ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   13 Aug 2001  17:11:58
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/0809/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]On the Desktop
     [8]Development
     [9]Commerce
     [10]Linux in the news
     [11]Announcements
     [12]Linux History
     Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    August 9, 2001
    
    
 From:    Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <jbrockmeier@earthlink.net>
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: Are you kidding?
 Date:    Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:09:41 -0600 (MDT)
 
 Hey guys,
 
 I think you blew it, saying that the Linux Today incident should be
 left behind so easily. Reichard only responded to the astroturfing
 accusation, saying nothing about the accusations that he refused to
 link to other sites, or that he was actively disparaging other Linux
 news sources. It also doesn't address the accusation that he's actively
 struck down other people's postings. I'm not saying that he has actually
 done all these things, though I have experienced LinuxToday holding
 news submissions appearing on other sites for upwards of three to four
 days, while other news submissions were posted immediately. But, he should
 have addressed all of these issues.
 
 Frankly, LinuxToday has sank farther and farther downhill since
 Internet.com has taken it over - and irresponsible people like Reichard
 do not deserve to be let off the hook so lightly. It's fine for him
 to have an opinion, but he should have the cojones to own up to his
 opinion under his own name. If he can't do that, he doesn't belong in
 the business.
 
 His apology does not go far enough. If this were a print publication, he'd
 be out on the street. I find it disheartening that anyone would feel that
 this should be dismissed so easily.
 
 Take care,
 
 Zonker
 --
 Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier -=- jbrockmeier@earthlink.net
 [16]http://www.DissociatedPress.net/
 Free Dmitry Skylarov! [17]http://www.freeskylarov.org/
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 "I'll sleep when I'm dead." -- Warren Zevon
 
    
 From:    Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
 To:      jake@iki.fi
 Subject: RE: Usage of SSH
 Date:    Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:27:44 -0600
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 > I've just been wondering why every time there is a problem with Secure
 > Shell from SSH Communications Security Corp (which, believe me, is really
 > rare), it is so clearly stated that the problem is only in the commercial
 > product, but when the problem is in an open source implementation of the
 > protocol, quite a few sites don't bother making the point of specifying
 > the product. They just talk about SSH.
 
 That might be because (according to measurements we have been doing
 for about a year) OpenSSH is fast becoming the most popular SSH
 Protocol server on the net, especially for Protocol 2.  As well,
 especially in the Open Source community, OpenSSH is very nearly the
 exclusive choice, since it is included in the OS distributions.
 
 See [18]http://www.openssh.com/usage for our graphs.  (They are currently
 being moved from elsewhere, so if you cannot get at them, try again
 later).
 
 Secondly, I think your sense of history is somewhat clouded.  The
 deattack bug hit pretty much everyone's servers and clients, and it
 was very clear who fixed it first.  We posted far and wide about the
 issue, pretty much saying we had screwed up.  ssh.com took quite a
 while to fix it.  Maybe people noticed?  Or maybe not.
 
 > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open source, but looks like open source
 > folks are quite good at FUD too.
 
 But probably not intentionally.
 
 Apparently you live in Finland, a fairly small country where ssh.com
 is located; if you attribute the situation stated above to malice on
 our part instead of an informed decision of the masses, are we to
 assume the same of you?  No, let's just stop right there.
 
 ps. I can't believe I just used the phrase "informed masses".
 
    
 From:    Mace Moneta <mmoneta@optonline.net>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Regarding Dmitry Sklyarov
 Date:    Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:07:17 -0400
 
 Regarding Dmitry Sklyarov, I was wondering why the U.S. Attorney's
 Office has not arrested the researchers at IBM and AT&T Labs responsible
 for Quantum Computing and Quantum Factoring algorithms.  Clearly, their
 primary function is the circumvention of existing encryption methods.
  In fact, there have been several papers explaining the weakness of
 commonly used encyption when confronted by a "quantum attack".
 
 These circumvention devices can render the encryption methods, which are
 used to protect not only copyrighted material but secret material as
 well, worthless -- a blatant and flagrant violation of the DMCA as far
 as I can tell.
 
 In fact, this development appears to be part of a broad conspiracy.
  There are "hacker communities" passing the "mathematics" and "physics"
 (terms commonly used by these hackers) to new generations.  These
 "teachers" are the equivalent of drug dealers, giving our youth the
 taste of illegal knowledge needed to progress the battle against decent
 and law abiding copyright holders.
 
