Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by paul cook » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:37:46





to propose the following:

Quote:> Brought to you as a public service.
> That's two in one day.
> When will it end?

> Security Advisory - RHSA-2002:222-21

why are you cross-posting purely Linux security advisories into the XP
group??? They won't want to see them.

--
Paul Cooke
  Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
  Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/
 11:35pm  up 14 days, 11:39,  3 users,  load average: 0.24, 0.30, 0.24

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Peter K?hlman » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:48:50



> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:37:46 GMT, paul cooke



>>to propose the following:

>>> Brought to you as a public service.
>>> That's two in one day.
>>> When will it end?

>>> Security Advisory - RHSA-2002:222-21

>>why are you cross-posting purely Linux security advisories into the XP
>>group??? They won't want to see them.

> Lot's of them run Linux as well.

And you think they are too stupid to check for updates? Yep, that sounds
about right
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Jeff » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:11:28





> to propose the following:

>> Brought to you as a public service.
>> That's two in one day.
>> When will it end?

>> Security Advisory - RHSA-2002:222-21

> why are you cross-posting purely Linux security advisories into the XP
> group??? They won't want to see them.

Because he is a stupid fscking troll.
 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Mark » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:48:07





>>Brought to you as a public service.
>>That's two in one day.
>>When will it end?

> Makes you wonder how many security holes there are in
> software where the vendor only tells you about them as
> a last resort.

You mean Microsoft?
 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Jeff » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:44:35



> Do you ever say anything of substance?

Ha!! That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

> BTW, based on most of the attacks that have caused damage, most sys admins
> seem to be seriously lacking in checking for updates.

You mean most M$ admins that have no fscking clue what they are doing.

Quote:

> In addition, as further proof of your having never been even close to a
> glass house data center, most large data centers, especially those with
> multiple sites, have very strict rules and procedures (change management )
> in place that dictate what/when/where and how systems get upgraded.
> Meaning, one just doesn't "upgrade" a system at will simply because RH or
> otherwise issues an advisory.

Ha!! What the fsck do you know about data centers? This is funny some
stupid fsck home user thinking he know something about data centers and
IT.

Quote:

> But seeing as you are a 13 year old script kidde, you wouldn't have a clue
> about that.

> Back to your bunker idiot

Go get a life you stupid fsck want to be IT admin!!
 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Rick » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:03:40




>>Brought to you as a public service.
>>That's two in one day.
>>When will it end?

> Makes you wonder how many security holes there are in software where the
> vendor only tells you about them as a last resort.

That is micros$oft, dumbass.

Since I registered my distro, I get reports from Red Hat emailed to me.

--
Rick

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by alw » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:04:58



> Brought to you as a public service.
> That's two in one day.
> When will it end?

Why don't you post Microsoft security anouncements? And then you could post
a running total of M$ vs Red Hat.

How many security patches has M$ released?

We really need your retarded public services.

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Rob Hughe » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:23:18




>> Brought to you as a public service.
>> That's two in one day.
>> When will it end?

> Why don't you post Microsoft security anouncements? And then you could
> post a running total of M$ vs Red Hat.

> How many security patches has M$ released?

> We really need your retarded public services.

And since he still thinks every GNU app bundled with a typical Linux
distrobution is part of the OS, let's make sure we include IIS, Office,
SQL, ISA, Outlook, IE, OE, etc., etc.

--
Remember: the only difference between
being the champ and the chump is u.

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Rob Hughe » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:24:03





>>Brought to you as a public service.
>>That's two in one day.
>>When will it end?

> Makes you wonder how many security holes there are in
> software where the vendor only tells you about them as
> a last resort.

There's at least 6 in IE that MS won't acknowledge or fix, so, yeah, it
does.

--
Remember: the only difference between
being the champ and the chump is u.

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Rob Hughe » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:25:56



> FWIW I was well above an I/T (get it right next time please) admin when I
> left the industry and retired.

Oh... a PHB. That explains everything...

--
Remember: the only difference between
being the champ and the chump is u.

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by cybea » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:47:10





>>> Brought to you as a public service.
>>> That's two in one day.
>>> When will it end?

>> Why don't you post Microsoft security anouncements? And then you could
>> post a running total of M$ vs Red Hat.

>> How many security patches has M$ released?

>> We really need your retarded public services.

> And since he still thinks every GNU app bundled with a typical Linux
> distrobution is part of the OS, let's make sure we include IIS, Office,
> SQL, ISA, Outlook, IE, OE, etc., etc.

begin  now_why.vbs

Why would you think there would be any bug or security issues with Outlook?
Doesn't MS fix all the bugs in its software right away?

end

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Roy Cull » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:49:10





>>Go get a life you stupid fsck want to be IT admin!!

> Typical Linonut envy.

> FWIW I was well above an I/T (get it right next time please) admin
> when I left the industry and retired.

Well I am an IT admin. You have obviously been out of the loop for
a long time. Nobody, except you it seems, uses I/T today.

Quote:> You obviously haven't a clue as to what change management is about
> which is why you try to cloud the reply with insults.

The problem is the rate of MS security patches and the fact that they
often either don't fix the bug properly, introduce new security bugs
or even crash the system. There are no doubt lazy MS admins as there
are any other IT admins. But many MS admins are just scared to install
patches.

Now I've been a *nix admin for well over 10 years and I've never come
across a security patch that didn't fix what it was meant to fix with
no undesired side effects. There again I very rarely need to install
security patches because most of them are for packages that aren't
installed on the systems I admin. These are stripped down hardened
systems.

That is why I have time to learn about new things relating to my job
and keep up to date in my field.

Quote:> It's a common defense mechanism of the ill informed, of which you are the
> current president, at least in COLA.

> It's obvious you have never worked in the industry.

Well it sounds like you are so out of date that anything you say is
worthless. As for being 'well above an I/T (get it right next time
please) admin' what position is that? A *nix admin is as close to GOD
as you can get. :-)

end

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Roy Cull » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:56:45






>>>Brought to you as a public service.
>>>That's two in one day.
>>>When will it end?

>> Makes you wonder how many security holes there are in software where the
>> vendor only tells you about them as a last resort.

> That is micros$oft, dumbass.

> Since I registered my distro, I get reports from Red Hat emailed to me.

I've noticed that MS no longer send their security patch announcements
to bugtraq. Obviously they think they have a better mechanism for
making sure that all MS admins receive the information. Or could it be
that bugtraq subscribers so often found fault with their patches?

end

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Rick » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:07:41







>>>>> Brought to you as a public service.
>>>>> That's two in one day.
>>>>> When will it end?

>>>> Why don't you post Microsoft security anouncements? And then you could
>>>> post a running total of M$ vs Red Hat.

>>>> How many security patches has M$ released?

>>>> We really need your retarded public services.

>>> And since he still thinks every GNU app bundled with a typical Linux
>>> distrobution is part of the OS, let's make sure we include IIS, Office,
>>> SQL, ISA, Outlook, IE, OE, etc., etc.

>>Why would you think there would be any bug or security issues with
>>Outlook? Doesn't MS fix all the bugs in its software right away?

> 95 percent of the desktop market.

... first, that percentage is lower now..
Second... that percentage was/is achieved/maintained by illegal means.

--
Rick

 
 
 

Yet another Redhat Linux Security Problem.

Post by Roy Cull » Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:20:36





>> Brought to you as a public service.  That's two in one day.  When
>> will it end?

> Why don't you post Microsoft security anouncements? And then you
> could post a running total of M$ vs Red Hat.

MS now bundle security anouncements. I don't know of anyone else that
does this. They do it so that Ewik and friends can then say MS made
less security announcements than their competitors.  Of course if you
add up all the security bugs within these announcements the number is
still appalling hence another reason why they do it..

MS SW is fundamentally flawed. They have admitted it themselves and
stated it would take years to fix it. Years? Pull the other one. Only
a rewrite with security in mind will fix it. Oh, that's exactly what
they are doing.

What about BG's leaked email about trustworthy computing. A whole
month when development was stopped to scour the code for security
exploits. The result? Another security announcement with about 10
security bugs patched. Brilliant no? No. Of those exploits only a
couple were found by MS. So the thousands of MS SW engineers who
produced the code found about 1/5 the number of security exploits
that others without access to even the code found!

Quote:> How many security patches has M$ released?

Who cares. They just keep coming and coming. Glad I'm not a MS
admin.

Quote:> We really need your retarded public services.

It's a shame when someones mental faculties start to fail them.

end

 
 
 

1. Yet another Redhat security advisory.

1) The found it. 2) They fixed it. 3) There seems to have been no actual
attacks using it, at least on a widespread basis.

At least it can be done without a reboot.

--
When will men learn that all races are equally inferior to robots?
2:37:32  up  3:41,  1 user,  load average: 0.04, 0.05, 0.07
RX bytes:24163155 (23.0 Mb)  TX bytes:2123502 (2.0 Mb)
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.

2. Logical Volumes and Journaled FS

3. uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux uninstall REDhat linux

4. Encapsulation of boot drives in Volume Manager

5. And still yet another RHN Linux Security Alert

6. Writing to parallel port in Linux.

7. RHN Linux Security Alert yet again!

8. Binaries for Khoros (1.0.5 or 2.0) available?

9. Yet another Linux Security Advisory.

10. Oh My, yet still ANOTHER Linux Security issue.

11. Yet another Solaris PPP problem, as yet unanswered

12. are the header file and compiler problems fixed yet in RedHat 7.0?

13. Yet another NTP/Redhat problem