Linux-Misc Digest #873, Volume #20 Thu, 1 Jul 99 03:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: Nonexistent means impossible?? Linux viruses ("Binesh Bannerjee")
Re: An "ls" question (Paul Anderson)
Re: Corrupted swap partition ?? (Seth Van Oort)
Re: To Many Distributions. (Todd Knarr)
RedHat 6.0-Install: bad magic ("Rainer Cartarius")
Re: LILO question, WIN98 dual boot. (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Re: Remote login problems in custom RedHat env... (Bryan)
2-lpd-deamons-cannot-print (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Patte)
Mod_ssl httpd.conf examples? (Ken Williams)
Re: ISPS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: efax and lpr (Curt Corum)
To Many Distributions. ("Jake_Paws")
Re: Modem speed (Kihwan Kwon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Binesh Bannerjee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nonexistent means impossible?? Linux viruses
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 06:13:18 GMT
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sure - and because it is difficult they don't bother. Your typical
: virus writer is lazy, wants to see his creation spread without
: much effort. They'll have no fun putting a lot more effort
: than usual into writing a linux virus, only to have a security
: fix kill it permanently the next week.
: A really talented programmer can be dangerous of course, but that kind
: can easily get recognition by working on the kernel or one of the
: major linux apps instead. They can get a lot more (and more lasting)
: respect and recognition this way. So the motive for writing a linux
: virus isn't really there.
I find this utterly... I don't know what... I don't believe this for
a minute tho. While I won't dispute that the existence of virus kits
make it so that there'll be plenty of ... I guess losers "writing"
viruses, I'll be man enough to admit that I've toyed with virus writing
(a few years ago, and no, I didn't release any...) Contrary to what
public opinion, and perhaps people who've either never programmed
or who've always walked the straight and narrow thing, sometimes
it can be fun to see the limits of a given architecture. Exploring
viruses, would be one of those things.
Let me preface this by saying I am _not_ one of those K00L 3L1T3
hackers who tries to fool people into thinking that I would do such
a thing to further humanity, or because "I'm in search of the next
best lock, and in order to do that I, oh, unfortunately have to
break all these."... Yeah, start breaking into apartments, and
tell the owner that the lock was insecure, I think not.
But, I simply object to the sentiment that anyone who writes a virus
is looking for recognition or whatever... The virus that I wrote was
at when virus scanners were becoming big, and I just was playing a
game with the virus detectors being the enemy, and I wanted to see
if I could write one that wouldn't be detectable by a detector.
(So, mine would automatically shuffle it's code, (by inserting
appropriate jump instructions before and after each section.)
I'm sure current virus scanners would take care of that sort
of thing, this was about 12 years ago)...
Sometimes pushing the limits is just fun in its own right, and
it has less to do with impressing others than it has to do with
satisfying one's own curiosity.
There was an ep of Star Trek NG, where a probe infected the
Enterprise computer with a virus, and, the virus was learning
the Enterprise computer, as it progressed. I think that'd be
a really cool virus, simply because, it would be cool, if you
could write programs that you didn't care about the underlying
architecture, it would learn that by itself.
I can think of several other ideas that would just be cool ideas,
how about genetic algorithms? What is ALife other than viruses?
Oh, as long as we don't call it a virus, it's ok? There's actually
papers on genetic algorithms spontaneously generating x86 and Sparc
assemblers (and implementations behind the papers)... So, saying
that the ALife stuff is in a safe virtual env, isn't quite an
argument either. (Reference: "Advances in Genetic Programming" :
Ch. 14 "A Compiling Genetic Programming System that Directly
Manipulates Machine Code" by Peter Nordin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262111888,
http://www.aimlearning.com/)
Actually, check the jargon file for "Core Wars"... That was simply
a "virus" made benign simply by being in a "virtual environment."
But, the appeal is the same. (Or, rather it _can_ be the same.)
http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/c/CoreWars.html
If you want to stick your head in the sand and just _say_ that
anyone who writes a virus has x qualities that's fine... But if
you want to do something about the problem, you need to look at
it a little bit more objectively... All virus writers need not
necessarily have had nefarious motives. Another example would
be Robert Morris, with the Internet Worm, or in someways even
the author of the Melissa virus. These weren't "evil" programs,
they seem to simply have been written as a challenge to the author
themselves. "Can I do this?" If you're saying anyone who would
ask that question is evil, I disagree. If you're saying the answer
to "Can I do this?" can be answered without writing it, then you
overestimate programmers' abilities. Sometimes you can't know the
answer to "Can I do this?" without actually studying the problem,
and actually making an attempt. And, yes, sometimes when you study
organic chemistry, you create a poison. Does that mean you shouldn't
study Organic Chem? And sometimes, you get the person who is interested
in studying poisons, (NOT in the context of producing antidotes) but
simply to study poisons. I see nothing wrong with that either. If you
do, then we shouldn't experiment/study numerous other things, guns
war time atrocities, etc etc etc.
