-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 01:55, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ScruLoose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian Server Compromise -- A Fire Drill
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian Server Compromise -- A Fire Drill ??
It's cracker. Not hacker.
http://web.bilkent.edu.tr/Online/Jargon30/JARGON_C/CRACKER.HTM
It's both according to OED.
[snip]
There are numerous definitions for the word hacker
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:55:32PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:07:20AM -0800, Tom wrote:
I could pay $35 to 1-800-US-SEARCH and really fuck up your day!
IANAL, but watch it. You're crossing into threats and harassment
territory with that one.
No, agressive-type
on Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:29:30PM -0800, Tom Ballard, former Microsoft employee,
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:19:45PM -0800, Tom Ballard, former
Microsoft employee, wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 05:31:12PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
IIRC, it was a prior
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:25:33PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Peace.
What the fuck are you ranting about?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:25:33PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[MSFT Shill]
That's not what I'm trying to accomplish. I was trying to point out
that you had to invalidate everybody's password last week.
I was trying to point out that (gasp) a philosophy which accuses half
the world of being
Please don't use my real name: I've told you why I don't want it used.
Would you prefer I used a handle ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:48:19AM -0800, Tom Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Please don't use my real name: I've told you why I don't want it used.
Would you prefer I used a handle ?
Interesting what truths people are uncomfortable with.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:54:26AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:48:19AM -0800, Tom Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Please don't use my real name: I've told you why I don't want it used.
Would you prefer I used a handle ?
Interesting what truths people are
on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:07:20AM -0800, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:54:26AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:48:19AM -0800, Tom Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Please don't use my real name: I've told you why I don't want it used.
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 02:25, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Mr. Ballard:
No, it's not that I'm uncomfortable over the fact, yes, fact, that free
software in general, or the Linux kernel in particular, have both bugs
and security vulnerabilities.
It's your grossly ignorant, yet simultaneously
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:25:33 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
There are bugs in the kernel code. Estimates of such bug counts can
be made. And again I pointed out several texts, most from the
bibliography of _Code Complete_, which point out the statistical
basis on which an
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:40AM -0800, Tom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:25:33PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Peace.
What the fuck are you ranting about?
tone=dripping with sarcasm
Ah, there's a surefire way to bolster your credibility.
Clearly the mark of a mature mind: As soon
IIRC, it was a prior nonproductive thread with Tom which pointed out
seeding and metrics as a way of estimating such bug counts.
Well, at this point I should admit that I tend to ignore threads as they
grow longer than one screen, break up more than once, or begin to get
sub-threads...
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 02:18:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
What the fuck are you ranting about?
grin
I'm not taking the bait anymore.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:37:04PM -0800, Tom wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 02:18:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
What the fuck are you ranting about?
Um, no. I did not write this.
LEARN. TO. QUOTE.
Are you making a deliberate attempt to mis-attribute your inane blather
to me, or are you
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:17:32AM -0700, Dave wrote:
That is my assumption. The only thing that would give me confidence
that there are no holes would be a common process for connecting raw
input to privileged routines -- a process which is so simple that
everyone can see it is robust. Such
-Original Message-
From: ScruLoose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 8:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian Server Compromise -- A Fire Drill ??
It's cracker. Not hacker.
http://web.bilkent.edu.tr/Online/Jargon30/JARGON_C/CRACKER.HTM
It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:40AM -0800, Tom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:25:33PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Peace.
What the fuck are you ranting about?
Why not search the archives and find out?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 05:07:20AM -0800, Tom wrote:
I could pay $35 to 1-800-US-SEARCH and really fuck up your day!
IANAL, but watch it. You're crossing into threats and harassment
territory with that one.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:37:04PM -0800, Tom wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 02:18:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
What the fuck are you ranting about?
grin
I'm not taking the bait anymore.
But you still missed his point about quoting
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:10:36PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, csj wrote:
Well, we used to own an Apple II that was made in Taiwan and
didn't have the Apple logo. Does that qualify as open enough?
If it weren't for the Apple II clones eating into Apple's
bottomline,
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:54:39 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Paul Morgan wrote:
IBM did popularize the term PC, but they sure as heck didn't invent the
personal computer. And, because they'd bought the rights to the Intel
8086, and because of the sheer economic power and
Paul Morgan writes:
...but there was no hardware memory management as you suggest until the
80386.
The 80286 had memory management.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:15:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Paul Morgan writes:
...but there was no hardware memory management as you suggest until the
80386.
The 80286 had memory management.
Thanks, John, I wasn't sure, I personally skipped the 80286 :)
--
paul
Don't be
hi ya john/paul
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Paul Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:15:33 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Paul Morgan writes:
...but there was no hardware memory management as you suggest until the
80386.
The 80286 had memory management.
Thanks, John, I wasn't sure, I
on Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:21:33PM +0100, Johannes Zarl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
On Thursday 04 December 2003 17:43, Tom wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
... That's why the kernel
developers thought it was just an
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 05:31:12PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
IIRC, it was a prior nonproductive thread with Tom which pointed out
seeding and metrics as a way of estimating such bug counts.
