On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
From a desktop perspective, everybody uses office. Unfortunately,
everybody also uses some other task specific app without which, the job
cannot be done. Office functionality is crucial but it as only the
first step.
I must agree. Try getting
Net Llama wrote inter alia:
Yea, i hear that apt-get thing is really painful time consuming.
Well, if you do a complete KDE upgrade with a dial-up connection it can
be a bit time consuming.
As far as painful goes, there are some people who might disagree.
--
Leon A. Goldstein
Powered by
burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17 Aug 2003 23:56:28 -0400
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:49, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
see that doesn't happen. What busines apps do we have for linux that
make people want to run linux so that they can use that application?
Office? Spice? Photoshop? What do we have that is
burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] 18 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0400
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 19:06, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
every executive I have ever met will spit nails about downtime and the
cost to the company until you tell them how much it will cost to fix it.
Then the executive goes away, until next time.
From a desktop perspective, everybody uses office. Unfortunately,
everybody also uses some other task specific app without which, the job
cannot be done. Office functionality is crucial but it as only the
first step.
I must agree. Try getting your new USB PDA to sync with linux.
I
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:16, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
I actually meant what I said. Most of the initiatives above started
somewhere other than distribution and have added it so that a checkmark
could be put on their features list. Building a distribution centered
application with things
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for inkjet
printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners. There is
no support for these in linux.
Most medium to large businesses and enterprise environments don't use
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:25, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
I used to live between the techs wanting neat technology and the execs
wanting to not spend money. I was pretty succesful about getting what
we needed except on two topics; downtime and time testing patches.
Downtime was rare enough on
burns wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for inkjet
printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners. There
is no support for these in linux.
Most medium to large businesses and enterprise
Quoth burns:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:25, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
I used to live between the techs wanting neat technology and the execs
wanting to not spend money. I was pretty succesful about getting what
we needed except on two topics; downtime and time testing patches.
Downtime
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:09:36 -0700
Condon Thomas A KPWA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
burns wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for
inkjet printers. And, those multifunctional printers/fax/scanners.
There is no
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003, Collins Richey wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:09:36 -0700
Condon Thomas A KPWA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
burns wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 17:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Then, there is the almost complete lack of vendor support for
inkjet printers. And, those
I use the lexmark z53, too. It is great with linux. However, I haven't seen
any other printers with such specific support for linux. I hope there are
more around.
Joel
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
Good support for my Lexmark Z53. Lexmark even provides linux
On 16 Aug 2003 04:23:29 -0400
burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Code that causes this much disruption of commerce is anything but
benign. These are more than just the digital equivalent of a rck thrown
through a window, they suck up huge amounts of bandwidth, both as people
attempt to deal with
Collins Richey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:18:15 -0600
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:42:26 -0500
Alma J Wetzker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ other stuff snipped - see the thread for details ]
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is much harsher. Most
linux apps just aren't up to their
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:49, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
see that doesn't happen. What busines apps do we have for linux that
make people want to run linux so that they can use that application?
Office? Spice? Photoshop? What do we have that is close?
I would hardly classify Photoshop as
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 19:06, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
every executive I have ever met will spit nails about downtime and the
cost to the company until you tell them how much it will cost to fix it.
Then the executive goes away, until next time.
That's the business we're in and I can tell you
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 20:49, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
These worms are so benign it's pathetic. If only the Windows world realized just
how much peril they could be in! So far we've only really had worms that
self-propagate and then did some token act to prove that they weren't gay. But how
I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public service.
Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing worms like this.
Joel
The people that write and launch these programs in the wild should
caught and forced to do something really unpleasant for a very long
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:17:09 -0400
Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public
service. Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing
worms like this.
I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers because
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:57:12 -0500
David A. Bandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers because
some of these patches come with changed EULAs they don't want to
accept.
Unfortunately, they also can't change over to Linux because some
The usefulness of a site like ShieldsUp is that it gives you the
ability, from inside, to initiatate a test from outside, to see if that
firewall you just put up is working. If there is a better such site
available, I'd sure like to know about it.
I use a shell account on an external box for
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports.
I have noticed most scanners tend to do the well known ports if you
scanned every port it would take a long time. so they mostly look at the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
I must disagree. This worm writer has performed a great public service.
Making people patch their computers. MS should be writing worms like this.
Microsoft writes the virus. The worms merely take advantage of the myriad
security holes in Windows and the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, burns wrote:
...
Code that causes this much disruption of commerce is anything but
benign. These are more than just the digital equivalent of a rck thrown
through a window, they suck up huge amounts of bandwidth, both as people
attempt to deal with them and for the fact that
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 14:07, Bill Campbell wrote:
The people who deploy Windows systems on the Internet should be held
accountable for endangering their organization's data and systems (not to
mention lost productivity while waiting for Windows systems to reboot
unnecessarily). It's not like
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, burns wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 14:07, Bill Campbell wrote:
The people who deploy Windows systems on the Internet should be held
accountable for endangering their organization's data and systems (not to
mention lost productivity while waiting for Windows systems to
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 17:59, Bill Campbell wrote:
big snip
Good Grief, Bill. I think we agree.
--
burns
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc - http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
How about run windows for life?
-- Alma
burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16 Aug 2003 04:23:29 -0400
The people that write and launch these programs in the wild should
caught and forced to do something really unpleasant for a very long
time.
