Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

[Jerry White]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.212e70f573e94eb3989830@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <5ijn0fF3pja2bU1@mid.individual.net>,
> louisREMOVE@REMOVEh4h.com says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> > In article <ewyqpdD4HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, none@nospam
>> > says...
>> >> Actually it's probably a bit of both. Straight hacking a random Linux
>> >> box, good luck. It's when things like root-kits somehow get installed
>> >> (usually by a clueless admin being fooled by some advert on the web,
>> >> irc, etc) that's the big cause of infiltrations. This is true of any
>> >> OS that can be accessed remotely.
>> >
>> > But that fits the target audience for Ubuntu, clueless users running
>> > as root.
>>
>>
>> And how is that true? If any system almsot forces you to run as admin
>> (to really do anything useful) it's Windows. I don't know of an OS with
>> more clueless people.
>
> And those same clueless people hear about a new, great, security driven,
> OS that's free and they make the same mistakes that make in Windows -
> they run as Root, download anything, compromise their machines, etc...

Well in the case of the news story linked at the beginning of this thread,
the systems were not actually hacked. A clueless admin just wasn't keeping
an eye on things. The method was brute force, not hacking (ahem, cracking)
where as windows is routinely exploited through various holes in security.
While Unix and Linux are not immune to that, it's at a far lower frequency,
and problems typically arrise from a hole in a particular
program/service(daemon) that isn't run correctly, and not so much to a hole
i nthe OS's core. In others Linux at the core is far more solid and robust
and far less swiss cheesey than Windows.

 

[norm]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <uGEM8yD4HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> noone@afakeddomain.net says...
>> Ubuntu, by default, does not run as root. The only default way to gain
>> root is as superuser, and that access is limited only to the person that
>> creates the original user account. And the original user is the only one
>> that can create secondary accounts with ANY privileges. In other words,
>> clueless users running as root is very much an oxymoron.
>
> No, since it's being touted as the OS for home users, simple to use,
> easy to install, etc... The same target will run as SU all the time,
> they were told that you don't need AV, it's not hackable, no security
> threats, that's why they will run as root and why they get compromised.
>
>
>
That is not my understanding nor my experience. You are off base on this
one. Please read the following closely and completely:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo

--
norm

 

[Jerry White]

"Frank" <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote in message
news:e2iNr6D4HHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> norm wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ewyqpdD4HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, none@nospam says...
>>>
>>>> Actually it's probably a bit of both. Straight hacking a random Linux
>>>> box, good luck. It's when things like root-kits somehow get installed
>>>> (usually by a clueless admin being fooled by some advert on the web,
>>>> irc, etc) that's the big cause of infiltrations. This is true of any OS
>>>> that can be accessed remotely.
>>>
>>>
>>> But that fits the target audience for Ubuntu, clueless users running as
>>> root.
>>>
>> Ubuntu, by default, does not run as root. The only default way to gain
>> root is as superuser, and that access is limited only to the person that
>> creates the original user account. And the original user is the only one
>> that can create secondary accounts with ANY privileges. In other words,
>> clueless users running as root is very much an oxymoron.
>>
>
> Administrator is disabled by default in Vista.

Actually most preinstalled systems (hp, etc) have accounts with
administrative priviliages (or at least you don't need to need a user/pass
when you're prompted to do this or that...)

And fresh installs, even if you aren't using admin, you need admin
credientials to do a lot of things, where as on linux you can setup
predetermined commands and such lower users can use (eg sudo and such.)

 

[Steve Kostecke]

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:uAEfhDG4HHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Lang Murphy wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The article seems to suggest that the machines in question were
>>> extremely poorly maintained and running outdated versions of the OS.
>>
>> And that doesn't happen with regularity in the real world? You think this
>> is an extreme exception?
>>
>> Lang
>
>
> Not in the least, not me anyway.

Properly maintained server farms would never allow someone the time to brute
force. "Happening with regularity" seems to apply more to home users who
don't know how to maintain their systems, and not so much to large server
farms.

 

[Frank]

Jerry White wrote:

>
> I don't recall anyone ever sayign that of Linux.