So how many are there?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:19:45PM -0800, Tom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 05:31:12PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
IIRC, it was a prior nonproductive thread with Tom which pointed out
seeding and metrics as a way of estimating such bug counts.
So how many are there?
One thing I've
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:20:14 +0100, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:57:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
It's cracker. Not hacker.
http://web.bilkent.edu.tr/Online/Jargon30/JARGON_C/CRACKER.HTML
This is a *very* outdated mirror of The Jargon File, please kick the
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:52:21 -0500
Paul Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:26:07 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
And then there is morality. I know you won't believe this, but
almost all corporate executives consider themselves moral law-abiding
citizens.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does not mean they are immoral.
Microsoft played the exact same role in its origins v. IBM as Linux is
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:49:12AM +1100, bob parker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
Microsoft played the exact same role in its origins v. IBM as Linux is
now playing to Microsoft; the upstart, force for freedom. The PC was a
freedom revolution against the glass house.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:49:12 +1100, bob parker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does not mean they are immoral.
Microsoft played
Paul Morgan writes:
And, because they'd bought the rights to the Intel 8086...
Where did you dredge that non-fact up from?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:17, Paul Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:49:12 +1100, bob parker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it
On 7. December 2003 at 6:31AM +1100,
bob parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:17, Paul Morgan wrote:
[...]
Ever heard of the Altair? Or the Apple I and II, the TRS-80
or Commodore Pet?
Sure but they are not PCs and as brilliant as they were in
their day, they were
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:31:42 +1100, bob parker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:17, Paul Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:49:12 +1100, bob parker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, bob parker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:12, Tom wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does not mean they are immoral.
Microsoft played the exact
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Paul Morgan wrote:
IBM did popularize the term PC, but they sure as heck didn't invent the
personal computer. And, because they'd bought the rights to the Intel
8086, and because of the sheer economic power and brand recognition of
IBM, we all got stuck with the
Alvin writes:
IBM made is official that its okay to use in an office environment to
replace the selectric typewriter
Nope. That was Wang et al. with their word processors.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, csj wrote:
Well, we used to own an Apple II that was made in Taiwan and
didn't have the Apple logo. Does that qualify as open enough?
If it weren't for the Apple II clones eating into Apple's
bottomline, Steve Jobs wouldn't have bothered inventing the Mac.
apple doesnt
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, John Hasler wrote:
Alvin writes:
IBM made is official that its okay to use in an office environment to
replace the selectric typewriter
Nope. That was Wang et al. with their word processors.
yes.. wang was out there too, along with olivetti and few other
typewriter
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:20:21 +0100, Terry Hancock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There is also the point that *somebody* found this bug. Just not the
folks we were hoping would. ;-) Letting real crackers hammer your
system is another way to find bugs,
Dave writes:
He or she had intimate knowledge of the various Debian servers.
I see no evidence that the cracker had anything other than public
information.
And no damage was done.
You don't consider the downtime and wasted labor damage?
Do you think he could have had the same impact by
John Hasler wrote:
Do you think he could have had the same impact by merely announcing
that he *could* break into a system if he wanted?
Privately delivering the exploit to the appropriate people would have
gotten the bug fixed at least as quickly.
Are there people out there that really do
I wrote:
Privately delivering the exploit to the appropriate people would have
gotten the bug fixed at least as quickly.
Benedict writes:
Are there people out there that really do this? I mean, try to break in
and post this to the people that can fix it?
Who said anything about trying to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:50:13 +0100, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave writes:
He or she had intimate knowledge of the various Debian servers.
I see no evidence that the cracker had anything other than public
information.
I'm guessing, based on the timeline ( hours, not days ) and other
Dave writes:
I'm guessing, based on the timeline ( hours, not days ) and other info in
the report. Seems like an outsider, having only a password, would have
to spend an awful lot of time poking around to find the right machines
and directories.
Most of that information is publically
- Original Message -
From: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Debian Server Compromise -- A Fire Drill ??
I wrote:
Privately delivering the exploit to the appropriate people would
have
gotten the bug fixed
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:13:20 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
And then there is morality. I know you won't believe this, but almost all
corporate executives consider themselves moral law-abiding citizens.
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does not mean they are immoral.
Microsoft played the exact same role in its origins v. IBM as Linux is
now playing to Microsoft; the upstart,
I wrote:
And then there is morality. I know you won't believe this, but almost
all corporate executives consider themselves moral law-abiding citizens.
Paul Morgan writes:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become hard-nosed
businessmen, it does not mean they are immoral.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:26:07 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
And then there is morality. I know you won't believe this, but almost
all corporate executives consider themselves moral law-abiding citizens.
Paul Morgan writes:
Good point. And just because Bill Gates et. al have become
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Benedict Verheyen wrote:
Benedict writes:
Are there people out there that really do this? I mean, try to break
in
and post this to the people that can fix it?
blackhats
whitehats
grayhats
defcon
phrack
...
