to encourage abuse of the open relay. How charming and non-abusive of them.
And 17+ times is not an attack? Then what is it?
>If YOU don't like this, don't act like a crybaby, please unplugg your computer insted.
How like a terrorist. 'This is our political agenda. If you do not agree, then BANG! Dead." That is what your have asked for, if I do not like ORBS, I should just nip off and kill my host.
Tell you what, how about this: If I see something that is WRONG, I will let my voice be heard. And if YOU don't like it, provide PROOF that my opinion is wrong. So far, you have provided no proof. And given you are 'Dare_devil" and not Alan Brown (the clown who runs ORBS), you have no authority to speak for ORBS.
>YOU try over and over to fuse false accusation against ORBS without any proof. Ma'am, you are the one who has provided no proof to date. I have provided logs now showing the attack. It is hard to provide the e-mail replies from ORBS, because, well they never did reply.
>Even when confrontet of false statements YOU ignore it, Miss, the only thing I have been confronted with is your ignorance. I have seen no facts, just your claims. Post code, post logs, do something more than wave your hands about.
>making YOU WORSE than SPAMMERS! Right now, YOU are the net-terrorist! Pointing out how you have a problem with reality makes me a net-terrorist? Defending my POV makes me a net-terrorist? I am forcing you (or anyone else) to read this exactly how?
ORBS forced themselves on my host 17 times.
Understand the difference between choice? And no choice? This/. Thread you are here by choice. ORBS with their scanning of port 25 17+ times looking for an open relay to pass onto spammers is force.
Lets try a different exercise:
I have a daemon in a lamp. (the genie was bought out by AOL) When I rub the lamp and ask for all Open Relays to be closed, BAM! They are!
Guess what?!? SPAMMERS keep SPAMMING! Why? Because they can create their own relays! Gee, guess ORBS was useless when it came to stopping spam!
Join CASUE, support the Real Time Black hole list, Re-write your sendmail so it acts like an open relay, but throws e-mail into/dev/null, if you have in interest in stopping spam. Because ORBS has moved from a failed experiment to nothing more than a terrorist organization.
Look at the thread. ORBS is a failure in its goal. They are a failure because ORBS is a net-terrorist.
Linux and PDA's - The code for booting up Linux on a PDA form factor is taken from NetBSD. (so the BSD ideal of code reuse everywhere is upheld again Commerical Applications - www.netbsd.org/gallery/software.html Also note that NetBSD can run Linux binaries due to the compatibility layer, so the BSD's have access to not only Linux binaries, but SCO, Solaris, and even Windows binaries (via WINE)
So, as far as facts go, thanks for playing. When you take off the pro-linux rose colored glasses you will see that what you said is not backed up by facts.
As for mine being a 'cheap ripoff', mine was a tasteless parody of a tasteless post. Scatalogical humor of someone using scatological humor. Humor via goring the sacred cow that is/.
So rather than wasting time slamming other opensource projects, wouldn't the rising tide for OpenSource work better when ALL boats get floated?
Slashdot Mirror
What is more pointless is WORRYING about moderation, and if your POV got moderated up or down.
It seems some people take it WAY to seriously. I used to moderate my points I got down all the trolls/flames. But, given there is no reward for beating down the noise, there is no incentive.
If a moderation change is needed, it should be to allow for some people (oh how to choose!) to have massive points to beat down the trolls. If the trolls can't be seen, they will eventually go away. Perhaps 'congratz! U have 20 trol beat'n points. Thump away!'
Right now, as they admit...they only exist to burn moderation points.
>Last I checked FreeBSD and NetBSD both had "sub-optimal" code that had been fixed during the OpenBSD audit.
*yawn*
If this kind of comment was made about RedHat vs Mandrake vs (anyone but) LinuxOne, it would have been labeled as flamebait/troll.
Audit issues found in OpenBSD that were appropriate to Net and FreeBSD were applied to the release. And, I'd bet some of these issues were then applied to the package they came from, in addition to Linux.
That is the beauty of OpenSource. Unless you can prove that no patches from OpenBSD were applied to Net/FreeBSD then you are either ignorant or spreading FUD.
Now, you seem to be expressing these 2 ideas:
1) lets all work together so we move faster/better
2) OpenBSD has the 'best security'
Lets all work together...each project has different goals. And now a group want to improve FreeBSD. Good for them. If working together is #1, why 150 different Linux distros? And, what about 'many eyes make bugs shallow', does this not apply to design ideas? Many minds working in different directions provide the different lines of thinks that will find a better path.