Then you must either be a newbie or else suffering from extreme memory loss.
Search this ng (if you know how) and I'm sure you'll find that reference
from out resident and/or former linux as*holes.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Charlie Tame wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> norm wrote:
>>
>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:eYk2p163HHA.1824@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating
>>>>>> systems are vulnerable!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you thought otherwise then it only exposes a deplorable lack of
>>>>> knowledge on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> The article seems to suggest that the machines in question were
>>>>> extremely poorly maintained and running outdated versions of the OS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If Canonical can't maintain a Linux server who can? Can you imagine
>>>> the outcry if Microsoft's server's were hacked because they hadn't
>>>> kept them up to date? I totally agree that the reason this happened
>>>> is because the servers were out of date but it is ironic that they
>>>> were servers run by Canonical. It is more a statement of how
>>>> important it is to stay up to date with patches than anything else.
>>>> The OS is really irrelevant.
>>>>
>>> Although it doesn't mitigate the situation, it was local communities
>>> operating and maintaining the servers, not canonical. See the following:
>>> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18880277-Ubuntu-servers-hacked-to-attack-others
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The linturd zealots always represent that linux can be run totally
>> securely by any 6 yr old.
>> I guess reality is a difficult thing to accept.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> I'm always happy to criticize anything Frank

Frankly, I don't give a damn!
Frank

 

[Frank]

Charlie Tame wrote:

> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>> news:eYk2p163HHA.1824@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>
>>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>>
>>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems
>>>> are vulnerable!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you thought otherwise then it only exposes a deplorable lack of
>>> knowledge on your part.
>>>
>>> The article seems to suggest that the machines in question were
>>> extremely poorly maintained and running outdated versions of the OS.
>>
>>
>>
>> If Canonical can't maintain a Linux server who can? Can you imagine
>> the outcry if Microsoft's server's were hacked because they hadn't
>> kept them up to date? I totally agree that the reason this happened is
>> because the servers were out of date but it is ironic that they were
>> servers run by Canonical. It is more a statement of how important it
>> is to stay up to date with patches than anything else. The OS is
>> really irrelevant.
>>
>
>
> Absolutely in agreement, and yes it is ironic, someone needs their
> backside kicked to be honest, but you made the important point that the
> OS is not relevant at all.

Great! Lets all be sure and remember that little kernel of truth in the
future ok?
Thanks.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Jerry White wrote:

> "Frank" <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote in message
> news:e2iNr6D4HHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>norm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <ewyqpdD4HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, none@nospam says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Actually it's probably a bit of both. Straight hacking a random Linux
>>>>>box, good luck. It's when things like root-kits somehow get installed
>>>>>(usually by a clueless admin being fooled by some advert on the web,
>>>>>irc, etc) that's the big cause of infiltrations. This is true of any OS
>>>>>that can be accessed remotely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But that fits the target audience for Ubuntu, clueless users running as
>>>>root.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ubuntu, by default, does not run as root. The only default way to gain
>>>root is as superuser, and that access is limited only to the person that
>>>creates the original user account. And the original user is the only one
>>>that can create secondary accounts with ANY privileges. In other words,
>>>clueless users running as root is very much an oxymoron.
>>>
>>
>>Administrator is disabled by default in Vista.
>
>
> Actually most preinstalled systems (hp, etc) have accounts with
> administrative priviliages (or at least you don't need to need a user/pass
> when you're prompted to do this or that...)
>
> And fresh installs, even if you aren't using admin, you need admin
> credientials to do a lot of things, where as on linux you can setup
> predetermined commands and such lower users can use (eg sudo and such.)
>
>

No, not really. Super root/super admin is disabled by default in all
installs of Vista.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Try again.
Frank

 

[Mr. Arnold]

"Jerry White" <jwhite@cis.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:%23rCSnDG4HHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "Mr. Arnold" <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> wrote in message
> news:%23NTPNiD4HHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> I guess it depends if the admins actually do their job as maintainers.
>>> If they don't, it's no one's fault but their own.
>>>
>>>> You think this is an extreme exception?
>>>
>>> For live servers, yes I do. Any properly maintained live server (like
>>> those in data centers used by hosting companies) should fall prey to
>>> such attacks if the admins do their jobs. If they do then someone wasn't
>>> taking care of things.
>>
>> What you have said up above there makes no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> The bottom line is no matter what it is, as long as Human Beings are
>> involved with it in some kind of way there is always going to
>> vulnerabilities.
>
> That's basically what he said. It was the admins who were at fault in this
> case.