- millions of script kiddies ...
- they will try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:57:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
It's cracker. Not hacker.
http://web.bilkent.edu.tr/Online/Jargon30/JARGON_C/CRACKER.HTML
This is a *very* outdated mirror of The Jargon File, please kick the
maintainer into updating.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
Personally, I think that the best test of Gates' character is that the
highly moral Warren Buffet chooses him as a friend.
Well, in every circle of friends, there's the relatively amoral
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:30:11AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Dave writes:
He or she had intimate knowledge of the various Debian servers.
I see no evidence that the cracker had anything other than public
information.
Wait...Debian Developer
Whoever broke into the Debian servers did us a big favor by raising
awareness without causing any serious damage.
Seems like the critical link to be fixed is the vulnerability of daemons
that run with root privilege and receive input from users. The
other links in the chain are inherently
Dave == Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Seems like the critical link to be fixed is the vulnerability of
Dave daemons that run with root privilege and receive input from users.
No. The kernel itself has bug. The user (attacker) is running *perfectly
legitimate* system calls
Isaac writes:
And then, due to the kernel bug, the user can write into arbitrary
location in the kernel, do whatever he wants.
It's rather more complicated than that. The user reportedly must do some
pretty subtle stuff to get root via the brk() bug. That's why the kernel
developers thought
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
... That's why the kernel
developers thought it was just an ordinary bug: they could see no way to
exploit it.
That statement is somewhat disconcerting. The hypothesis is that many
eyes detect secure bugs, and here is clear case
On Thursday 04 December 2003 17:43, Tom wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
... That's why the kernel
developers thought it was just an ordinary bug: they could see no way
to exploit it.
That statement is somewhat disconcerting. The hypothesis is that
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:30:31 +0100, Isaac To [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave == Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Seems like the critical link to be fixed is the vulnerability of
Dave daemons that run with root privilege and receive input from users.
No. The kernel itself has bug.
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:00:18 +0100, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
... That's why the kernel
developers thought it was just an ordinary bug: they could see no way to
exploit it.
That statement is somewhat disconcerting. The
On Thursday 04 December 2003 12:17 pm, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:00:18 +0100, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
... That's why the kernel
developers thought it was just an ordinary bug: they could see no way to
exploit
Dave wrote:
User: CallService DestroyFileSystem victim's partition
OS: Sorry, no such service.
User: CallService 227
OS: Sorry, no such service.
User: CallService 226
226 OpenForWrite victim's filename
Sorry, you don't have permission to write to someone else's files.
226 PokeMemory
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:20:21 +0100, Terry Hancock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There is also the point that *somebody* found this bug. Just not the
folks we were hoping would. ;-) Letting real crackers hammer your
system is another way to find bugs, although we hope it's a last resort.
You
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:20:21 +0100, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There is also the point that *somebody* found this bug. Just not the
folks we were hoping would. ;-) Letting real crackers hammer your
system is another
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:57:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:20:21 +0100, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There is also the point that *somebody* found this bug. Just not the
folks we were hoping
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:48:58AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
given the regular stream of ridiculous garbage coming from redmond about
linux, while new holes are found in their os and apps on an almost weekly
basis, this seems like the next stage in the
campaign to buttress the losses
ben writes:
there's got to be a reason why no calling card was left, i.e., the caller
has a vested interest in not claiming credit, which would tend to suggest
a contract job.
No. It merely suggests that they didn't finish the job. The
calling-card would have been left in the archive had
scripsit Monique Y. Herman:
I find this to be unlikely. I mean, look at the risk vs. reward.
Reward: they cause a very temporary disruption to some trusted sources
and cause some folks to maybe worry about how secure linux might be.
Risk: getting caught funding black hats against the
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:04:26PM -0800, Tom wrote:
almost five years, since i first came across debian. i have no reason
not to trust them now.
I like them too but faith like that is just made to be broken.
well, i am hoping for eventual disclosure, but willing to understand
obvious
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:48:58 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:57:55PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:20:21 +0100, Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
who benefits from the publicity
Dave == Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave So how many daemons and kernel routines need both root access and
Dave input from a user process?
Remember that *all* kernel routines are running in kernel-mode of the
processor, i.e., having even higher permission than a normal root process.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:59:34PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
scripsit Monique Y. Herman:
I find this to be unlikely. I mean, look at the risk vs. reward.
Reward: they cause a very temporary disruption to some trusted sources
and cause some folks to maybe worry about how secure
Thanasis Kinias writes:
If Foo Corp. wanted to do this, they really wouldn't have anything to
fear from the law...
Little maybe, but not nothing. And risking the shareholder's (or even your
own) money is one thing. Risking prison is quite another. Their biggest
risk would be a
ben writes:
well, i am hoping for eventual disclosure, but willing to understand
obvious security priorities.
Disclosure of _what_?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:07:59PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 at 00:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] penned:
given the regular stream of ridiculous garbage coming from redmond
about linux, while new holes are found in their os and apps on an
almost weekly basis, this
80 matches
Mail list logo
