Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Paul E. Larson))
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Perry Pip)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Paul E. Larson))
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Micgael Roeder)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:50:41 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Keith would say:
>>That was found out yesterday. Otto Schily's experts are
>>already busy looking into recommendations for the use of
>>so-called "Open Source" software like the free Linux operating
>>system. The new "Windows 2000" is also off-limits for
>>agencies because it comes with a built-in defragmentation
>>program called "Diskeeper" from a Scientology WISE
>>company, and there are fears that the militant sect could
>>secretly pass on network data by means of a Trojan Horse.
It is unfortunate that the only visible claims in this regard appear to
come from c't, or in terms of quotes from c't.
That's not to say that c't is an utterly non-credible source, only that
it's rather nice to have multiple sources for claims about such things.
The assurances that the articles indicate that Microsoft provided
"assurances" that are really not so reassuring...
<http://wired.lycos.com/news/print/0,1294,33154,00.html> indicates:
In a letter to c't, the Church of Scientology accused the magazine of
inaccurate statements about Scientology and insisted that Executive
Software has no affiliation with the church.
And Microsoft spokesperson Mark Thomas said the technological concerns
raised by c't are unfounded.
"We've looked a this issue very carefully and there's really no issue for
people to be concerned about," Thomas said. The software is put through
rigorous review and it poses no data security threat to companies,
he said.
As to whether Microsoft could run afoul of Bavarian regulations on
Scientology, Thomas said he didn't see the connection. "[Windows 2000]
is not Executive Software's product. It's ours."
Claims by Microsoft that their products "pose no data security threat
to companies" are disproved on a daily basis every time another ILOVEYOU
variation passes through corporate networks.
--
I would rather be in the back of a car then a cdr.
-- Blackboard in 6.011 area
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:54:11 GMT
In article <L32S4.24485$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <cNOR4.5483$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
>> In article <8f882s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bob@nospam wrote:
>>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000508/tc/oracle_internet_3.html
>>>
>>>"The machine runs on a Linux operating system, has a
>>>266-megahertz microprocessor, 64 megabytes of memory,
>>>a 56K modem and 24-times CD-ROM drive."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "People would still have to obtain Internet access elsewhere, either through
>> paid or free Internet service providers, though most schools have networks
>> through which children can connect to the Internet."
>>
>> Okay.... and how would these schools connect these machines to the network
>> without a NIC?
>
>They do have a 56K modem.
>
You did read the above quote, didn't you?
Paul
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:58:45 -0500
In article <5y4S4.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
> anyways. Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
> division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a
> lot.
> Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
> versa.
>
> It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty hard
> to
> stop.
I don't know that they need to actively work to stop it, but they also
should not actively encourage it.
What really raises my ire, though, is when Microsoft threatens to
withhold APIs from companies that don't "cooperate". There's evidence
of that sort of behavior in the trial record in the DOJ suit.
Oh, and the little-talked-about agreements to give up patent rights for
anyone who licenses certain SDKs. Those raise my ire too, especially
since the public largely isn't aware that some people who need to make
development tools for Windows have to give up their intellectual
property rights in order to do so. This was discussed at the July 1998
Senate hearings. They've also imposed terms like this on PC makers in
the past, according to Gleick's article.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take
into account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:12:24 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3918bcf8@news...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8f582o$4g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It is not the mailer's responsibility to keep track of every different
> > filetype and whether or not a given one is dangerous. I would have
though
> a
> > *nix user would be horrified at the very thought of such a thing.
>
> IF a mailer has the capability to preview (ie, "open") files of a
particular
> type, then it is more than a simple mailer; in fact it is a SHELL of sorts
> (as MS has claimed all along that the browser is a shell which can access
> retrieve, and "open" (execute) files from any network source, from the
> user's file system to the internet.) And such a program should have the
> capability to distinguish a simple data file that it knows how to open and
> show to me from a "dangerous" one which it knows nothing about.