Best security....Charles Hannum (root@ihack.net) pointed out at a BSD dinner that OpenBSD security isn't, FreeBSD memory management isn't, and NetBSD portability isn't. OpenBSD is as secure as a sysadmin makes it, FreeBSD's VM doesn't work quite right (this statement was made months ago...), and unless you have the toaster that NetBSD runs on and WANT to turn it from a toaster to a NEtBSD Box...it is kind of pointless. Security/VM/Portability is nothing more than examples of successful marketing...taking a small difference and making the biggest possible deal about it. Is the ability to run the OS on Dreamcast worth a better VM? Or, is good security worth giving up a 2500+ ports collection? Or is it worth giving up the ability to run voice recognition software? OS choice is about choice. And when one makes a choice, one gives up something in favor of something else.
Lets do the news 1st.
Looks like FreeBSD is going to branch out!
FreeBSD-i18n Dedicated to internationalizing FreeBSD (hopefully the disable will be better addressed in this release...code for the blind, the deaf, etc.)
FreeBSD-PPC Dedicated to making FreeBSD run on PPC platforms.
The web pages don't show it yet...but go for instructions on how to get on a list.
>This kinda attitude seems prevalent across among the posts to this article and I find it somewhat annoying.
Hate to break this to ya, but the big reason there WAS a split in OpenBSD's case is it *WAS* personality.
There was a big thread about this on daily.daemonnews.org, but it got deleted by the people who run the site.
The thread went into acusations involving the FBI, malicious code deletion, etc la.
It all reminds me of what the head of EE told me in college. Most technical staffers are never fired/let go because of their lack of technical skills, but because of personality/personal issues. This thread has the 'annoying' comments about personal loyalities because there is much truth to them.
*smile*
Yea, instead of a french I Love Lucy or 3's Company they get the American version.
But, wasn't the MTV thing where incompatible people are stuck together ripped off from the Swedes?
RedHat was going to announce at Linux World in NYC how they had an 'embedded Linux' offering, according to infoworld.
Seems a bit odd to do that for 'a joke'.
>what does the GPL prevent you from doing with the source, Mr. liar?
In comparison to, say the BSD licence or a licence called public domain?
It should be obvious to anyone who can read, or not read in the case of public domain.
And, if it needs to be spelled out for you, might I suggest you go retain a lawyer who can explain it to you?
Hint: If Kerberos WAS under under MPL or APSL Microsoft would have engineered their version to be different.
Microsoft WANTS to be different, either thru gross incompentancy, or as the Halloween document outlines, to destroy standards.
Nice try at a GPL/BSD flamewar. The way to do the flamewar tho is to take an lay down a token ring of protection about yourself and say
Brett Glass
Brett Glass
Brett Glass
and the defender of the BSD licence will appear. Then, by virtue of Brett being here, a horde of GPL daemons will appear and the flames will drive out any reason from the posts!
The 1st few episodes requires the watcher to be patient and wait for the large holes to be filled. The loose ends are all over the place. Most ugly americans arn't willing to wait to get their package all wrapped up in a neat bundle. Or, at least that is what the TV exec believe.
In the one episode with the white stars blowing up asteroids, Sheridan lays out the problem in the 1st 5 minutes, how to get the other races to sign. And before the show is done, they have signed.
It is traditional American TV fair, and makes the episode a good one to show to a 1st time viewer and have them feel like they 'saw all' they 'needed to see'. A B5 viewer can then point out how all the other items are linked together...and how some of the underlying plot threads have went on for many seasons.
I'm betting the Sci-fi seires will get a whole new set of viewers with short attention spans....because they can wait a day (or 3) for 'the next chunk' of the puzzle that is B5. The ones that can't wait a month, can go read the web pages about B5.
In most American TV, each episode can stand alone. B5 RARELY had an epesode that, by itself, stands alone.
The only one I can think of is, after the shadow war, he send the white star fleet to destroy asteroids (with the intent of the other races to believe the enemy is invisible to their sensors....but not the white star fleet)
What episodes do you think could stand alone? Episodes that are self-explanitory, and could be pulled out of the series, and someone would feel that from a plot context-wrapup in an hour match normal American TV?
ISSCC: Transceiver developers creep toward 40 Gbits
Source EETimes
A link is here
So, we are moving to faster networks....2002 is a date tied to shipping product for oc768 by someone in one of the articles I read.
