5 May
2000
5 May
'00
3:57 p.m.
Hello group,
Here's something we all knew already, but we need to educate the brainwashed
masses about Microslop . . . Last sentence says it all.
*** FORWARDED MESSAGE ***
Original author: trp0
Written on: 05-May-00
*** Beginning of forwarded message ***
Last night, Ted explored the "I Love You" crisis with three "computer
virus experts". I'm a little fuzzy on who everyone was for sure, but I
know one was a computer crime prosecutor, another was Thrilling(sp?) from
Symantec(who totally reminds of this one stand-up comic guy...looks and
acts just like the stnad-up....maybe secret alter ego), and I don't
remember the other guy's functions at all. All three were going on and on
about how users needed to protect themselves with better and more
anti-virus software as well as putting up home firewalls!
It struck me as odd that they were trying to "educate" people about how to
be safe without ever mentioning the fact that nearly all of the nasty
email viruses are confined to Microsoft products. I would have liked to
have seen a discussion about why MS doesn't consider these things as big
hole in their OS. Seems to my like a large majority of even the standard
viruses live in the MS realm. Wouldn't it strike you as a little alarming
if the product you are turning out is the target of so many easily
constructed destructive programs because of the way your product is
designed and implemented?
Anyway. It was just strange that they were emphasizing that basically all
the world's email systems were brought down because of this thing without
even noting things such as alternatives that wouldn't have these
problems....instead trying to scare the public into consuming more
unecessary software to patch up a leaky operating system with third party
products instead of encouraging people to get a brain and exercise their
free-market will to force product improvement.
*shrug*
T
---
This message brought to you by: trp0(a)falcon.cc.ukans.edu
..and the voices in his head.
[Bucket of Truth] "Don't you think I know that!?!" - UCB
WebAccess: http://www.magicalbox.com/~trp0
------------------------ end transmission ....
*** End of forwarded message ***
5 May
5 May
10:36 a.m.
It struck me as odd that they were trying to
"educate" people about how to
be safe without ever mentioning the fact that nearly all of the nasty
email viruses are confined to Microsoft products. I would have liked to
have seen a discussion about why MS doesn't consider these things as big
hole in their OS. Seems to my like a large majority of even the standard
Can you say Lawsuit, yes Mr. Bill thinks you can.
Can you say Boycott, yes Mr. Bill knows you can.
End of todays lesson.
10:59 a.m.
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 06:57:36PM -0600, Gary Hildebrand wrote:
*** Beginning of forwarded message ***
[...]
It struck me as odd that they were trying to
"educate" people about how to
be safe without ever mentioning the fact that nearly all of the nasty
email viruses are confined to Microsoft products.
One of the "news" websites (www.abcnews.com maybe?) had a nice list of
"things you can do to protect yourself from email viruses", and I thought
it was very interesting that "avoid M$ products!!!" wasn't on the list.
It's too bad the net has turned into such an appliance. In the old days,
each site often implemented their own TCP/IP stack and SMTP/FTP/etc. servers
from scratch, so even if they had security flaws they
weren't well-known.
Returning to that might have some advantages ... I know
someone who munged
in a fake version banner in his wu.ftpd just so the crackers would be more
likely to leave him alone, worth a shot!
John Wilson
D Bit
11:35 a.m.
One of the "news" websites (www.abcnews.com
maybe?) had a nice list of
"things you can do to protect yourself from email viruses", and I thought
it was very interesting that "avoid M$ products!!!" wasn't on the list.
Well no MS is a workable solution but when you have to have some
compatability MS can work if (and only IF) applied with some care.
Think about it, who NEEDS IE5.0? Who needs instantmessaging, Chat, VBS,
Active-x controls? WHY????
I run NT4.0 sp4/workstation, It's ok and security if you make the effort
is good, not VMS but nothing like w9x. I even got two copies of loveletter
and all I had to do in outlook express was delete it. Sure I also have
auto-open disabled too, thats good sense. I use office97 at work, never
install Outlook, it's fat and slow most users never use all the features.
Even those of us that run or like OS<mumble> know that the latest and
greatest is least safe. That even applies to VMS... some of us remember
VMS5.x--> Security patch -4H.
It's too bad the net has turned into such an
appliance. In the old days,
each site often implemented their own TCP/IP stack and SMTP/FTP/etc. servers
from scratch, so even if they had security flaws they weren't well-known.
security by obscurity. Ok but the growth would be severely crippled and
interoperability worse.
in a fake version banner in his wu.ftpd just so the
crackers would be more
likely to leave him alone, worth a shot!
the key here is not what was done but, that something was done at all, not
hanging out a sign that says hit me. How many sites even read up on how
to secure linux, freeBSD, or NT?
No I'm not a MS lover <hate it for many reasons> but don't blame the cow
for soggy cereal. MS is only part of the problem by not addressing known
holes. The users that install the carpet bombed AOL disks and install teh
latest widgets deserve the blame too for what they get.
Allison
6 May
6 May
4:10 p.m.
It's too bad the net has turned into such an
appliance. In the old days,
each site often implemented their own TCP/IP stack and SMTP/FTP/etc. servers
from scratch, so even if they had security flaws they weren't well-known.
Returning to that might have some advantages ... I know someone who munged
in a fake version banner in his wu.ftpd just so the crackers would be more
likely to leave him alone, worth a shot!
John Wilson
D Bit
You mean like the following...
BTW -- if FreeVMS ever comes out in intel this box will run it.
Right now it's just FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE.
telnet i4got
Trying 199.245.130.131...
Connected to i4got.pechter.dyndns.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
FreeVMS 0.9 (i4got.pechter.dyndns.org) (ttyp2)
Username:
Bill
--
bpechter(a)monmouth.com | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
| Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
| BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
5 May
5 May
11:14 a.m.
Anyway. It was just strange that they were emphasizing
that basically all
the world's email systems were brought down because of this thing without
even noting things such as alternatives that wouldn't have these
problems....instead trying to scare the public into consuming more
unecessary software to patch up a leaky operating system with third party
products instead of encouraging people to get a brain and exercise their
free-market will to force product improvement.
Well, I agree. However I run 40+ clients and three servers inhouse and
NO internet connections save for some client systems with modems. Why?
Only a few people need to interact with the outside world! Further,
yes we do run MS w95 even Office97 but there is some sense to the fact
that the most recent version of IE is only 4.01? Why, becuse IE401
doesn't ahve all the widgets that a business doesnt need. Also if your
running a business why would you users need CHAT and instant messaging
ans a universal thing? People for the most part know this OS is weak
in the security and outlook is not only a fat pig it's a security hole
yet Netscape isn't used (or long list of other mailers). With our old
well behind the leader we are more immune as a result. If you work at it
Even w95 can be improved security wise.
In the end the real issue is this has been widely known for over 3years
and still it's a hole big enough to run a bus through.
All the other OSs are also not immune, just you can get support or fix
them yourself. I get the FreeBSD security notices and they have the same
problem with app ports creating holes where the OS is tight.
As IT people I'd say it's wise to consider that security is not an OS only
responsability.
Allison
8839
days inactive
8840
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ghldbrd＠ccp.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
wilson＠dbit.dbit.com