Why should it ? All the mailer is doing is handing off the responsibility
to the shell and encapsulating the results.
> > > Yes, but it would not have done nearly the damage, because such a
script
> > > would not (unless the user were running as root) have been able to set
> > > itself up to automatically start on bootup, or access any central
> > "registry"
> > > ('cause there is none) or diddle with any system files.
> >
> > However, it still would have been able to read the user's address list
and
> > mail itself off to whomever was in it. IOW, it would have been able to
do
> > the same damaging things.
>
> Oh, so a harmless email would reside in every user's mailbox?
Which is exactly what happened with ILOVEYOU, until the user activated the
not-so-harmless attachment.
> Not nearly as
> damaging as what happened.
It is *exactly* the same as what happened.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:16:31 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fahm7$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8fah5u$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > You're asking that the OS have artificial intelligence. It should be
> > able
> >> > to recognize that a file is not what it claims to be, and somehow
deduce
> >> > that it's actually a script (who's language may not even exist at the
> > time
> >> > the OS was written).
> >>
> >> MacOS can do this.
>
> > MacOS uses a resource fork entry to determin file type. This can be
> > modified and frequently is.
>
> Indeed; in fact my favorite name for a program that can do such a thing
> is 'forker'. Love it.
>
> Yet no one seems to be able to embedd MacOS-specific viruses in jpegs.
I'm sure people can (and have). But why would you bother ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:17:59 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display
data
> >and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives don't
just
> >display data, they can create new files).
>
> It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
> starting the program.
No, it's not. It's the mailer passing the file to shell saying "the user
wants to open this, go dow hatever the default action is".
> How long would it take you to pick a list
> that you would trust to process anything someone might send you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 05:34:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fahm7$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8fah5u$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > You're asking that the OS have artificial intelligence. It should be
>> > able
>> >> > to recognize that a file is not what it claims to be, and somehow
> deduce
>> >> > that it's actually a script (who's language may not even exist at the
>> > time
>> >> > the OS was written).
>> >>
>> >> MacOS can do this.
>>
>> > MacOS uses a resource fork entry to determin file type. This can be
>> > modified and frequently is.
>>
>> Indeed; in fact my favorite name for a program that can do such a thing
>> is 'forker'. Love it.
>>
>> Yet no one seems to be able to embedd MacOS-specific viruses in jpegs.
> I'm sure people can (and have).
Who? I'm actually interested, because so far as I have heard, viruses on
macs (at least powermacs) are nearly nonexistant.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:35:46 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:24:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it
>claims
>> >to be?
>>
>> It doesn't need to know. All it needs to know is that a jpeg veiwer or mp3
>> player is a safe application to pass it to, because the application will
>> attempt to render the file's contents, instead of attempting to interpret
>> and execute the file's contents. If you pass a jpeg viewer a file that is
>> not in jpeg format it will report an error. Same with an mp3 player.
>
>And how does it know that the application is safe to execute content?
You redesign the email client so that it does. Microsoft has the source
code to Outlook so they can certainly do that.
>Since
>file types are user defineable, the .mp3 association can point to anything,
>including WSH.
The email client should now WSH is not safe to pass untrusted content to.
Microsoft needs to *innovate* and find a way to fix outlook.
>> So really, the email client needs to know which applications are not safe
>> to call. As an example, suppose I create a file called myfile.jpg and put
>> in it the following line:
>>
>> rm -rf $HOME/*
>>
>> If I open the file with the following command:
>>
>> kview myfile.jpg
>>
>> kview will report that it couldn't load the image, as it's not in jpeg
>> format. But if I dare type the following command:
>>
>> sh myfile.jpg
>>
>> I will be sorry!!
>
>And what if there's a link to sh called kview in your path?
There isn't, because I do not intentionally sabatoge my system. It is
reasonalbe to assume, when designing a security model that an admin will
not intentionally sabatoge a system in that way. Why do you make such lame
arguments.