The offical archives of Tolkien are at Marquette University in Milwaukee. So, if you plan on being at GenCon, take a walk up Water Street and see if MU will let you look upon his original works :-)
Artwork -just found this link today...wasn't actually looking for it. http://www.spowers.net/Tolkien/Tol kienWorld.html
Do you have the TIME it takes to dedicate to the honeypot?
Most sysadmin jobs have 10 hours of work each day to fit into 8 hours. So sysadminning become more like triage, or the gerbil on the excersise wheel. If you run fast or go slow, you end up in the same place at the end of a day of running. And some days, some jerk comes into your cage, rattles it or, while you are on the wheel running your little heart out for that paycheck, they jam something in the wheel to make it stop suddenly.
A possible way to run the honeypot:
Use VMware/virtual PC/bochs and have it run the honeypot environment. The honeypot then has the ports open to the outside world. To fix the pot-a simple file copy.
Will this help? Depends on if you have the time to drop EVERYTHING to watch the box when something happens. Me personally, I watched some dud break into my box. (It alerted me at the point of the break-in) At the point when s/he started deleting files, I typed in halt. About all I learned is they were using 2 porn sites and one at MIT. They used a known issue with BIND. (bad me, I didn't upgrade bind.) Had I been busy/at a client site, they would have been able to poke around on the box. This particular attack showed me I had a problem with bind. (big whoop. I KNEW that, and chose to ignore it.) And the ISP's who were used in the attack? One was rude "who the hell are you to call me that I have problems with my systems, I can't control the internet" and the other was "they are not affecting production, so I don't want to disturb them"
And, had they been GOOD, they would have not set off my alert system. But, they wern't GOOD enough. So, depending on how you work your system, they might just be better than you, and your honeypot becomes a host to launch the next attack from. The truly skilled break-in artist is nearly impossible to detect.
About all you may be able to add to the world of computer security is YOU might be lucky to report the 1st break-in of type X, or help trace back someone. But, most likely, any traceback will dead-end with people who don't want to take the time to care, and they will use a known hole you should know about via bugtraq/cert.
Lance Spitzner wrote some articles.
http://rootprompt.org/article.php3?a rticle=159 is the start of his series
Again, you are sighting the PAST....Apple's model has changed.
I have a 486 slc based laptop that ran DOS when it was bought, still runs DOS and the accounting program. Just as servicable as the day it was aquired.
And the Pentium 90 still runs FreeBSD. From 2.X to 3.4, just as servicable. Now, it it was Microsoft Windows, this would not be the case. So, don't confuse the hardware with the software...
Again, your example is the PAST wrt the 486/Quadra.
>You nuckin' futz?
/.? You can do that with dragon dictate.
No. Have you actually used Dragon dictate? The 'speech' on a Mac in the timeframe you state was a joke, a parlor trick to show off. Could you use it to dictate this post to
>Can you say that most any PC is still functional?
You bet. See my post about a 286 and 386 boxes still in use.
But remember, even you state:
>I run for the nearest newer machine whenever I get find the need to use Netscape. Still, the 6100 is servicable. I can do anything on it,
On the one hand, you can do anything on it, yet you run for other machines....it either is fully serviceable or it isn't.
>Could you please explain this?
Sure.
1997 bought mac can't run speech rec., or Mac OS X.
2000-1997 = 3 year old mac is useless with new OS X and voice to text. Yes it still runs other software....but so does the 166 mhz X86 that can't run latest OS/voice rec.
Remember too: Rhapsody (uname -a on mac os x) was to run on any mac sold in 1997 by apple. There is no reason to have Mac OS X run on only G3's or better other than to force hardware upgrades. The 6 month upgrades will drive software makers to use the higher speed boxes (just like in the PC world). So if you want that hi-frame rate in quake, you gotta buy that new box. And, as more makers of code do G3 or Altavec, the old PPC boxes will be left in the dust.
>The 1990-era Macintoshes in our office work just great for the desktop publishing tasks they've been doing for 10 years now. No problems printing to the newest postscript printer, either.
Ok, so that is your outerbound.
Here are mine:
A masonic lodge has a 386 with windows 3.11 and Pagemaker. New printer there...and that system works fine.
A 286 that drives a ROM burner/chip tester.
Face it, if the software doesn't change, the old machines will continue to work fine. So to use unchanging software as the basis of a 2-3 year extra life claim is bogus.