There is no basically about it. That is NOT what the person has said. I said
one thing, and the person is totally saying something else. I am not here to
read between the lines, nor am I here to try to interpret what someone might
be saying.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

"Jerry White" <jwhite@cis.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:uM69GEH4HHA.5804@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.212e70f573e94eb3989830@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> In article <5ijn0fF3pja2bU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> louisREMOVE@REMOVEh4h.com says...
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>> > In article <ewyqpdD4HHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, none@nospam
>>> > says...
>>> >> Actually it's probably a bit of both. Straight hacking a random Linux
>>> >> box, good luck. It's when things like root-kits somehow get installed
>>> >> (usually by a clueless admin being fooled by some advert on the web,
>>> >> irc, etc) that's the big cause of infiltrations. This is true of any
>>> >> OS that can be accessed remotely.
>>> >
>>> > But that fits the target audience for Ubuntu, clueless users running
>>> > as root.
>>>
>>>
>>> And how is that true? If any system almsot forces you to run as admin
>>> (to really do anything useful) it's Windows. I don't know of an OS with
>>> more clueless people.
>>
>> And those same clueless people hear about a new, great, security driven,
>> OS that's free and they make the same mistakes that make in Windows -
>> they run as Root, download anything, compromise their machines, etc...
>
> Well in the case of the news story linked at the beginning of this thread,
> the systems were not actually hacked. A clueless admin just wasn't keeping
> an eye on things. The method was brute force, not hacking (ahem, cracking)
> where as windows is routinely exploited through various holes in security.
> While Unix and Linux are not immune to that, it's at a far lower
> frequency, and problems typically arrise from a hole in a particular
> program/service(daemon) that isn't run correctly, and not so much to a
> hole i nthe OS's core. In others Linux at the core is far more solid and
> robust and far less swiss cheesey than Windows.

What difference does all this that you talk about make? The O/S(s) are just
programs written by fallible Human Beings. Nothing we ever, ever or ever do
is going to be bullet proof when the right bullet comes, no matter what it
is. The crap was compromised no matter how you look at it, because fallible
Human Beings wrote the crap and fallible Human Beings are using the crap.

 

[here@home.again]

"norm" objected...
> Leythos wrote:
>> No, since it's being touted as the OS for home users, simple to use, easy
>> to install, etc... The same target will run as SU all the time, they were
>> told that you don't need AV, it's not hackable, no security threats,
>> that's why they will run as root and why they get compromised.
>>
>>
> That is not my understanding nor my experience. You are off base on this
> one. Please read the following closely and completely:
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo
>

Google messages in this very newsgroup by "Alias".

 

[norm]

here@home.again wrote:
> "norm" objected...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> No, since it's being touted as the OS for home users, simple to use, easy
>>> to install, etc... The same target will run as SU all the time, they were
>>> told that you don't need AV, it's not hackable, no security threats,
>>> that's why they will run as root and why they get compromised.
>>>
>>>
>> That is not my understanding nor my experience. You are off base on this
>> one. Please read the following closely and completely:
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo
>>
>
> Google messages in this very newsgroup by "Alias".
>
>
And what does alias and his messages have to do with the question at
hand, that being the allegation that ubuntu is run as root all the time?

--
norm

 

[The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly]

Richard Urban wrote:
> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>
> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>
> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
> vulnerable!
>

I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

 

[Leythos]

In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
> Richard Urban wrote:
> > So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
> >
> > Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
> >
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
> >
> > People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
> > vulnerable!
> >
>
> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?

I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being
secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity
that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to
be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same
problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the
decades of warnings.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Curtis D. Levin]

"The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@non.not> wrote in message news:fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>
>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>
>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
>> vulnerable!
>>
>
> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs who
> ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about ubuntu is
> now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run out of the
> group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?

Not fair. The attacks on the linux servers were used to attack other
machines

One of Microsoft's main focuses is that Linux boxes can and do host Virii
that attck windows boxes too. They don't seem to care if the linux hosts
aren't affected for the most part. That's the double standard. Should I care
if my server attacks yours, if it doesn't affect mine?

The servers also weren't patched or kept up to date. Another thing
that MS has over Linux. If their admins were more responsible, then
this issue never would have happened. I used to use Linux exclusively.
When I was an admin, my servers were always up to date. Now I use
Microsoft clients. They are simply easier to maintain, and MS patches
everything, including pirated systems, to keep the windows community safe
from attacks from within.

Conflict here? Yeah, but not what you would think...