 I hope that our Attorney General steps in and declares war on these
 menaces to society.
 
 Sickening, isn't it?
 
 Mace Moneta
 mace@monetafamily.org
 
    
 From:    Joe Klemmer <klemmerj@webtrek.com>
 To:      <letters@lwn.net>
 Subject: A minor clarification on the Dmitry Sklyarov situation
 Date:    Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
         While I, like any other US citizen with at least two brain cells,
 deplore the incarceration of Dmitry Sklyarov and the whole foundation of
 the DMCA there's one thing that might be good to point out.  I've seen
 many people outraged over the fact that he is being held without a bond or
 parole hearing.  As Mr. Sklyarov is not a US citizen he is not entitled to
 the same rights as the rest of us.  Unfortunately the "government" can
 virtually hold him indefinitely.
 
         No I don't like it any more than you do but it's the way it works.
 
 - ---
 The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
 discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
                 -- Isaac Asimov
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
 Comment: For info see [19]http://www.gnupg.org
 
 iD8DBQE7aYePHeWRPx8OIHARAn3FAKCaVN8nTu8i5U57lgPBtQH6DHqJbACfeOgx
 Yi3VeaSlArpNJYEoXAZRUGA=
 =Bz+e
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
    
 From:    Leon Brooks <leon@cyberknights.com.au>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: To vigilant, or not to vigilant - that is the question
 Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:27:29 +0800
 
 By now we all know about CodeRedII and SirCam. We also know that
 hosting menaces like these is an almost exclusive property of
 Microsoft software. The question has been raised: do we have the
 right to, uh, proactively defend ourselves from the infected servers?
 And if so, how much defending should we do?
 
 In my case, as I write, each of the single-IP servers here is taking
 a hit about every three minutes. At about 460 bytes a hit, that's 8k
 per hour per server. Not something to get flustered about. OTOH,
 other places are reporting a hundred times the rate, and web service
 in general appears to be a bit dodgy at the moment.
 
 While any one server is not doing much damage, many raindrops make a
 flood. This flood is impacting my ability to use the Internet (my
 livelihood) and sooner or later the effect of exponents is going to
 result in something like a tidal bore.
 
 This morning, I contacted a software supplier for the client I am
 working for now, to find out why an update hadn't arrived. It turned
 out that over the weekend, SirCam had buried their Exchange servers
 in jokes, porn, proposals and service reports.
 
 Today, their intranet webserver was down for repairs after being
 CodeRedded, oh, and by the way their proxy server apparently had a
 web server up on it too, so all they have left is the 'phones and
 snail mail. Snail mail would take three or four days to get here from
 Queensland, and I'm going home tomorrow.
 
 So both directly and indirectly, CodeRedII and SirCam have damaged my
 business, and the businesses of those I contract to. At law, I have
 certain rights of self-defense.
 
 One of the side effects of SirCam is that it tells you that the
 originator is running binary emails. One of the side effects of
 CodeRedII is installing a public shell. Each machine has come to my
 client or server and told me how to get back to it and do what I
 please with it.
 
 The opportunities are obvious. What should I do with them? I wrote a
 one-pager PHP script that I call CodeRed2 Explorer, for
 point-and-click navigation of and experimentation with compromised
 hosts. But what next?
 
 The obvious first step would be to contact the originators and
 complain. This has several disadvantages, including that the the
 machine or mailbox might not be attended, the recipient might not
 understand or believe my message, and the recipient might not be able
 to do anything about it.
 
 So, am I within my rights to respond by deleting the offending
 program (Outlook or IIS) and/or shutting down the attacking machine?
 I'm pretty sure that uploading a Linux installer to the offending
 machine and running it is going too far, but I wonder how many others
 would agree, and how many would regard that as a final solution for
 the problem?
 
    
 From:    Matthew.Ramsay@lineo.com
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Reply to Jay R. Ashworth on PoPToP and SnapGear
 Date:    Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:05:39 -0600
 I'd like to make some things clear about where PoPToP comes from, Jay
 Ashworth's comments and where SnapGear is taking PoPToP.
 