I have 386's and 486's in service still as print servers. Hell, a 286 is still a print server.
Old machines are as useful as you want to make them. And this is no different in the X86 vs mac world.
*smile*
Tis Ok....I won't have to set Trish on ya to straighten ya out.....
Wow. Didn't know Jobs was getting THIS wacked out.
>Correction: Be was not too greedy.
Correction: for the money that Be wanted, for Apple to get an OS that *NO* printing and was not mature, Be *DID* want too much money.
>was that in buying NeXT Apple also wound up with Steve Jobs again
Correction: Look back into the commentary of the time. Stewart Alsop had said that the Next Purchase did *NOT* include Jobs (as Steve said he wanted little to do with Apple when the whole buyout thing started)
Would Gil have worked to hire Jobs if he thought Jobs would put him out as CEO?
Hey Chris, your forgot to ask....
w ith-the-OS. When Mac OS X is the default pre-load, then I'll consider it mainstream via the mega-chainstore definition of mainstream.
What about BSD then Phil?
Like it or not, neither BSD, Linux, Unix *OR* Mac OS X is 'mainstream'-if the definition is one can go to mega-chain-superstore-and-buy-hardware-preloaded-
If you want to say "Linux is Mainstream" then you have to be including BSD. If you are unwilling to say BSD is mainstream, yet call Linux mainstream, I'd LOVE to see your definition of mainstream.
>Mac users typically use their systems for a 2-3 years longer than Windows users do
A myth. At least today it is a myth. Apple has moved thier sales model to a 'forced churn' just like the PC makers.
What you say USED to be true...but not anymore under Jobs.
Err this page http://www.apple.com/macosx/inside.html points out how it has a code base with FreeBSD. Fred took code from net and open BSD however.
The reaction for the 'linux bigots' is LESS interesting than the reaction from the Mac OS bigots. These are the SAME people who, when you would mention how Unix had both Mac OS AND Windows beat WRT multi-processing and stability (note the Apple page... Welcome to the Brave New World of Crash-Resistant Computing), they would slam Unix even harder than Windows. As Apple comes closer to making Unix the default OS, the "Mac OS bigots" have to come to terms with Mac OS now being what they loathed....Unix!
>What LAWS do I break, entering a door beliving it to be my destination?
... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied ... Domain name required ... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied ... Relaying denied
s p?String=fact*1%2B0&ACT=SELECT
/. Thread you are here by choice. ORBS with their scanning of port 25 17+ times looking for an open relay to pass onto spammers is force.
/dev/null, if you have in interest in stopping spam. Because ORBS has moved from a failed experiment to nothing more than a terrorist organization.
And your purpose is? To find a Open Relay and publish it? No sane person will welcome you coming through their doors for you to publish that you've found unlocked/open telephone lines?
Guess that is why you are taking drugs under the guidance of a therapist....because you are not sane.
And, as far as I can tell, you are lying about your destination.
>What LAWS do I break, if as a janator if I check the building for open doors.
When did YOU become the janitor for MY building?
>Do I break any LAW doing the same as a security guard, friendly neightbor, police and so on.
Again, when did you become the guard or my neighbor? Being a neighbor, when did YOU introduce yourself? You haven't.
>There are reasonable limits to any action, and it varies depending on the situation.
So blindly attacking hosts looking for open relays is OK in your book?
ORBS could not provide ANY reason for attacking my host. If ORBS would have provided a reason, then it would not have been a blind attack, just an attack.
>But you are obviously far from realising this, in this and in any exampel you have used.
No, ma'am. You are the one with the problem. You are the one who is Pro-ORBS, no matter what the reason.
>Unfortunately, your methology of "shoot first, be reasonable later" aren't as good as you think.
Miss, ask your psychoanalyst to change your psychotropics
ORBS is the one who attacks a host with 17+ scanning probes on port 25. ORBS does NOT contact the host before the attack, nor do they respond to the question WHY my host was attacked, and they do not provide any proof that the host has ever been USED as an open relay for spam.
So ORBS not only shoots first, but they aren't reasonable later.
I, on the other hand, have offered up how ORBS would operate if they were not a cover for hunting down Open Relays for spammers.
1) contact the target before attacking, asking if they want to be attacked.
2) provide proof of the host having an open relay.
3) do not publish known open relays.