Curtis

 

[The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>
>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
>>> vulnerable!
>>>
>> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
>> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
>> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
>> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?
>
> I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being
> secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity
> that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to
> be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same
> problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the
> decades of warnings.
>

How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by
doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

 

[The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly]

Curtis D. Levin wrote:
> "The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'"
> <none@non.not> wrote in message news:fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>
>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
>>> vulnerable!
>>>
>> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs who
>> ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about ubuntu is
>> now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run out of the
>> group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?
>
> Not fair. The attacks on the linux servers were used to attack other
> machines
>
> One of Microsoft's main focuses is that Linux boxes can and do host Virii
> that attck windows boxes too. They don't seem to care if the linux hosts
> aren't affected for the most part. That's the double standard. Should I care
> if my server attacks yours, if it doesn't affect mine?
>
> The servers also weren't patched or kept up to date. Another thing
> that MS has over Linux. If their admins were more responsible, then
> this issue never would have happened. I used to use Linux exclusively.
> When I was an admin, my servers were always up to date. Now I use
> Microsoft clients. They are simply easier to maintain, and MS patches
> everything, including pirated systems, to keep the windows community safe
> from attacks from within.
>
> Conflict here? Yeah, but not what you would think...
>
> Curtis
>

How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by
doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

 

[Curtis D. Levin]

The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...
> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by doing
> something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but
probably wasn't pro vista.

The issue posted here was to point out that Linux isn't
bulletproof. The other issue, of more importance, is that
all operating systems are potentially flawed. MS
users are lucky that they were attacked so much. MS
is constantly patching the system to keep it secure, and it
is a pretty streamlined and automated process. Other Os's
have patches available, but sometimes people don't do
what they should and things happen.

I liked Linux when I used to run it. It is a pretty good OS
and has some neat features. But I dislike how some
people have packaged other people's work and sold it
while the people who did the work get nothing. Not
any kind of ideal I'd like to support if I am going to
try and make a living here. I didn't mind it when it was
all free, but now, with so many systems being sold,
and so many changes, it is totally removed from what it
once was. And there's no real benefits at all to using it.
You still end up paying for the stuff you really want.

Might as well use something that has some real support.
Something more reliable than " well maybe it'll happen,
if this other dude does it, you know.." I'm not paying
for that. Heck, I'd rather pay for Vista than download that
for free.

I'd like to think that there's more content there than
"Vista Sucks, get UBUNTU." as well. And since this
is a pro vista group, it's only right that we should praise
Vista. If you want to praise Ubuntu, do it in their group.

Watch the cookies in Vista. The only thing I've had
issues with. Pc-cillen is now scheduled to run daily
spyware scans. Yesterday, i think it found like 14?

Slowed my system down bad until I scanned it. Now
all is well again.

Curtis

 

[The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly]

Curtis D. Levin wrote:
> The poster formerly known as ??? wrote...
>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by doing
>> something that he ran another poster off of the group for?
>
> Simple. The other poster was writing about Ubuntu, but
> probably wasn't pro vista.

Non-issue, has no bearing on this subject whether someone posting an off
topic post without even labeling it as an OT post is pro vista or not.

>
> The issue posted here was to point out that Linux isn't
> bulletproof.

Non-issue, not related to Vista.

> The other issue, of more importance, is that
> all operating systems are potentially flawed. MS
> users are lucky that they were attacked so much. MS
> is constantly patching the system to keep it secure, and it
> is a pretty streamlined and automated process. Other Os's
> have patches available, but sometimes people don't do
> what they should and things happen.

This group is NOT about all OSes, it's about vista.
<snip more OT stuff>

>
> I'd like to think that there's more content there than
> "Vista Sucks, get UBUNTU." as well. And since this
> is a pro vista group, it's only right that we should praise
> Vista. If you want to praise Ubuntu, do it in their group.

I don't praise Ubuntu. It doesn't matter what who is saying about
ubuntu here, the fact is that it is off topic and this OP is a hypocrate
for chasing someone else off of this group who posted about ubuntu, then
posting about ubuntu.

> Curtis
>
>

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds

 

[Leythos]

In article <fa4qia$ins$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
> >> Richard Urban wrote:
> >>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
> >>>
> >>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
> >>>
> >>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
> >>> vulnerable!
> >>>
> >> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
> >> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
> >> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
> >> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?
> >
> > I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being
> > secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity
> > that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to
> > be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same
> > problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the
> > decades of warnings.
> >
>
> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by
> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?

Because the MVP was refuting the claims in this group that were off-
topic, showing that what was claimed is clearly not true, so that those
that watched the OT mantra of linux zealots will see that it's not what
they claim.

My guess is that you'll not see any (or very few) posts sourcing
information about Linux after a week.

You have to admit, it was a very disruptive amount of crap because of
zealotry in the OS.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)