___
Linux-users
Collins Richey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:21:20 -0600
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 08:57:12 -0500
David A. Bandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know a lot of folks who don't want to patch their computers because
some of these patches come with changed EULAs they don't want to
accept.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
...
There are solutions in most cases, but most users are so locked into the
M$ mentality that they won't even make the effort.
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is much harsher. Most linux
apps just aren't up to their windoze counterparts.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:42:26 -0500
Alma J Wetzker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ other stuff snipped - see the thread for details ]
The essential situation is this. Using M$ products is a recipe for
disaster (when will the latest worm strike again?), in spite of the
fact that some of the
You could try http://www.pcflank.com/scanner1.htm
It lets you add the ports you want scanned.
I still think programs like nmap are best.
Regards,
Wil McGilvery
Manager
Lynch Digital Media Inc
416-744-7949
416-716-3964 (cell)
1-866-314-4678
416-744-0406 FAX
www.LynchDigital.com
Burns MacDonald wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 19:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
We do quite a bit of IT Security work. Shields Up is OK for what it is,
given the parameters it has to work under - it's not bogus, but it is
lightweight.
The usefulness of a site like ShieldsUp is that it gives you the
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password protected.
I have to
Just how does this this thing spread?
I have a couple of windows boxes behind my linux firewall. I have almost all
privileged ports blocked. Will that be enuf?
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:32:28PM -0700, Gary Wilson wrote:
If you are in an all-Linux place, you are damn lucky.
We are
On 08/13/03 16:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks
like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found
anyone
doing this.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime
too soon.
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:33:30PM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
On 08/12/03 14:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Just how does this this thing
I sent the info on this worm to a friend whom I know to be running a mix of
Linux and Windows at home. His response may be of interest to the list:
Yep -- as near as I can tell, only my XP laptop is vulnerable.
I downloaded the patch for it without problem (I
it really is not a bother.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:59:01 -0500 - Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the
following
Re: Re: worms worms worms
Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not being even an XP lightweight - how does one find out
Precisely.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:50:32 -0500
Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kurt Wall wrote:
Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
services. You should also block TCP ports 138, 445, 593,
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 19:04, Michael Hipp wrote:
It's not bogus. Mr. Gibson is well respected and his site is widely
used. Dunno why it didn't work properly on your system. I might guess
that it misidentified your IP address, or perhaps the fact that the
Internet has been only half working
Kurt Wall wrote:
Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
services. You should also block TCP ports 138, 445, 593,
and UDP port 69 (TFTP).
You should block *every* port that doesn't absolutely, positively have
to
If you are in an all-Linux place, you are damn lucky.
We are being bombarded with the Backdoor and Blaster
worms and anyone who hasn't gotten their Microsoft
updates in the last two weeks is being blown away.
It's an epidemic.
My Libranet box is just fine. But its my job to make
sure that all
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:33:30 -0700
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
port 137, the RPC port. Of course keeping up with M$ security updates will
help too.
--
Matthew Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/
Enterprise
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password protected.
I have to conclude that ShieldsUp
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Joel Hammer wrote:
I got a Failed result from this test because my machine responded to a
ping request. I think I'll leave this in place.
Are these guys serious?
From a windoze persepective, sure. But its really just a toy. I wouldn't
trust my network to that site.
You can run nmap against your windows boxes to check out their ports.
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 06:36:17PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:25:44 -0400
Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime
too soon.
I tried this web site. I log just about all activity on my firewall,
and although I got a stealth result for all my ports except 0 from this
web site, I cannot find any attempts to attach to a large number of my
ports in my logs, including 80, which is open, as is port 113. Both were
marked
Quoth Matthew Carpenter:
IIRC, it's 135, the RPC port.
It exploits a vulnerability on TCP port 135, used by DCOM RPC
services. You should also block TCP ports 138, 445, 593,
and UDP port 69 (TFTP).
On 08/13/03 15:45, Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the scan. These ports I expected to be open, except for 1024
(kdm). I just wonder why ShieldsUp didn't detect these ports. It looks like
I was inviting the world to log onto my X server. I have never found anyone
doing this. It is password
Thanks for the scan. I turned off kdm. I will upgrade my firewall when my
wife gets off aol.
These results are about what I expected. I am surprised that the ShieldsUp
web site told me these ports (113, 80, 84) were stealth when they are
open.
I may have missed some attempts to scan ports because
67/tcp closed dhcpserver
68/tcp closed dhcpclient
80/tcp openhttp
84/tcp openctf
113/tcpopenauth
1024/tcp openkdm
1025/tcp closed NFS-or-IIS
.
.
.
.
Perhaps your upstream provider is providing you with services of closing
Thanks. That port is blocked, so I won't worry about updating anytime too
soon.
Joel
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:33:30PM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
On 08/12/03 14:28, Joel Hammer wrote:
Just how does this this thing spread?
I have a couple of windows boxes behind my linux firewall. I have
I don't think I'm safe... I know :)
By the way. Those were some great pix! It was nice to meet someone from the list
face-to-face. Maybe I'll run into you at some event and I'll recognize that
Hammerguy!
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:41:21 -0400
Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh well, I
These worms are so benign it's pathetic. If only the Windows world realized just how
much peril they could be in! So far we've only really had worms that self-propagate
and then did some token act to prove that they weren't gay. But how many CodeRed and
NIMDA machines could have had a format
56 matches
Mail list logo