To be honest, all the posts on this group about how it's "impossible"
to have a virus on Linux, kinda tempts me to write one on Linux, because
I want to see if I can do the impossible. It would have nothing to do
with recognition, sadism or hubris. It's just curiosity, and I see
nothing at all wrong with it.
Binesh Bannerjee
: Helge Hafting
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson)
Subject: Re: An "ls" question
Date: 1 Jul 1999 01:04:52 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink) writes:
>Info is a nearly-useless, impossible-to-learn atrocity.
>
I'm going to go berzerk if I can't find manpages for functions in libc6 - the
info file docs SEVERELY impede my efforts. All I want are succinct, short
descriptions of how a certain function is used, what it's for, etc. What I
get, is I have to scroll down and find the function I want(unless one knows
the cryptic incantation to summon forth a search functionality), then bring up
the part of the manual where it is located and have to scroll a couple pages
to find it - ARGH! Then, you have programs like ls, where they really just
dumped the manpage into info without adding ANY information. Granted, info
does have it's place for describing large, involved efforts - but it's severe
overkill for ls and ctime().
>They failed miserably.
>
I have e-mailed my concerns to Richard Stallman directly, however he prefers
info, so that's that... Any got manpages for libc6?
------------------------------
From: Seth Van Oort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corrupted swap partition ??
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:38:07 -0500
The data on the swap partition doesn't mean anything after a power
failure. It's just an extension of memory. Upon doing a 'swapon'
(usually done automatically by startup scripts) linux does a minimal
check to make sure that it is a swap partition. It then blissfully
overwrites any data that was there from last time.
Seth
Pete Rossi wrote:
>
> Is it possible for a Linux swap partition to become corrupted? If it did,
> would it become "UN corrupted" or "fix itself" following a reboot?
>
> Consider this possibility...
>
> System is running and suffers a hard power failure.
>
> During the reboot, it is smart enough to see that the regular partitions
> were not cleanly unmounted so it runs 'fsck' and... hopefully all is OK.
>
> But... what if the swap partition was being written to when the power
> failed? Could it become corrupted? During the reboot, there is no
> indication that the validity of the swap area is checked. Would the
> reboot fix any problems?
>
> All of this comes from a system that has been acting a bit "funny" ever
> since a hard power failure a few weeks ago. System is basically running
> OK but some commands/programs are now getting Segmentation Faults at
> random times. It all started after the power went out. 'fsck' did not
> detect any problems with the other partitions. Memory tests are not
> detecting any errors. Trying to figure out where to go from here...
>
> ---
>
> Pete Rossi - WA3NNA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Many Distributions.
Date: 1 Jul 1999 06:28:06 GMT
Jake_Paws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think linux before long will become another microsoft. Not in moloply but
> in graphic operation. They will take out what linux is good for. AKA Many
> options and confine it to what I consider a idiot operating system.
Won't happen. Thing is, all those "easy to use" graphical tools all
manipulate the same text config files underneath. Those who don't know
much, or who only want to do simple things, will use the graphical
tools. The geeks like me who are comfortable with text config files
or who need to do exotic things will simply ignore the graphical
tools and bang on the text config files directly.
--
Collin was right. Never give a virus a missile launcher.
-- Erk, Reality Check #8
------------------------------
From: "Rainer Cartarius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat 6.0-Install: bad magic
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:12:09 +0200
Hi,
it seems to be impossible to me to install RedHat 6.0!
When the install program unpacks the archives,
it reports in install.log for some archives 'bad magic'.
What kind of magic is that???
Who put this spell on my computer? Is it the hardware?
I changes nearly the whole computer:
hard disk, CDROM, IDE-cables.
And i tried it with the second IDE controler.
I get a similar problem using the suse 6.0 linux.
On other partitions, Win98 and Win95 are working fine.
What i didn't change: CPU (Celeron 433), mainboard and
graphic card (ATI 8MB)
Who can help me?
Rainer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: LILO question, WIN98 dual boot.
Date: 1 Jul 1999 05:39:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mihir Lala wrote:
>
>I have one drive and it is partitioned into 3
>parts. The first partition has Win98 and one has
>Linux. the third is for future use.
>
>My /etc/lilo.conf:
>
>boot=/dev/hda
>map=/boot/map
>install=/boot/boot.b
>prompt
>timeout=50
>image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.2-15
>label=linux
>root=/dev/hda6
It's a good thing your automatic LILO installation failed.