>> Similarily, if I 1) create a file in Word with a nasty macro in it 2) Save
>> it as evilfile.doc 3) rename it to evilfile.mp3 4) right click on it from
>> Explorer and select "open with" and 5) browse to and choose Winword.exe
>> then Winword will read it and recognize it's a word doc, open it, and
>> execute the macro.
>>
>> So it is not simply the untrusted data that is dangerous, it is placing
>> the untrusted data in the hands of an application that can do harm with
>> it. You can pass a .vbs file to notepad, as notepad won't try to execute
>> it's contents.
>
>But how do you know that notepad is actually being executed?
Because it reasonable to assume when designing a security model that the
admin won't intentionally sabatoge a system in that way. Why do you make
such lame arguments.
>And should
>that be hardcoded?
It can simply be registered as an alternete "safe" way to open untrusted
content. And must I say, it reasonable to assume when designing a security
model that the admin won't intentionally sabatoge the registry.
>> So the email client needs to know what applications trustingly execute
>> files passed to them and not pass untrusted data to those applications.
>> There is no reason that Microsoft can't add a registry value for all
>> registered applications and require that an applicaton have that value set
>> (meaning the application is safe) before Outlook can pass untrusted data
>> to it. That would go a long way towards securing Outlook and certainly
>> cost MS alot less than the estimated $5,000,000,000 this one virus alone
>> has costed industry.
>
>So now you're asking that outlook perform the duties of the shell (which is
>to determine what application to run for a given document).
Either that or have a way of passing to the shell some information about
the context of execution and have the shell deal with it. Microsoft has
the source code and the resources to fix the problem.
>How come unix
>doesn't prevent the creation of link files to potentially dangerous
>commands?
Because links are something set up by knowledgeable users or
administrators and do not introduce content from unknown sources. An email
client is used by nontechnical users and introduces content from unknown
sources. Why do you make such a lame comparison.
>> >You could send a virus with a .jpg extension and then have a
>> >different trojan rename the file types to launch the virus when the jpg
>file
>> >is opened.
>>
>> What "different trojan"? How do inject this "different trojan" into the
>> system if your data is only being passed to a jpeg viewer.
>
>A common tactic is to infect otherwise trusted applications with a trojan
>which does not itself do anything bad to the system. Instead, it enables
>another program to do bad things. This was an early problem with IE and
>Netscape. executable were being downloaded as jpeg images, which were being
>displayed as broken images of course.
But this does not in itself execute the content.
>But later, a trojan would activate
>the downloaded content from the cache.
A trojan from where?? A trojan does not just appear from thin air. How
does this trojan enter the system *and* get executed? Your explaination
makes no sense at all. Please provide a URL to an account of this bug.
>This is what caused MS to make the
>cache both invisible and randomly named.
And so if you are correct than Microsoft fixed the problem. So why don't
they fix Outlook?
>> >Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
>>
>> As long as you don't pass it to the wrong application it is.
>
>And how does the application prevent that?
You re-design the email client. To do that you *innovate* to find a way to
implement reasonable level of security with a minimal but finite cost to
userfreindlyness. An email client is a entrance way by which foriegn data
enters a system. You must put security there just as you must lock all of
the doors and windows to your house. Why is is so hard for you to
understand that??
Perry
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:50:11 GMT
In article <za3S4.69004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when whistler would say:
>>In article <8f882s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bob@nospam wrote:
>>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000508/tc/oracle_internet_3.html
>>>
>>>"The machine runs on a Linux operating system, has a
>>>266-megahertz microprocessor, 64 megabytes of memory,
>>>a 56K modem and 24-times CD-ROM drive."
>>
>>"People would still have to obtain Internet access elsewhere, either through
>>paid or free Internet service providers, though most schools have networks
>>through which children can connect to the Internet."
>>
>>Okay.... and how would these schools connect these machines to the network
>>without a NIC?
>>
>>It's a failure already! Have to wonder if they ever do any research?
>>Add a 10baseT NIC and a ZIP, JAZZ, or Superdisk and you have a
>>potential winner.
>
>I'd consider the writable disk to be an _optional_ addition; part of
>the merit of the exercise is in having _no_ writable media on the
>unit.
>
A removable writable disk is essential to any computer of this type, as a
repository for emails etc..
>Add the NIC, and bounce the price to $250, and it's a winner.
>
Closer, but that isn't what Oracle is offering.
>Even at $300-$350, a unit with some writable media would be a
>winner...
Add a $75 to $100 for the monitor whatever way you go.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:00:06 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 23:00:37 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>But that's just it. The mailer doesn't look up the association. The shell
>does. The mailer just passes the document to the shell.
>
So then you redesign the mailer to look it up itself, and have an
additional registry value for each application indicating whether or not
it is known to be safe.
Or, better yet, modify the shell to take and additional context flag, that
way other network applications can use the feature as well.
I'm sure Microsoft can innovate something. After all, they are the worlds
greatest innovators, aren't they:)
Perry
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 23:18:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 3rd party vendors didn't start supporting OLE for quite some time after it
> was available.
Correct. Because it was not even available to them for several (6+)
months until after the release of Power Point.
> Ahh.. so you are making assumptions. It never occured to you that Word
> Perfect may actually have a bug in their program?
There was no problem before the release of the new .dlls I believe that
MS introduced a newer version with printer OEM's to force an
incompatibility with WordPerfect to help further erode Corel's market
share.
As for the rest, believe what you want. I've shown several examples of
undocumented calls. It took me all of 5 minutes to come up with 3.
Mawa has referenced others from his own experience, and I suspect that
he's probably forgotten more about programming than you or I will ever
know. The only real counter-example that you offered is a fairly
useless help file written 4-5 years after icmp.dll was introduced.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Micgael Roeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 23:16:10 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
> > anyways.
>
> No. The concept is so reasonable it was proposed by the DOJ.
It works fine for Apple and third-party developers such as Adobe,
Macromedia, and everybody else. Well, Apple engineers talk with
third-party developers, but with all of them equally.
What happend at Microsoft was that MS OS engineers talked witn MS app
developers and told them things they never told anyone else. Third-party
developers who investigated APIs used by Office apps and published the
results get banned from MS developer conferences and beta programs.
> > Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
> > division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a
> > lot.
> > Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
> > versa.
>
> Irrelevant. The chinese wall applies to the management of the company,
> not the trivial fact people are not static.
There are even lots of ex-Apple people working at MS now. That's where
the innovation is coming from.
> > It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty
> > hard to
> > stop.
>
> Then breaking MS into two would have minor effect. The two companies
> can hire between each other and still innovate.
The companies in Silicon Valley do this all the time.
--
Masterwoof: masterwoof at infernosoft dot com
www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/mate/innersanctum.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:17:19 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:55:47 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8faiba$h3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <Vf3S4.7917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>> >> >Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should
>be
>> >> >impossible seeing its open source.
>> >>
>> >> So then, try to exploit some of them and get back to us.\
>> >
>> >Thats not the point. They are already well documented. They should not
>have
>> >been possible in the first place "because sendmail is open source."
>> >(according to
>> >http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
>> >
>>
>> English translation of Microsoft-Stooge speak:
>>
>> "I tried the sendmail exploits and they don't work anymore"
>
>Read the F**Ken post.
>
>I'll make it easy for you
>
>Quote:
>
>"Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed by
>people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most developers
>in the Linux community would not be stupid enough to create a program as
>insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish enough to do
>so in the open source community, such a design would not be likely to
>survive the peer review it would receive. "
>(http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
>
>And I say
>
>> >> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>> >> >Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should
>be
>> >> >impossible seeing its open source.
>
>Hello????? - see my point. The fact that sendmail, which has been around
>longer than I can remember, and has had numerous remote root and other
>exploits, demonstrates that the open source model is NOT foolproof regarding
>security issues.
And where does the article claim that the open source model is foolproof??
Perry
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