 I wrote PoPToP back in February 1999 for MoretonBay's NETtel platform (now
 called SecureEdge). Around April that year I made some changes for it to
 work on x86 platforms and released PoPToP to the GPL community. There was
 no existing PPTP server for Linux back then so the idea was to give back to
 the community I enjoyed being a part of by providing something that hadn't
 been written yet.
 
 In May 2000, Lineo purchased Moreton Bay and continued funding work on
 PoPToP on the Coldfire platform (of which the NETtel -- renamed SecureEdge
 -- used). At all times though we kept the PoPToP source code for the
 Coldfire platform (and x86 platform) available. I focused my efforts on the
 Coldfire and occasionally applied patches from various people to the x86
 platform and released new versions. As I've got busier over the last year
 the x86 tree became more difficult for me to maintain. However, I'd be more
 than happy to help someone (perhaps Jay?) to fold Coldfire patches and
 other patches into the x86 platform and let them contribute back into the
 community.
 
 Also, SnapGear was recently spun-off from Lineo to target the SOHO VPN
 market and includes PoPToP as one of its VPN solutions. Again, SnapGear's
 focus is on the Coldfire platform. Both Lineo and SnapGear together have
 thousands of people and companies already using the Coldfire port of PoPToP
 as their VPN solution and it works great. In this environment it needs to
 work well.. and we've worked hard to make it so.
 
 Finally, of all the developers I've worked with and even the companies I
 have worked with (Moreton Bay, Lineo and SnapGear) they have all actively
 contributed to the GPL community and are continuing to do so. It is a great
 thing to see and be a part of.
 Cheers,
 Matt.
    
 From:    cpb@log2.net
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Woody by Christmas?
 Date:    2 Aug 2001 14:20:29 -0000
 
 On the Distributions page of the LWN issue of 2001-08-02, you suggest that
 a release of Debian Woody is expected by Christmas. However, your reference
 (Debian Weekly News for July 31) says that Woody will be released by Christmas
 "if everything goes BETTER than planned" (emphasis mine). Anyone who expects
 Woody by Christmas is a...uh...optimist. But as Mr. Stallman says, "it will
 be done sooner if you help!"       - Chris Bopp
 
    
 From:    "Schaefer, Peter" <peter.schaefer@gmx.de>
 To:      "'lwn@lwn.net'" <lwn@lwn.net>
 Subject: "Open source databases have some catching up to do" - not quite
 Date:    8 Aug 2001 10:41:38 +0200
 
 Dear LWN editors,
 
 this news article on your daily updates page
 finally triggered a response by me, because
 there is - since the beginning of the year -
 a full featured, 24/7 capable database system
 available as full GPL'd , LGPL'd open-source:
 SAP-DB.
 
 It's maybe not widely known outside of germany,
 but the SAP guys in Berlin do a tremendous good
 job. SAP-DB is used as the data center for many
 SAP/R3 installations worldwide, has nearby full SQL92
 compliancy and can even be switched to other SQL-dialects
 like Oracle or AdabasD. Stored procedures, triggers and
 relational constraints are available, additionally several
 log backup strategies are possible without the need to
 pause the database, making 24/7 operation possible.
 
 Client libraries include JDBC, ODBC and a C-Precompiler;
 full source available, LGPL'd.
 
 Conclusion: There is at least one open-source DB which
 doesn't need to catch-up, i think ;).
 
 Link: [20]http://www.sap.com/solutions/technology/sapdb/
 
 Best Regards,
 
   Peter
 --
 peter.schaefer@gmx.de
 
    
 From:    "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
 To:      torvalds@transmeta.com
 Subject: Happy 10th Anniversary
 Date:    Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:53:44 -0400
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 What a long, strange trip it's been.  Thanks, man; you gave me
 something to do for a decade.
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra@baylink.com
 Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
 The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
 Tampa Bay, Florida        [21]http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 804 5
 015
 
                     Linux: the Choice of a GNU Generation
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [22]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [23]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/0809/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0802/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://www.DissociatedPress.net/
   17. http://www.freeskylarov.org/
   18. http://www.openssh.com/usage
   19. http://www.gnupg.org/
   20. http://www.sap.com/solutions/technology/sapdb/
   21. http://baylink.pitas.com/
   22. http://www.eklektix.com/
   23. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор