Linux-Advocacy Digest #315, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Feb 01 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee ("Donn Miller")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Peter da Silva)
Re: Check out this Windows bug ("Adam Warner")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
SSH1 (Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]) (Janne
Sinkkonen)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: It's just too easy ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Nick Condon)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Ian Davey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:12:30 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> problems. Thank god their government has a bit of back bone and
> actually does something about it, unlike the USA which is willing to
> give out plenty of advice and willing to screw countries (like Cuba)
> whilst the rest of the world moves on, and ignores the US's childish
antics.
See, that's what I could never understand about Americans and their sense of
politics. Republican followers are always bitching about how "immoral" the
Democrats are for advocating abortion rights. Meanwhile, it seems to me
that Republican presidents are always meddling into other countries' foreign
affairs, wanting to bomb the hell out of those nations' enemies. Casualties
result, and yet this is somehow supposed to be more "moral" than advocating
abortion. They're both abhorrent! Both are killing people. It's idiotic
how one party's followers sit there and piss and moan about how the other
one is so immoral, but yet their own party is so righteous and upright.
This is why I steer clear of politics.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:13:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in <96r9v0$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Condon"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ziya Oz) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>Nick Condon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If he did indeed embellished it substantially, well, that's the price
>>>>> of progress. Both in theory and historical fact, especially in art.
>>>>
>>>> It only progress in software if he shares the source code with us.
>>>> Otherwise its just a black-box.
>>>
>>>The overwhelming majority of software/application/GUI innovations have
>>>come from proprietary sources.
>>
>> Let me start with some obvious non-proprietary innovations that I can
>> come up with in 10 seconds:
>>
>> TCP/IP (the Internet itself) SMTP (the Internet mail server) Usenet Web
>> servers Web browsers HTML Domain name system
>>
>> Your turn. (Extra Credit - name 2 Microsoft innovations.)
>
>
>Drop shadow mouse cursors!
>
>Fading menus!
Don't forget Bob.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:00:13 GMT
In article <ox9k6.55423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still just telnet, but it's encrypted. You're still just telneting
> through a "secure" tunnel.
Port forwarding, public-key authnntication, one-time-key authentication,
X11 proxy, ... for most of my users the telnet functionality is just a
side effect, what they're most interested is using it as a virtual proxy.
> However, given the numerous exploits and vulnerabilities available for
> SSH in just the month of February this year, perhaps they should start
> calling it "Not so secure shell" NSSSH.
Are you actually reading any of the responses to your messages? All this has
been covered in massive detail, over and over again.
Three vulnerabilities, two are implementation bugs and one requires LAN access
to the server, with no actual exploits found.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:09:51 GMT
In article <4B9k6.55426$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the exploits listed were just from THIS MONTH alone!
Funny, OpenSSH 2.3.0p1 isn't susceptible to them, and it came out,
when, the middle of last year?
> Which, according to several sources is extremely unsecure and flawed.
> This is even according to the ssh.com people themselves.
They've been spreading FUD about SSH1 for years. They had a commercial
interest in getting people to upgrade to SSH2. You can join the dots
yourself.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Check out this Windows bug
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:21:01 +1200
Hi pip,
> I don't wish to discourage your attempts at discrediting windows,
> but is this "bug" not absolutely pointless?
No way. I find it rather disconcerting that I could not copy files that had
been generated by Eudora. The copy operation stopped half way through and it
took me quite a while to discover what had gone wrong.
Frankly I consider a copy operation that cannot copy legitimate files to
another directory on a hard disk in certain cirumstances is a rather serious
design flaw. I am pleased that there is a way to disable this from
occurring. I also stated how the copy operation could have been implemented
to stop this bug from arising. You will see from the KB article that
Microsoft said this could lead to data loss because what were two separate
files can lead to one overwriting the other (OR a copy operating ending
prematurely could lead to an incomplete backup).
I value my honour and I would never state that I came across the bug in a
real-world situation if I did not.
Here's is a partial directory listing of where the bug arose, in the
"attach" subdirectory of Eudora:
D:\ADAM\Eudora\attach>dir 1998*.* /b
1998FE~1.GIF
1998FE~11.GIF
1998FE~2.GIF
1998FE~21.GIF
1998FE~31.GIF
1998FE~41.GIF
1998NE~1.DOC
1998RE~1.XLS
1998RE~2.XLS
The GIF files are scans of 1998 University fee levels. The XL/DOC files are
returns to education calculations.
> This is not even a real bug - as you _really_ have to go
> out of your way to mess things up.
I didn't go out of my way. It found me.
> What _is_ true is that
> it caused because of a brain dead compatibility scheme.
The implementation appears to be wrong.
> Talking about _that_ may be a good way to show how Linux
> does not panda to marketing men.