Given the way ORBS operates, they act JUST like an organization who's goal would be to help spammers find open relays. What is sad is you believe ORBS when they say they are here to help. ORBS actions show they are a net-terrorist, helping spammers do their work.
>> They blindly attack hosts,
>The only blind attack I've seen so far is yours, and it's against the fabric of reason and judgement.
Given my pager went off letting me know there were excessive relay attempts, and that this ORBS machine I had never heard of was doing the attack, lets see.
17+ probes scanning my mail port looking for an open relay - attack
ORBS - never heard of them, and when asked for a reason they gave none - blind
Hence the phase BLIND ATTACK.
You ask that ORBS be judged by their "intentions".
Linux One says they are a valued member of the Linux community.
Sanford Wallace said he was intending to move Internet commerce forward
ORBS *CLAIMS* to be 'working to stop spam', yet they are WORSE than any spammer has ever been on my box.
11:51:38 sendmail[48233]: HAA48233: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:51:38 sendmail[48233]: HAA48233: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:51:38 sendmail[48233]: HAA48233: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:53:25 sendmail[48242]: HAA48242: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:53:25 sendmail[48242]: HAA48242: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:53:25 sendmail[48242]: HAA48242: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:54:14 sendmail[48245]: HAA48245: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=orbs-relaytest@manawatu.co.nz, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550 orbs-relaytest@manawatu.co.nz... Relaying denied
11:54:14 sendmail[48245]: HAA48245: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:54:14 sendmail[48245]: HAA48245: from=sender@orbs.org, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:55:13 sendmail[48253]: HAA48253: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=553
11:55:13 sendmail[48253]: HAA48253: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:56:05 sendmail[48256]: HAA48256: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:56:05 sendmail[48256]: HAA48256: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:56:05 sendmail[48256]: HAA48256: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:57:21 sendmail[48259]: HAA48259: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:57:22 sendmail[48259]: HAA48259: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:57:22 sendmail[48259]: HAA48259: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:58:20 sendmail[48262]: HAA48262: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:58:20 sendmail[48262]: HAA48262: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:58:20 sendmail[48262]: HAA48262: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:59:20 sendmail[48266]: HAA48266: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
11:59:21 sendmail[48266]: HAA48266: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
11:59:21 sendmail[48266]: HAA48266: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:00:33 sendmail[48276]: IAA48276: from=, size=763, class=0, pri=30763, nrcpts=1, msgid=, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:00:33 sendmail[48278]: IAA48276: to=, delay=00:00:05, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=cyrus, stat=User unknown
12:00:38 sendmail[48278]: IAA48278: to=, delay=00:00:05, xdelay=00:00:05, mailer=esmtp, relay=mail2.manawatu.net.nz. [202.36.148.21], stat=Sent (BAA07218 Message accepted for delivery)
12:01:44 sendmail[48288]: IAA48288: from=, size=787, class=0, pri=30787, nrcpts=1, msgid=, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:01:44 sendmail[48290]: IAA48288: to=, delay=00:00:06, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=cyrus, stat=User unknown
12:01:50 sendmail[48290]: IAA48290: to=, delay=00:00:06, xdelay=00:00:06, mailer=esmtp, relay=mail2.manawatu.net.nz. [202.36.148.21], stat=Sent (BAA07291 Message accepted for delivery)
12:02:51 sendmail[48294]: IAA48294: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
12:02:52 sendmail[48294]: IAA48294: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:02:52 sendmail[48294]: IAA48294: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:04:08 sendmail[48303]: IAA48303: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7], reject=550
12:04:09 sendmail[48303]: IAA48303: lost input channel from relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
12:04:09 sendmail[48303]: IAA48303: from=, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=relaytest.orbs.org [202.36.148.7]
Now in a 6 day period, ORBS just HAPPENED to be the only site that probe attacked me.
Looks like ORBS is worse than any spammer.
>You logic is not only flawed, it's lame.
>WHY should they give "proof of spam" when they are surveing for Open Relays?
What part of "if they probe me they have to have a reason" are you not understanding?
What part of "provide some proof to WHY you selected my host to probe" are you not understanding?
As you admit however, they are "surveying for Open Relays". The only reason to do that is to use them for spam. And, in fact they DO publish the list for spammers to use.
>WHY do you make up fact to support you argument?
From http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/default.a
fact noun something which is known to have happened or to exist, esp. something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
So how can you make up facts?
To say "make up facts" indicates you need your shrink to adjust your drugs.
