Cycle ride, Sun 02 March 2003: Glasgow - Falkirk Wheel (via Canal)

[Robert Peffers]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9es*[email protected]...
> Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message snip
>
> Ignoring the point about GNKSA evaluations for the _fourth_ time!
snip>

I'm not ignoring it. It is just pretty much irrelevant to the points I am making.

> The idea that they attack _only_ the most popular software remains arrant nonsense.
Only if you cannot comprehend what you have read. Now shown me in which post I claimed that people,
*ONLY*, attack the most popular software?

> People attack Microsoft's IIS even though it is not the most popular Web server,

****SERVER****, if you cannot work out the attacking a server of any kind is just a little bit
different due to the fact is is, **serving**.
> do they not?
Don't you get the point I have been making all along that their whole motive is to disrupt the
maximum numbers? Hitting servers fits that bill very well.

> SGI's Irix came in for a lot of attention even though it is not the most popular UNIX let alone
> the most popular OS, because of the awareness in the days before Irix 6 that it was an easy target
> (rather like OE). Netscape's Web browser is still subjected to attacks.
So will anything be a target but, as I have got rather tired of saying, the more popular a programme
is then the bigger the attraction to hit on it. Furthermore the bigger the user base the more likely
any search bot is to find it.
>
> Unfortunately, your whole "argument" hangs on the idea that the bad guys attack only the most
> widely used software - an idea that is patently false.
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Don't be daft! When you can show where I said, *ONLY*, you can claim I said, *ONLY*, but I did not
say, *ONLY*, now did I?

Just think for a moment how these guys work. They have to search the web for targets. The bigger the
user base for a programme then the bigger the chance of a hit on it. After the ones who really know
what they are doing expose a weakness in any programme it then falls to the script kiddies to carry
on hitting at that weakness. So if you were in their shoes would you be searching the web for some
obscure programme or one that is on millions of machines.

Anyway I have more to do than go on about this point for ever more. So to sum up. You were wrong to
state I said they ONLY hit at OE when I said nothing of the sort. I can't be bothered debating the
same point for ever when the guy I am debating with cannot comprehend what is being said.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, Kelty, Fife. KY4 0HG. Scotland,
(UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

 

[Robert Peffers]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:07:39 -0000, "Robert Peffers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
snip
> Or they do it for intellectual curiosity "because they can" - this is a strong motive among script
> kiddies, reportedly.
Ah but it is not the script kiddies who write the programmes or find the weakness in software. They
are just the vandals who exploit the work done by someone who does know what they are doing. The
ones who do write the software are the clever ones and, as they are clever, it is their motives that
are so hard to understand. The script kiddies are on a par with the mindless yobs who smash traffic
lights, place obsticals on railways, etc., they are brainless idiots.
>
> Is the wrong answer. IIS has a very small share of the worldwide http server market, but a
> disproportionately large share of the hacked / cracked sites. The software has to be common *and*
> easily exploitable.

Servers, by their very nature, are a different thing though. Hit one server and you hit what
it serves.

> I remember one virus on the Macintosh, which was easily prevented with a simple INIT. I have
> never seen a Linux virus. There is a huge body of programmers deeply committed to Microsoft, many
> of whom hate Linux with a passion. They still haven't managed to come up with a virus.

Now I don't think I have come across any programmer who hates Linux,(though some may fear its
effects). I really cannot fathom how anyone can get satisfaction from writing mallicious programmes.

> Most exploits affecting open source software are established by the developer community,
> disseminated immediately and patched rapidly - almost always before the baddies have managed to
> exploit them. Microsoft get in a snit if anybody even mentions the existence of a security hole
> before they've had a chance to patch it, which can take months.
I would imagine MS are not the only ones to get upset.
>
> Face it, Microsoft software is insecure by default. Some of it can be made secure, some can't, but
> the root of the problem is that Microsoft don't take security half seriously enough at the design
> stage (a fact which Bill Gates himself acknowledged last year). It is also bloated, and obscure.

How did we ever manage with those machines with 64k memory?

> You can't change some of the things you need to without hacking the registry, and Microsoft
> officially don't support that (even when it's the only way and you're following their
> instructions). And you can't load a server without the GUI! How **** is that?

Let's face it most old hands have always regreted the whole GUI thing. They were all taken aback at
all that waste of resources even with the early Windows.
>
> Right, that's me off Usenet until Easter.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

Ach weel! Happy Easter. Don't eat too many choc eggs.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, Kelty, Fife. KY4 0HG. Scotland,
(UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

 

[Robert Peffers]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have never seen a Linux virus.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123827.stm (plus do a search on Linux on
> >> http://www.symantec.com for a list of Linux viruses, worms
etc)
> >>
> >> "Experts have warned Linux users to expect growing numbers of attacks
as
> >> the operating system grows in popularity."
> >
> > I certainly know about worms etc. that affect Solaris, but despite that I've never actually had
> > them regularly sent to me by email.
> >
>
> I get a fair volume of e-mail and ahem use Outhouse Depress and Outhouse (with Norton Virus and
> Firewall which autoupdate). I only intercept a few viruses a year despite that and probably had
> more of the manually transmitted "hoax" virus warnings than real viruses last year. So I'm not
> sure volume is a good indicator of activity.
>
> Tony
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers: I did get one a worm last year. I was swapping some security software and
dropped the defences for about 10 seconds while I set the new stuff up. Would you believe it the
blasted thing re-named all my folders? I did have a back-up though and only lost a very small chunk.
The firewall has reported several determined attacks though.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, Kelty, Fife. KY4 0HG. Scotland,
(UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

 

[David Damerell]

Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message snip
>>Ignoring the point about GNKSA evaluations for the _fourth_ time!
>snip>
>I'm not ignoring it. It is just pretty much irrelevant to the points I am making.

Consistent testing methodologies show OE much worse than other newsreaders? It is irrelevant to your
points only inasmuch as it actually reflects reality.

>>The idea that they attack _only_ the most popular software remains arrant nonsense.
>Only if you cannot comprehend what you have read. Now shown me in which post I claimed that people,
>*ONLY*, attack the most popular software?

So if people attack less popular software, where are the problems corresponding to those OE suffers?

>Just think for a moment how these guys work. They have to search the web for targets.

You don't know the difference between the Web and the Internet, I see.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?