>
> In other words: this is lame, sorry.
When was the last time a Unix box couldn't copy a directory fill of
legitimate files? This is high stakes stuff. This behaviour will be in
Enterprise-class servers (where processes are automated and you don't have
the luxury of analysing a Windows Explorer pop-up box).
I'm sorry you found it lame. But I'm pleased you think I'm a real nice guy
:-)
Have fun,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:18:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
<96rauj$k56$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ziya Oz) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >Salvador Peralta wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> GPL'ing your code stops others from claiming rights to it - would
>> >>>> you want someone to claim the rights to something you have given
>> >>>> away
>> >>>
>> >>> The operative phrase here: "given away."
>> >>
>> >> Your ignorance of the word "free" as it relates to software is
>> >> showing.
>> >
>> >Funny, I didn't use the word "free".
>> >
>> >(But I guess this gives you a chance to repeat that patently false OS
>> >mantra below.)
>> >
>> >> The GPL has nothing to do with giving away software.
>> >
>> >Exactly, my point. Thank you. "GPL has nothing to do with giving away
>> >software," which happens to be the focus of my assertion.
>> >
>> >> When you think of "free" as it relates to free software, think free
>> >> speech, not free beer.
>> >
>> >Right. I'm thinking "free" software and it ain't GPL.
>>
>> So what *do* you mean by "free software"? IE5?
>>
>> Just asking.
>
>According to convetion, I would assume that he, like most people, think
>that about free software as *free*.
>IE, cost no money.
>YMMV, but that is what I think when I see the word free.
The English language has 2 meanings for the word "free". Free software, as
described by the GPL, is a matter of liberty not price. Think "free
country" not "free lunch".
Take a look at the Free Software Definition:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Janne Sinkkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: SSH1 (Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ])
Date: 19 Feb 2001 17:25:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> They've been spreading FUD about SSH1 for years. They had a commercial
> interest in getting people to upgrade to SSH2. You can join the dots
> yourself.
BTW, is there any known incidents of compromized SSH1 connections, or
is the vulnerability of the protocol just theoretical so far?
--
Janne
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:33:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
<96rauo$k56$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZnU) wrote
>> >In article <1ep23jl.1s6168fn1c48uN@[192.168.0.142]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>> >
>> >> And I don't see any enforced sharing in the GPL. It absolutely
>> >> allows you to write software derived from GPLed software and use it
>> >> for yourself without sharing it with anybody.
>> >
>> >It doesn't allow you to distribute it, however.
>>
>> It absolutely does allow for distribution, and allows you to charge a
>> fee for doing so. The GPL just says that if you re-distribute the code
>> (or derived works), it must be under the same terms that you yourself
>> obtained it (i.e. under the GPL). That is the price you pay for using
>> someone
>else's
>> code instead of writing it yourself.
>>
>> Incidentally, other kinds of copyright control derived works, too. You
>> can't just distribute movies about Mickey Mouse with permission from
>Disney
>> for example.
>
>With the permission? Of course I can.
>You miss the point, I think.
>Let us say that a large company has to incorporate some code into a new
>product.
>It has four options:
>A> make its own house programmer develop it.
>B> license it from someone who already wrote it
>C> get it from non-GPL free source.
>D> get it from GPL source.
>
>D is almost always not an option.
>Companies are interested in making money, GPL make it hard to make
>money. If they use GPL code, they will have to open *all* the product,
>even if they only use one GPLed function.
If it's only one GPLed function, and their product is intended for sale,
then clearly the lower cost route is to write their own function. The
intention of the GPL is to increase the world's pool of free software, not
make money for free-riding software houses. If a company wants to license
their software for money, that's fine and dandy as long as _it_is_ their
software.
Incidentally, only a tiny fraction of the world's software is ever offered
for sale, perhaps only 5%. Sales aren't the only way - or even the most
important way - that good software makes a contribution to bottom line.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:37:05 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Great! I've been running a Windows 98 SE box with a web server for about
: two months now without problems.
Translation: your Windows 98 SE box has been "0wN3D" for about two
months now, and you haven't even noticed the problem.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 07:44:45 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ziya Oz quoth:
> > Your ignorance of the word "free" as it relates to software is
> > showing.
>
> Funny, I didn't use the word "free".
You used the expression "give your software away" in what sense does
that not mean "free", as in free beer? Are you ignorant of basic
english as well as software licenses?
> (But I guess this gives you a chance to repeat that patently false OS
> mantra below.)
You speak of open source zealots. In what sense are you not a zealot?
Your childish polemic and denigrating characterization of people and a
philosophy who have participated by writing and sharing code, rooted in
( envy? ill will? self interest? general troll behaviour? ) certainly
brands you as a zealot.
> > The GPL has nothing to do with giving away software.