Root on /dev/hda6 makes no sense when you only have
three partitions. Use a boot floppy until you're
comfortable enough with the system to configure lilo
manually. It's obvious your distribution's automation
is broken.
Cameron
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:42:58 +0000
From: Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: Remote login problems in custom RedHat env...
Jon Skeet wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I have an unusual problem with telnet, rlogin, ftp and any other
> > program which requires logging in remotely. The system specs are: 400Mhz
> > Pentium Pro, 256MB RAM, onboard Intel etherexpress pro 10/100Mbs network
> > card, 2 serial ports, running a custom Red Hat 5.2 kernel. Four kernel
> > header files were modified to allow for a 3072 process limit ( fs.h,
> > limits.h, posix_types.h, /usr/include/gnu/types.h ). The machine will
> > boot and run fine for about 10 minutes then any form of remote log in
> > (even rcp and rsh) will hang after it successfully connects to the
> > system just before it gives you the opportunity to provide your login
> > name and/or password. On telnet you can even see the "Connected to
> > <host>" message. Any connection made before this problem occurs is fine
> > and has full capabilities. I can get out of the box using any method I
> > choose (telnet, ftp, etc). The oddest thing about this problem is that
> > all other inetd services are unaffected. They continue to respond to
> > request on their respective ports without fail. A tcpdump on the machine
> > will show telnet, rlogin, etc ... activity. They send their initial acks
> > and replies but don't complete their initialization procedures.
>
> Is it feasible that the problem is in reverse host lookup? I know telnetd
> checks that the host that is telnetting to it is valid before going ahead
> with the connection; it's possible that rcp does the same. If so,
> possibly your DNS is going wrong...
>
I agree; it could be reverse DNS or no DNS at all.
Another idea: Network card burps...
How much activity is there once the system is up? I had a Netgear
10/100 card in my box with one of the original DEC tulip chips (they've
since created their own proprietary set due to DEC's discontinuation of
the 21something series), and it would come up with some overrun problems
at high NFS loads. I finally swapped it with a newer one I had bought
for a Windows box, and the old card works fine in the Windows box, and
the new one works beautifully in the Linux box (gotta love 100Mbps).
(Probably some inconsistencies with the tulip driver and that older
chipset..)
.
Which kernel version are you using? You can use the 2.2.x kernel series
on Redhat 5.2. A custom RedHat 5.2 kernel sounds like you used th
2.0.36 kernel that came with it.
2.2.5 runs really stable on three of my 5.2 machines. I'm suggesting a
kernel and network card driver upgrade because even if you turn off
networking, like you said you're doing, the card may still be on the
fritz, and there may be a compatibility issue with the EtherExpress
Pro. (Is that intel or 3com? 3com's drivers were semi-broken in
2.0.36...)
> --
> Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
-- Bryan Scott
-- CTR Online Systems Administration
(remove the NOSPAM. for email)
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Patte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2-lpd-deamons-cannot-print
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:46:53 +0200
Hello,
When I start the lpd daemon I get 2 lpd running at same time and I can't
print anything before killing the son process.
Has anybody an idea?
I run rh 6 with kernel 2.2.5-15.
Thank you.
-- Fran�ois Patte. UFR de math�matiques et informatique.
45 rue des St P�res. 75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tel: 01 44 55 35 59 -- Fax: 01 44 55 35 35
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams)
Subject: Mod_ssl httpd.conf examples?
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 05:27:25 GMT
Can someone send me an example httpd.conf that shows how to use mod_ssl
configuration parameters within a virtual host? I keep getting "cannot bind
to port 443: already in use".
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: ISPS
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 06:47:41 GMT
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:32:41 GMT, Darren Paxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I am just posting this message to gauge some feedback from the Linux
>community in the world.
>
>Since Microsoft has the dominating share in the market of computing (I
>do not think anyone would doubt this statement), every ISP in the world
>is generally based on Microsoft.
>
> As we all know, this is a very
>annoying factor for those of us who wish to connect through our Linux
>boxes. The only way that we do connect is by hacking the dns servers
>and trying to find out from technical support what authentications are
>used, etc.
>
>What I would like to ask you all, if any of your ISPs (and where they
>are based), FULLY support Linux. Personally, I have used Freeserve
>(don't ask). Softnet (not bad), and In2Home (also, not bad). Now, I am
>using a dialup script to my old university (the only script for
>connecting that has actually worked for me).
>
>Obviously, with the popularity of, and curiosity about Linux increasing
>all the time, does anyone feel, like I do, that its about time the ISPs
>start supporting Linux?
>
>Like I have stated before, I have had major problems connecting to the
>UK service Freeserve through Linux, and through the newsgroups, I
Oh. UK. Maybe that explains it, although I can't think of how it
would.