> (Is it to weak to stand on it's own "feet"?)
Where are YOUR logs? Your statistics?
>>The difference is the spammer tries once. ORBS keeps trying.
>This is, as every statment you make, not true!
I have logs I posted. Seems I'm correct and YOU are not. Just like my posts have said....ORBS is a net-terrorist.
>SPAMMERS port-scan entiry NET-BLOCKS, ORBS doesn't do this.
Show me the code ORBS uses. What? No proof?
As *I* have said, they scanned *MY* host. Where did I say they scan net-blocks? All my claims are based on what I have logs for.
And the basis of your counter-claims are? Oh, let me guess, the web pages of ORBS? *yawn* The actions of ORBS show different than the web pages.
>Spammers won't stop ABUSEing your server, even if you try asking og pleading.
Really? Given my e-mail logs, spammers try once, and then go away.
>ORBS stops if you ask them to, and add you to their list as "asked not to be tested".
With a flag of 'cartoonie threats' also? If you ask not to be tested, it is assumed that you ARE
a open relay.
>Spammer try over and over til they find an Open Relay, then they ABUSE this security problem.
Prove this. My logs shows any given spammer tries ONCE, perhaps two times, then goes away.
No abuse, no over and over.
ORBS on the other hand, scanned port 25 17+ times looking for a hole to publish.
>ORBS report it, the DON'T ATTACK or ABUSE it!
Yea, they just publish the open relay to encourage abuse of the open relay. How charming and non-abusive of them.
And 17+ times is not an attack? Then what is it?
>If YOU don't like this, don't act like a crybaby, please unplugg your computer insted.
How like a terrorist.
'This is our political agenda. If you do not agree, then BANG! Dead." That is what your have asked for, if I do not like ORBS, I should just nip off and kill my host.
Tell you what, how about this:
If I see something that is WRONG, I will let my voice be heard. And if YOU don't like it, provide PROOF that my opinion is wrong. So far, you have provided no proof. And given you are 'Dare_devil" and not Alan Brown (the clown who runs ORBS), you have no authority to speak for ORBS.
>YOU try over and over to fuse false accusation against ORBS without any proof.
Ma'am, you are the one who has provided no proof to date. I have provided logs now showing the attack. It is hard to provide the e-mail replies from ORBS, because, well they never did reply.
>Even when confrontet of false statements YOU ignore it,
Miss, the only thing I have been confronted with is your ignorance.
I have seen no facts, just your claims. Post code, post logs, do something more than wave your hands about.
>making YOU WORSE than SPAMMERS! Right now, YOU are the net-terrorist!
Pointing out how you have a problem with reality makes me a net-terrorist?
Defending my POV makes me a net-terrorist?
I am forcing you (or anyone else) to read this exactly how?
ORBS forced themselves on my host 17 times.
Understand the difference between choice? And no choice? This
Lets try a different exercise:
I have a daemon in a lamp. (the genie was bought out by AOL) When I rub the lamp and ask for all Open Relays to be closed, BAM! They are!
Guess what?!? SPAMMERS keep SPAMMING! Why? Because they can create their own relays! Gee, guess ORBS was useless when it came to stopping spam!
Join CASUE, support the Real Time Black hole list, Re-write your sendmail so it acts like an open relay, but throws e-mail into
Look at the thread. ORBS is a failure in its goal.
They are a failure because ORBS is a net-terrorist.
Linux and PDA's - The code for booting up Linux on a PDA form factor is taken from NetBSD. (so the BSD ideal of code reuse everywhere is upheld again
/.
Commerical Applications - www.netbsd.org/gallery/software.html
Also note that NetBSD can run Linux binaries due to the compatibility layer, so the BSD's have access to not only Linux binaries, but SCO, Solaris, and even Windows binaries (via WINE)
So, as far as facts go, thanks for playing. When you take off the pro-linux rose colored glasses you will see that what you said is not backed up by facts.
As for mine being a 'cheap ripoff', mine was a tasteless parody of a tasteless post. Scatalogical humor of someone using scatological humor. Humor via goring the sacred cow that is
So rather than wasting time slamming other opensource projects, wouldn't the rising tide for OpenSource work better when ALL boats get floated?
Are you sure of this?
The author was quoted as telling RMS that "you are Richard fucking Stallman, you don't need a badge" and is VERY pro-Linux/Pro GPL.
Knowing this about the author of the comment in question, I find it hard to believe it was a joke.