>
> Exactly, my point. Thank you. "GPL has nothing to do with giving away
> software," which happens to be the focus of my assertion.
Your assertion was that open source advocates insist that people give
away software at no cost AND that they GPL their code. The first
statement is false. Not charging for software has nothing to do with
the gpl.
> > When you think of "free" as it relates to free software, think free
> > speech, not free beer.
>
> Right. I'm thinking "free" software and it ain't GPL.
One is free to give away software under the GPL. The application and
OS that I am typing this on are examples of that.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:42:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZnU) wrote
>(Nick Condon) wrote:
>> It absolutely does allow for distribution, and allows you to charge a
>> fee for doing so. The GPL just says that if you re-distribute the
>> code (or derived works), it must be under the same terms that you
>> yourself obtained it (i.e. under the GPL). That is the price you pay
>> for using someone else's code instead of writing it yourself.
>
>GPL allows you to keep the source to yourself, but only if you keep the
>program to yourself. This was the issue under discussion. If you
>distribute the program, you must distribute the source. This is the
>"enforced sharing" I was talking about.
It's only enforced sharing if you are forced to use GPLed code. Since
nobody is forced to use GPLed code, nobody is forced to share their work.
People who take free software and close it up are doing a disservice to the
free software community, and to everyone. They are pissing in the community
swimming pool, and the community is right to try and stop it.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:56:44 GMT
In article <96qgqf$gao$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ziya Oz quoth:
>
> > Nigel wrote:
> >
> > > GPL'ing your code stops others from claiming rights to it - would
> > > you want someone to claim the rights to something you have given
> > > away
> >
> > The operative phrase here: "given away."
>
> Your ignorance of the word "free" as it relates to software is
> showing. The GPL has nothing to do with giving away software. When
> you think of "free" as it relates to free software, think free
> speech, not free beer.
>
> This is the relevent information from the gnu.org web site:
>
> ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
> it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
>
> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>
> The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> needs (freedom 1).
>
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to
> redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>
> The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
The second part of "freedom" 3 is not a freedom with GPL. You're not
given a choice.
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:58:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Nick Condon) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
> <96rauj$k56$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> >According to convetion, I would assume that he, like most people,
> >think that about free software as *free*. IE, cost no money. YMMV,
> >but that is what I think when I see the word free.
>
> The English language has 2 meanings for the word "free". Free
> software, as described by the GPL, is a matter of liberty not price.
> Think "free country" not "free lunch".
Free Tibet! A $30 value!
Anyway....
> Take a look at the Free Software Definition:
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:00:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott
TOK) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >John Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> It's fair that some people sell things, and some people give things
> >> away.
> >
> >Well, according to the Open Source zealots, it's not enough to just give
> >your stuff away, you have to GPL it!
>
> Only if you use someone else's work in the process. Then it is not
> completely yours anyway, and it is up to the owner/creator of the work
> you have used what sort of license it will have. It may require a NDA
> and a lot of money, or it may require the GPL. But you have to live
> with that unless you've created everything _ex nihilo_.
Or unless the author of the code you used placed it in the public domain
or under a license that's _really_ free, like BSD.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 19 Feb 2001 16:06:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote
: on Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:00:17 -0500
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:>
:>
:>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: [snip]
:>> Mind you, this is somewhat reminiscent of 1986 tax "simplification".
:>> We now have the alternative minimum tax, which means we get to do
:>> everything more or less twice.
:>
:>
:>Graduated income taxes are Marxist.
: In which case we've been Marxist for a long time. :-)
: At least in that particular area.
In most areas actually.
Read the _Communist Manifesto_ sometime.
Socialism has infected virtually every society on earth to at least
some extent.
(Most attempted flames on this subject will be interpreted by me as
compliments, so flame away.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 19 Feb 2001 16:05:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Theo de Raadt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This is just too funny to be true: Chad Myers accusing _Theo de Raadt_
>> > of all persons of not contributing enough when speaking about SSH.
>>
>> I think it's pretty funny too. Nothing is more fun than making
>> net-kooks lose their temper.
> I have yet to see you or Klaus refute my claims. Instead, you take a
> false high-road and just go for the personal attacks.
> Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
How do you answer no less than 120 of your posts over the last two years
reaching alt.usenet.kooks?
=====.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:06:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>It does so MUCH better than IE.
>
>I'd be curious regarding the details. A Google search for "Internet Explorer
>HTML misrendering" returned 4 pages, 3 of which blast *Netscape* for
>misrendering (and one of those on SlashDot).
>
>The fourth page is a general diatribe against Microsoft/Win2k.
>
>Is there a URL you have handy to show examples of misrendered HTML?
Mozilla/Netscape 6 are the most standards compliant browsers out there, see
http://www.richinstyle.com/ (for CSS related bugs in various browsers)
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