In Seattle, Microsoft's back yard, it's much simpler. If you find an
ISP using a Microsoft product on a production server, you can take it
as a given that Microsoft owns a piece of the company. Almost every
company that has a real choice is using something else, and Linux is
probably the most common server OS. (And we have a new ISP startup
roughly weekly.)
I've talked to people at a couple of ISPs about this, and they give
several reasons for Microsoft's non-popularity, the common ones being:
* Support
* Stability
* Security
* Adherence to commonly-accepted standards
* Hardware cost for a given level of performance
Worldwide, over the past five years Microsoft has increased its share
of the internet web-server market from about 5% to about 30%. But in
the same period Apache has gone from about 1% of all internet
webservers to about 60%.
Obviously you are mistaken about Microsoft's hold on the market for
ISP server software.
For an example of the kind of support I think you want, check out this
web page: http://www.blarg.net/support/setup/unix.html
------------------------------
From: Curt Corum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: efax and lpr
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:02:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob,
Thanks for the suggestions.
I went through and changed permissions on some directories (/var/lock,
/var/spool/fax)
I was getting a 'cannot remove stale lock on /dev/modem, when I looked at the
/dev/console messages.
I'm to the point now where the modem is responding, but it it is prematurely
hanging up.
This problem exists on the Win95 side as well, and seems to be related to
poor phone line quality.
Now I need to do some modem init string work.
There are some erratic things hapenning with locks, I'll try changing the
/dev/null.
-Curt
Rob Clark wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Curt Corum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am having troubles getting efax going with lpr.
> >
> >'fax test' talks to the modem (I 'm using internal USR on ttyS2 with
> >group 1 configuration)
> >'fax send' starts up the modem, dials and sends ok
> >I set up the spool directory with RedHat print tool to /dev/null
> >/var/spool/fax /usr/bin/faxlpr
> >I set a symbolic link from /usr/bin/faxlpr to /usr/bin/fax
> >I believe I have set up the spool directory with proper permissions
> >/var/spool/fax 777
> >when I try to print a fax 'lpr -Pfax -J<phone number> <file>' I don't
> >get any modem activity, and nothing shows when I do 'lpq'
> >'lpc' recognizes the fax queue (it reports status, can enable disable)
> >'lpr' works fine with my default DeskJet500 on lp0
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
> There is a log file that is created in /var/spool/fax for each job
> received by lpd. Set your debugging really high in the fax script and
> watch the log file with 'tail -f'.
>
> Also, using /dev/null might create problems. If you create a bogus device
> such as "/dev/efax" by 'touch /dev/efax', you can use that instead. (The
> locking that occurs may cause problems when /dev/null is used).
>
> Rob Clark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
------------------------------
From: "Jake_Paws" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To Many Distributions.
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 00:03:51 -0600
I love linux. Who doesn't. But there is a few things I don't like. As listed
in the subject. Just to many distributions. As a computer technician. I'm
suspose to support the new software out. (Basicly Customer demand) Currently
in demand is Windows 98 and Nt 4.0 to list a few.
For linux everybody is talking RedHat. Basicly you say linux, they say
Redhat. You say RedHat, they say linux. But wait! I prefer slackware.
Doesn't this go against supporting new software. I would think so.
Each distribution has likes and dislikes based on personal favorites. To
list a few. Slackware is currently what the isp I'm using is running on. It
also last known is used in a Apexx box for routing. Plus it looks alot like
Unix. I also like pppsetup. So on and so forth.
Software is another key feature. To much. If you know how to work dos and
pkzip to list a few programs that use command lines. You should be able to
use linux. However, each program for linux is different in the configuration
file even if the program does the same thing. I currently do not support
linux on file servers because of this. I might install one peice of software
and somebody else says this is better. Funny though. It is the same way with
windows products. Just don't think of it that much.
I think linux before long will become another microsoft. Not in moloply but
in graphic operation. They will take out what linux is good for. AKA Many
options and confine it to what I consider a idiot operating system.
Based on what I see now. I will probably be making the move to Redhat 6. But
still not sure on what window desktop to use. Yet another topic to talk
about.
Thank You,
Jake
Comments welcome.
------------------------------
From: Kihwan Kwon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modem speed
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 01:02:45 -0500
I guess it's irq conflict.
I had the same problem and I checked irq for modem in windows 95 and
put this command "setserial /dev/modem irq 11" in /etc/rc.d/rc.local, where
11 was irq for modem in windows 95.
I hope it helps.
"Robert J. Schweikert" wrote:
> It appears, I am very certain that my connection to my ISP is a whole
> lot slower when using Linux when compared to the Windows NT side of my
> computer. Dis I mess up with the set-up or are there any tricks I should
> be aware of to speed things up?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> --
> Robert Schweikert
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
