Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought

  • Thread starter Thread starter The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly
  • Start date Start date
"Wayne Poe" <louis@h4h.com> wrote in message
news:5imejlF3qjhjjU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> 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.
>
> For the most part it is. How ever the article wasn't about a security
> problem in Linux, rather about admins at some data center not doing thier
> jobs. That's a world of a difference.

Not to me it isn't. Their machines were attacking others. That, is
a security problem, by every definition of the word.

If someone else other than them is expected to do something
about it, then what's the point? They manned up and said that
they didn't apply the patches. That's their fault. MS makes it
easy. Microsoft update. Every day. Not so stupid now.

Linux is good. Don't get me wrong. But it is fallible too.
Anyone who reads cert.org can tell you that. Luckily, most
people who know how to do bad things don't do them to
linux as frequently as they do them to us. Doesn't mean it
can't be done. It can.

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?

Hypocrisy gets a bad rap.

There's nothing wrong with being a hypocrite the sign that says: "This way
to Chicago" doesn't actually GO to Chicago.
 
The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> 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.

Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself
off-topic? It's off-topic squared.

In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an example
of hypocrisy?
 
Curtis D. Levin wrote:
> "Wayne Poe" <louis@h4h.com> wrote in message
> news:5imejlF3qjhjjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> 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.
>> For the most part it is. How ever the article wasn't about a security
>> problem in Linux, rather about admins at some data center not doing thier
>> jobs. That's a world of a difference.
>
> Not to me it isn't. Their machines were attacking others. That, is
> a security problem, by every definition of the word.
>
> If someone else other than them is expected to do something
> about it, then what's the point? They manned up and said that
> they didn't apply the patches. That's their fault. MS makes it
> easy. Microsoft update. Every day. Not so stupid now.
Let's not forget that there are two different entities being discussed.
There is the ubuntu server edition and unbuntu "for the masses". If we
are to compare, lets compare server edition to server edition. It is as
much an injustice to compare ubuntu server against vista home editions
as it would be to compare windows server editions against ubuntu "for
the masses". It doesn't negate what happened, but it does make the
"playing field" a bit more level.
>
> Linux is good. Don't get me wrong. But it is fallible too.
> Anyone who reads cert.org can tell you that. Luckily, most
> people who know how to do bad things don't do them to
> linux as frequently as they do them to us. Doesn't mean it
> can't be done. It can.
>
> Curtis
>
>
>


--
norm
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <fa4up0$td$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <fa4qia$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.
>> What is the point of refuting a claim made by a poster who no longer
>> posts in this group? Is there some strange MVP time machine we don't
>> know about or something?
>
> Because this is a PUBLIC group read all over the world and some people
> may fall for the zealotry mantra of the ignorant.

And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the
windows side too.
>
>> And if he is going to "refute a claim" as you put it, why would the OP
>> not reply to a post that made that claim?
>
> No idea, many people don't feel the need to reply.
>
>> So if as you claim, he is refuting a claim which has not been made in
>> this group recently by a poster who doesn't post here anymore...
>>
>> Still none of this explains away or justifies why he is posting about a
>> subject that he had through mob action with other posters harassed
>> another poster out of the group for.
>
> LOL - Alias left, if he left, because he lost what ever motivated him to
> spout discontent and anything anti-MS like he's been doing for years.
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the courtesy to
>> address the issue at hand and not sidestep the subject with your response.
>
> So stop trolling then.
>


--
norm
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <5imefqF3m3hpaU1@mid.individual.net>, louis@h4h.com says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.212fc5ecf8f7e8289898fe@adfree.Usenet.com...
>>> 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.
>> The article had nothing to do with a Linux security problem, it was clueless
>> admins at fault, allowing someone to use "brute force" to get in. Just how
>> often do we hear about security problems in Linux vs Windows, hmmm?
>
> And that would follow the ignorant masses problem that all OS's suffer.
> which is the point of my post. You have Zealots stating the XYZ is safer
> and that it can't be hacked and then when they are disproven, for the
> same reasons that many Windows boxes are hacked, they get disgruntled.
>
Maybe the correct comparison should be ubuntu server to windows server
rather than ubuntu server to the windows "for the masses".

--
norm
 
HeyBub wrote:
> The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself
> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.
>
> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an example
> of hypocrisy?
>
>

And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post
accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.

--
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
 
In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
noone@afakeddomain.net says...
> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the
> windows side too.

Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple
network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their
daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)


--

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)
 
The poster formerly known as the poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself
>> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.
>>
>> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an
>> example of hypocrisy?
>>
>
> And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post
> accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.
>

I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?
Damn!
Frank
 
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:54:14 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:

>>> Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself
>>> off-topic? It's off-topic squared.
>>>
>>> In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an
>>> example of hypocrisy?
>>>
>>
>> And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post
>> accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.
>>
>
>I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?

You wouldn't get very far in any math quiz since you can't get past 20
even with you barefoot. Just face facts Frankie, you're an idiot and
everybody knows it.
 
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21300b676c2f8ba4989906@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <eg9VVuR4HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> noone@afakeddomain.net says...
>> And that same zealotry mantra of the ignorant can be seen from the
>> windows side too.
>
> Yep, it's not something that is unique to ANY OS. I use to know a couple
> network admins that logged in as a root level account on AIX for their
> daily work - they said it made thing simpler :)

It really depends on the person, but in general over the years I found
Windows users for the most part to be less knowledgeable of how thier
computer works than a typical Linux or Unix user.

As for running as root, I'd never recommend doing it on a live system, but
on my personal Linux system I've been doing it for years. I do not let most
processes/services run as root, and in general run programs as normal users.
It just depends on what you do with the system, what your usage habits are
like, and how you set things up, and also is it your personal system + do
you know what you are doing. The latter tends not always apply to the joe
"home edition" Windows user.
 
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.212fcfd4aba5db7c989902@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <5imefqF3m3hpaU1@mid.individual.net>, louis@h4h.com says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.212fc5ecf8f7e8289898fe@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> > 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.
>>
>> The article had nothing to do with a Linux security problem, it was
>> clueless
>> admins at fault, allowing someone to use "brute force" to get in. Just
>> how
>> often do we hear about security problems in Linux vs Windows, hmmm?
>
> And that would follow the ignorant masses problem that all OS's suffer.
> which is the point of my post. You have Zealots stating the XYZ is safer
> and that it can't be hacked and then when they are disproven, for the
> same reasons that many Windows boxes are hacked, they get disgruntled.

The article at the head of this post does NOT say a Linux system was hacked,
it said someone got in via brute force - trying password after password
until one works. It said the perp was trying for a long time, something that
should of never been allowed if someoen was watching things. That was a
failure on the admin's part, NOT the system. This is something that happens
infinately more on Windows boxes (though it's nto limited to them) and you
know it.

It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that
you haven't even read the article.

If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone
can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates
over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call
that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.
 
"Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:13oxi.30212$jH3.21153@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Wayne Poe" <louis@h4h.com> wrote in message
> news:5imejlF3qjhjjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> 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.
>>
>> For the most part it is. How ever the article wasn't about a security
>> problem in Linux, rather about admins at some data center not doing thier
>> jobs. That's a world of a difference.
>
> Not to me it isn't. Their machines were attacking others. That, is
> a security problem, by every definition of the word.

Which could of been prevented if they weren't asleep at their posts.

> If someone else other than them is expected to do something
> about it, then what's the point? They manned up and said that
> they didn't apply the patches. That's their fault.

Patches or not, they neglected their duty as sysadmins.

> MS makes it easy. Microsoft update. Every day. Not so stupid now.

Which can force you to reboot if you're running as a non admin user on
Vista.

> Linux is good. Don't get me wrong. But it is fallible too.

I've bene using various distros and versions of Linux, for both
home/personal usage and as an admin of live servers, and I really haven't
found much fallible about it. The core is rock solid. What's fallible is
running out dated software with known security holes. A good sysadmin would
stay on top of that, and at the very least watch the logs, keep an eye on
who is and has bene connecting and such.

> Anyone who reads cert.org can tell you that. Luckily, most
> people who know how to do bad things don't do them to
> linux as frequently as they do them to us. Doesn't mean it
> can't be done. It can.

It can, but it's not so much Linux but either bad software or improperly
configured software. Again, that is a sizable difference when you compare to
all the security flaws at Window's core, which includes IE (ever since they
integrated it into Explorer back in Win 98.) Just look at how many exploits
are found at the _core_ and sometimes patches are then released to try to
fix them and sometimes new one arises. Problems at the core problems are
generally not an issue in Linux, but rather the different softwares that run
with in.

Bottom line, security patches help, doing your job as a system's
administrator is even better. There just sin't any substitute for that imho.
 
Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:54:14 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Well, isn't your complaining about the post being off-topic itself
>>>>off-topic? It's off-topic squared.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, isn't a complaint about something being off-topic an
>>>>example of hypocrisy?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And what does this post of yours complaining about my 'OT' post
>>>accomplish? The same thing, but cubed.
>>>
>>
>>I bet we're now gonna have a math quiz, right?
>
>
> You wouldn't get very far in any math quiz since you can't get past 20
> even with you barefoot. Just face facts Frankie, you're an idiot and
> everybody knows it.
>
>

At least I don't have to resort to counting the pimples on my ass like
you do...you moron!
Frank
 
The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> 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 was not run off. I just got tired of the infantile behaviour on the
part of the Franks and Richard Urbans of the world and realized that
life is far too short to be playing the round and round with them. In
addition, as I never plan to buy Vista, I saw no reason to continue my
subscription to the Vista group. I must, however, have really pushed
some buttons for Richard Urban to post this obviously desperate message
about Linux being "hacked".

To clarify, I never said that Linux is "bullet proof". It's just a
helluva lot more bullet proof than Windows.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
"The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@non.not> wrote in message news:fa513l$7j3$2@aioe.org...
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>>
>> Interesting to see that you felt it was important to direct this thread
>> to a group it wasn't part of.
>>
>> Richard posted to Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
>>
>> And you've changed the thread to include:
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>>
>> Why did you feel the need to start trolling the group that way? Certainly
>> you just made it off-topic like you're complaining.
>>
>
> You are trying to change the subject again. Did you forget to take your
> ADD medication this morning?

The mob needs tar-and-feather and run you out of town too, because you're
nothing but a troll.
 
"Curtis D. Levin" <cdlevin@spammelater.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:snmxi.6328$7e6.4084@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> 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.

So you're saying you can talk about whatever you like as long as you're "Pro
Vista"?

I hope we don't get visited by a group of Vista loving pig infertility
clinic technicians, that's all I can say.
 
In article <5inaqfF3pv8spU1@mid.individual.net>, savagebeaste@yahoo.com
says...
> It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that
> you haven't even read the article.
>
> If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone
> can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates
> over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call
> that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.

Um, you didn't understand what I wrote - I use Windows and Linux and
enjoy both, but, it clearly shows how ignorant users can compromise a
system. The fault of a bad password is the same fault that windows users
suffer, complete incompetence and ignorance.

This clearly shows that a Linux box, under use/control by ignorant
users, can be compromised, and it's just that simple.

--

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)
 
In article <ezzzSEW4HHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
iamalias@shoesgmail.com. says...
> To clarify, I never said that Linux is "bullet proof". It's just a
> helluva lot more bullet proof than Windows.

In the hands of the ignorant masses, the article proves that it's not
more "bullet proof" than Windows. Password failures are one of the
largest causes of system compromise.

What the article proves is that any OS, in the hands of stupid/ignorant
people can be compromised and used by unauthorized people.


--

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)
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <5inaqfF3pv8spU1@mid.individual.net>, savagebeaste@yahoo.com
> says...
>> It's amazing how people like you just jump on the band wagon and show that
>> you haven't even read the article.
>>
>> If you think Linux has been actually "cracked" then site an instance. Anyone
>> can site and try over and over, or evne run an pllication that permutates
>> over every combination, and/or runs through a dictionary file. I hardly call
>> that "cracking"... most would call that a admin asleep at the helm.
>
> Um, you didn't understand what I wrote - I use Windows and Linux and
> enjoy both, but, it clearly shows how ignorant users can compromise a
> system. The fault of a bad password is the same fault that windows users
> suffer, complete incompetence and ignorance.
>
> This clearly shows that a Linux box, under use/control by ignorant
> users, can be compromised, and it's just that simple.
>

Your supercilious disdain for computer users is noted. Fact is that an,
as you call it, "ignorant user" is far safer running Linux than Windows.
This is an indisputable fact.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 

Similar threads

T
Re: Linux servers hacked - who would have thought
2 3
Replies
55
Views
586
The poster formerly known as the poster formerly k
T
R
Linux servers hacked - who would have thought
9 10 11
Replies
217
Views
8K
Who is your daddy?
W
F
linux servers hacked...!
Replies
14
Views
750
RJK
R
T
Fast user switching and domains
Replies
4
Views
145
The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy
T
T
Fast user switching and domains
Replies
4
Views
103
The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy
T
Back
Top