From: J Sloan <jjs@pobox.com>
To: "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:12:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BB7A6DD.56870FF6@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <HBEHIIBBKKNOBLMPKCBBEEOFDNAA.znmeb@aracnet.com>
"M. Edward Borasky" wrote:
> We need to distinguish between Linux/Apache and other-UNIX/Apache.
> Specifically, there's at least Solaris, Tru64 and AIX besides Linux in this
> market.
Yes, IIRC total apache = 60%, linux/apache = 33%
> It isn't just IIS; the Nimda beast exploited, IIRC, 18 separate
> vulnerabilities in the Windows / IIS complex, including shared files.
Sure are a lot of vulnerabilities there...
> I've actually heard of cases where *Linux* systems exporting filesystems
> with Samba had Nimda code stuffed down their throats!
Define "stuffed down their throats".
We have samba servers here (Linux, Solaris, HPUX)
and while the windows clients stored infected files on
the samba fileservers, the servers themselves were
totally unaffected.
> If this code had been
> Linux-executable rather than Windows-executable -- if the virus had been
> smart enough to know it was dealing with a Samba rather than a Windows share
> and had been able to differentiate between Windows executables and Linux
> executables --
Yes, the command most likely would fail, since
it would run as the remote samba user, not
root.
> hmmm ... do you see what I'm getting at??? In other words,
> UNIX systems of *all* stripes that export filesystems with Samba need to
> track mods to executables just like a virus scanner does on a Windows
> system. *That's* what I mean by vigilance.
Oh yes, vigilance is indeed due, but please let's
not lump all OSes together and pretend there
are no differences!
> The security features are there in Windows if the users and sysadmins are
> willing to implement them.
Shipped very unsecure, and most windows
programs would cease to operate or could
not be installed if the security measures
were implemented.
> Windows NT has had C2 available for quite some
> time; they couldn't sell to DOD if they didn't.
Ah yes, the checklist item - C2, as long as there is
no floppy disk, and no network interface - you install
either of those items, and no more C2 for windows.
The difference is, there are Unix systems that are
both secure, and fully functional.
> I don't see any such advantage.
OK, then.
We are not living in the same world.
cu
jjs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-30 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-24 23:22 [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison Paul G. Allen
2001-09-24 23:35 ` Alan Cox
2001-09-25 0:34 ` Michael Rothwell
2001-09-25 0:40 ` Dan Hollis
2001-09-27 14:21 ` Pavel Machek
2001-09-26 11:48 ` Luigi Genoni
2001-09-26 12:15 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by lifein prison Eugenio Mastroviti
2001-09-24 23:37 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison Rik van Riel
2001-09-25 1:29 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2001-09-25 0:44 ` Crutcher Dunnavant
2001-09-25 0:52 ` David S. Miller
2001-09-25 1:32 ` Rik van Riel
2001-09-27 14:23 ` Pavel Machek
2001-09-30 21:16 ` M. Edward Borasky
2001-09-30 21:41 ` J Sloan
2001-09-30 22:40 ` M. Edward Borasky
2001-09-30 23:12 ` J Sloan [this message]
2001-10-01 1:15 ` Gerhard Mack
2001-10-01 1:29 ` Jan Harkes
2001-09-30 22:03 ` Alexander Viro
2001-09-30 23:24 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by lifein prison D. Stimits
2001-10-01 0:17 ` Michael Bacarella
2001-10-01 0:33 ` M. Edward Borasky
2001-10-01 1:26 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2001-10-01 9:20 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-09-30 22:57 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison John Gluck
2001-09-30 23:32 ` D. Stimits
2001-10-01 8:47 ` Helge Hafting
2001-10-01 10:41 ` Manfred Bartz
2001-10-01 12:27 ` John Jasen
2001-10-01 12:54 ` Ookhoi
2001-10-01 11:47 ` [Moving rapidly away from LKM] (Was: Re: [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in) Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-10-01 13:12 ` Helge Hafting
2001-10-01 9:28 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison Bernd Petrovitsch
2001-10-01 12:00 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-10-02 9:40 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2001-09-25 11:04 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-09-27 14:18 ` [OT] New Anti-Terrorism Law makes "hacking" punishable by life in prison Pavel Machek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-09-25 11:17 Nicholas Berry
2001-09-27 0:45 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
2005-07-02 0:07 jmerkey
2005-07-02 0:59 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-02 1:43 ` jmerkey
2005-07-02 3:53 ` randy_dunlap
2005-07-02 13:26 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-07-02 14:58 ` jmerkey
2005-07-02 2:39 ` Paul Jakma
2005-07-02 2:13 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-02 13:15 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-07-02 15:46 ` Kurt Wall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BB7A6DD.56870FF6@pobox.com \
--to=jjs@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=znmeb@aracnet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox