DDOS attack Microsoft

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Manoj Paul Joseph, Sep 7, 2003.

  1. Hi,

    I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?

    Regards,
    Manoj
    Manoj Paul Joseph, Sep 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Colin Wilson Guest

    > I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    > (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    > It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    > Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?


    I`m probably wrong here, but from my understanding, the DDOS was aimed at
    a specific web address - by re-routing traffic via an alternative way,
    the attempted DDOS failed because it was only trying to attack the
    original site.

    Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)

    --
    Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    Colin Wilson, Sep 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hi,

    > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)

    Why Linux based servers?
    Anyone any idea?

    Regards,
    Manoj


    "Colin Wilson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    > > (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    > > It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    > > Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?

    >
    > I`m probably wrong here, but from my understanding, the DDOS was aimed at
    > a specific web address - by re-routing traffic via an alternative way,
    > the attempted DDOS failed because it was only trying to attack the
    > original site.
    >
    > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    > or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    Manoj Paul Joseph, Sep 7, 2003
    #3
  4. Manoj Paul Joseph wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)

    >
    > Why Linux based servers?


    Because the company that they contracted (Akamai) uses Linux.


    Erik
    --
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    Erik de Castro Lopo (Yes it's valid)
    +-----------------------------------------------------------+
    "A program invented (sic) by a Finnish computer hacker and handed out
    free in 1991 cost investors in Microsoft $11 billion (£6.75 billion)
    this week." - Andrew Butcher in the UK's Sunday Times, Feb 20th, 1999
    Erik de Castro Lopo, Sep 7, 2003
    #4
  5. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Colin Wilson Guest

    > > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    > Why Linux based servers?
    > Anyone any idea?


    They`re more reliable than Microsoft based ones ;-)

    --
    Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    Colin Wilson, Sep 7, 2003
    #5
  6. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Mark Dodel Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    <> wrote:

    -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    -> Why Linux based servers?
    -> Anyone any idea?
    ->

    Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    service.

    gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    Microsoft. ;-)

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    http://www.os2voice.org
    Warpstock 2003, San Francisco, October 18-19th -
    http://www.warpstock.org
    Mark Dodel, Sep 7, 2003
    #6
  7. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Leythos Guest

    In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    > -> Why Linux based servers?
    > -> Anyone any idea?
    > ->
    >
    > Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    > machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    > servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    > initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    > service.
    >
    > gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    > Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    > products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    > Microsoft. ;-)


    Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.

    The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing
    Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,
    OS/2, Windows, etc...

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Sep 7, 2003
    #7
  8. As Colin Wilson so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 07 Sep 2003 at 11:48 GMT:

    >> I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    >> (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    >> It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    >> Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?

    >
    > I`m probably wrong here, but from my understanding, the DDOS was aimed at
    > a specific web address - by re-routing traffic via an alternative way,
    > the attempted DDOS failed because it was only trying to attack the
    > original site.


    The way MICROS~1 explained it (meaning it's probably a lie), the
    address being attacked wasn't the real address. It was an oft-used
    address that they automatically forwarded to the real one. They simply
    stopped the forwarding.

    The trick of hiding behind linux servers was for a later attack. That
    was "coincidence"(tm) because it was someone they simply contracted
    with, without making any effort to check what they were running.

    That's how you make billions in big business: by not checking
    everything you're about to do and the background on those you're about
    to do it with.

    > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)


    Now they're running on "unknown". Bet it's still linux or*BSD:

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=microsoft.com

    Here's a link to their information regarding what happened and when
    (date posted at the bottom):

    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/17/wwwmicrosoftcom_runs_linux_up_to_a_point_.html

    At the time, netcraft was showing IIS running on linux hosted by Akamai.
    That changed a day or two later, when MICROS~1 was humiliated by it.

    --
    I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner
    that fish follow migrating caribou.
    Sinister Midget, Sep 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Alan Connor Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    > says...
    >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    >> -> Why Linux based servers?
    >> -> Anyone any idea?
    >> ->
    >>
    >> Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    >> machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    >> servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    >> initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    >> service.
    >>
    >> gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    >> Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    >> products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    >> Microsoft. ;-)

    >
    > Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    > less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    >
    > The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    > complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing
    > Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    > without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    > all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,
    > OS/2, Windows, etc...
    >


    The above is, simply, garbage.

    UNIX-like OSs were created to do real work in the real world.

    M$ Oss were created by self-involved game-players who are STILL trying
    to turn the computer/internet into a rec-room and shopping mall.

    (unfortuanetely, too many linux distros are following their lead)

    Compared to M$, *nix systems are a miracle of efficiency,stability, and
    securtity.



    Posted by an M$ user, of course:


    Web Images Groups Directory News
    Searched the web for "MicroPlanet Gravity" . Results 1 - 10 of about 7,430. Sea
    Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on
    the search button.

    Tom's Gravity Pages
    Almost everything about MicroPlanet Gravity and Super
    Gravity, the free usenet news reader for Windows. ...
    lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/ - 12k - Sep 6, 2003 - Cached -
    Similar pages






    > --
    > --
    >
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)



    No, you are not spam free.

    More garbage.



    Alan C


    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
    Alan Connor, Sep 7, 2003
    #9
  10. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Bill Unruh Guest

    Leythos <> writes:

    ]In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    ] says...
    ]> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    ]> <> wrote:
    ]>
    ]> -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    ]> -> Why Linux based servers?
    ]> -> Anyone any idea?
    ]> ->
    ]>
    ]> Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    ]> machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    ]> servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    ]> initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    ]> service.
    ]>
    ]> gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    ]> Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    ]> products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    ]> Microsoft. ;-)

    ]Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    ]less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.

    ]The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    ]complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing

    No, it is also MS. The latest blaster worm used a hole in the MS
    product. If you claim that it is others fault because they did not know
    about, download and install the patch, how the hell were they supposed
    to know about it, download and install it? MS did not send and email to
    all registered uses and send and email and money to all registered
    Windows dealers to contact their customers to install the patch.
    If the wheels fall of a truck because of design flaw, noone would blame
    the driver who did not happen to know about the advisory on that flaw,
    which was never advertised, but was available if you phoned the
    manufacturer. And the manufacturer never told the dealers, and refused
    to pay the dealers to fix the flaw.

    Tort law in software is absurd. US tort law has become rediculous in
    many directions and then there is this huge hole where for some reason
    software manufacturers are immune from any tort whatsoever.

    ]Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    ]without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    ]all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,

    No, it is also in teh manufacturer making secure products and making
    sure that dealers and customers are informed when flaws are discovered
    (and that dealers are compensated for fixing the flaws and notifying
    their customers.)
    Bill Unruh, Sep 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Leythos Guest

    In article <8%I6b.2581$>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    > > says...
    > >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    > >> -> Why Linux based servers?
    > >> -> Anyone any idea?
    > >> ->
    > >>
    > >> Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    > >> machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    > >> servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    > >> initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    > >> service.
    > >>
    > >> gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    > >> Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    > >> products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    > >> Microsoft. ;-)

    > >
    > > Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    > > less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    > >
    > > The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    > > complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing
    > > Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    > > without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    > > all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,
    > > OS/2, Windows, etc...
    > >

    >
    > The above is, simply, garbage.
    >
    > UNIX-like OSs were created to do real work in the real world.


    Almost ALL OS's were created to do real work - being a NIX OS vs any
    other flavor doesn't mean anything - unless you are blind.

    > M$ Oss were created by self-involved game-players who are STILL trying
    > to turn the computer/internet into a rec-room and shopping mall.


    While I was offering real information you appear to be another Linux
    zealot and not someone that has any interest in a real discussion. AIX,
    and SCO were not 100% secure and you could play many games on them if
    you wanted too - I know, I managed many installations, while never being
    hacked, we were patching services all the time and uninstalling things
    users should not have access to.

    MS brought the cheap personal PC into the home - back in the early 70's
    there were only a handful of them (computers) in anyones home and they
    didn't run MS or Unix - most of them ran CPM or another older OS.

    MS provided something that many people needed at the time, and was held
    back by the problem of being so widely adopted that they have to
    maintain backwards compatibility to the point that they were stuck in
    certain paths - which was to make it easy for systems to be used in
    business (small offices and large offices) - which they did quite well.
    Once the public gained access to the internet there were those same
    issues that cause problems (easy to access).

    > (unfortuanetely, too many linux distros are following their lead)
    >
    > Compared to M$, *nix systems are a miracle of efficiency,stability, and
    > securtity.


    I disagree - I've used many real Unix based systems and can honestly say
    that I have many NT 4 and Windows 2000 servers that are every bit as
    stable and provide the same levels of service as my AIX and SCO
    machines.

    > Posted by an M$ user, of course:


    I use MS products, never claimed I didn't. In fact, I happen to use W2K
    and WXP for the majority of my systems and development stations - the
    majority of the business apps we develop run on the MS platform. I also
    have 4 Linux servers running websites along side my IIS ones running
    ASP.Net sites... I'm not stuck in a one OS world, each has a valid
    purpose and I use them for what they do best.

    > Web Images Groups Directory News
    > Searched the web for "MicroPlanet Gravity" . Results 1 - 10 of about 7,430. Sea
    > Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on
    > the search button.
    >
    > Tom's Gravity Pages
    > Almost everything about MicroPlanet Gravity and Super
    > Gravity, the free usenet news reader for Windows. ...
    > lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/ - 12k - Sep 6, 2003 - Cached -
    > Similar pages


    Gravity is a great news reader - been using it for years, and I already
    said I use windows based systems (in addition to my AIX and SCO
    systems).

    > >
    > > (Remove 999 to reply to me)

    >
    > No, you are not spam free.
    >
    > More garbage.


    It's a throw away address, sheesh, get a clue - I can create and delete
    accounts as needed.

    Did you forget to take your medication or are you always like this?

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Sep 7, 2003
    #11
  12. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Noi Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:08:11 +0000, Sinister Midget without thinking
    wrote:

    > As Colin Wilson so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 07 Sep 2003 at 11:48 GMT:
    >

    [snip]
    > The trick of hiding behind linux servers was for a later attack. That
    > was "coincidence"(tm) because it was someone they simply contracted
    > with, without making any effort to check what they were running.
    >
    >

    I doubt that MS was naive enough that it didn't know the kind of servers
    they would hide behind.

    [snip]
    Noi, Sep 7, 2003
    #12
  13. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Alan Connor Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:46:07 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > In article <8%I6b.2581$>,
    > says...
    >> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    >> >> -> Why Linux based servers?
    >> >> -> Anyone any idea?
    >> >> ->
    >> >>
    >> >> Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    >> >> machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    >> >> servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    >> >> initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    >> >> service.
    >> >>
    >> >> gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    >> >> Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    >> >> products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    >> >> Microsoft. ;-)
    >> >
    >> > Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    >> > less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    >> >
    >> > The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    >> > complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing
    >> > Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    >> > without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    >> > all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,
    >> > OS/2, Windows, etc...
    >> >

    >>
    >> The above is, simply, garbage.
    >>
    >> UNIX-like OSs were created to do real work in the real world.

    >
    > Almost ALL OS's were created to do real work - being a NIX OS vs any
    > other flavor doesn't mean anything - unless you are blind.



    "Almost" being the key word here.


    Gates and his preppy buddies were interested in making money by perverting
    the most incredible communications tool that has ever existed into another
    TV.




    >
    >> M$ Oss were created by self-involved game-players who are STILL trying
    >> to turn the computer/internet into a rec-room and shopping mall.

    >
    > While I was offering real information


    That's laughable.




    you appear to be another Linux
    > zealot and not someone that has any interest in a real discussion.


    The M$ operating system is a bad hack on DOS with badly-cloned features
    stolen from UNIX.


    As for a an apparently un-educated big mouth determing what is and isn't
    a "real discussion", I think not.






    > MS brought the cheap personal PC into the home - back in the early 70's
    > there were only a handful of them (computers) in anyones home and they
    > didn't run MS or Unix - most of them ran CPM or another older OS.
    >


    I'll give you that.


    But "Cheap" ????

    Gee, I have full Internet capabilities on a machine that I have put a
    TOTAL of maybe $30 into, including the FREE linux OS.

    And what does Windoze cost these days? Plus the tech support most Windoze
    users need?

    It and a machine that will deal with the bloated monstrosity?



    > MS provided something that many people needed at the time, and was held
    > back by the problem of being so widely adopted that they have to
    > maintain backwards compatibility to the point that they were stuck in
    > certain paths - which was to make it easy for systems to be used in
    > business (small offices and large offices) - which they did quite well.
    > Once the public gained access to the internet there were those same
    > issues that cause problems (easy to access).
    >
    >> (unfortuanetely, too many linux distros are following their lead)
    >>
    >> Compared to M$, *nix systems are a miracle of efficiency,stability, and
    >> securtity.

    >
    > I disagree - I've used many real Unix based systems and can honestly say
    > that I have many NT 4 and Windows 2000 servers that are every bit as
    > stable and provide the same levels of service as my AIX and SCO
    > machines.
    >


    Perhaps. But are 10X the size and anything but secure and a hassle beyond
    belief when something does go wrong, and very insecure.

    As well as being impossible to do any real tweaking with, because you can't
    get the sourcecode.


    And the cost compared to linux?



    >> Posted by an M$ user, of course:

    >
    > I use MS products, never claimed I didn't. In fact, I happen to use W2K
    > and WXP for the majority of my systems and development stations - the
    > majority of the business apps we develop run on the MS platform. I also
    > have 4 Linux servers running websites along side my IIS ones running
    > ASP.Net sites... I'm not stuck in a one OS world, each has a valid
    > purpose and I use them for what they do best.
    >


    One of the best days in my recent life was when I wrote random numbers 25X
    over the partition that M$ was on.


    >> Web Images Groups Directory News
    >> Searched the web for "MicroPlanet Gravity" . Results 1 - 10 of about 7,430. Sea
    >> Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on
    >> the search button.
    >>
    >> Tom's Gravity Pages
    >> Almost everything about MicroPlanet Gravity and Super
    >> Gravity, the free usenet news reader for Windows. ...
    >> lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/ - 12k - Sep 6, 2003 - Cached -
    >> Similar pages

    >
    > Gravity is a great news reader - been using it for years, and I already
    > said I use windows based systems (in addition to my AIX and SCO
    > systems).
    >


    Not in your first post. DUH


    >> >
    >> > (Remove 999 to reply to me)

    >>
    >> No, you are not spam free.
    >>
    >> More garbage.

    >
    > It's a throw away address, sheesh, get a clue - I can create and delete
    > accounts as needed.
    >
    > Did you forget to take your medication or are you always like this?
    >
    > --
    > --
    >
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)



    Yes, I always spot bullshitters (your spelling of UNIX as "Unix" gave you
    away: No UNIX professional would ever do that.)

    and expose them.


    Now go bore someone else, Microsoft Weenie.


    Alan C



    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
    Alan Connor, Sep 7, 2003
    #13
  14. Manoj Paul Joseph

    leslie Guest

    Alan Connor () wrote:
    : On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : > In article <cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-pWSciH3xVY54@localhost>,
    : > says...
    : >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:57:45 UTC, "Manoj Paul Joseph"
    : >> <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >> -> > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    : >> -> Why Linux based servers?
    : >> -> Anyone any idea?
    : >> ->
    : >>
    : >> Because as with almost every worm and virus out there it targets win32
    : >> machines. Linux is immune to these. Therefore microsoft's own
    : >> servers wouldn't be turned against themselves by the worm that
    : >> initiated the the problem by insulating them behind a Linux proxy
    : >> service.
    : >>
    : >> gates may be an unscrupulous bastard, but he certainly isn't stupid.
    : >> Even he knows that Linux is a more secure solution then his own
    : >> products. This is one case where people should take their lead from
    : >> Microsoft. ;-)
    : >
    : > Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    : > less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    : >
    : > The problem is not MS, it's the way people use the product and the
    : > complete ignorance of it's users/installers. We've been installing
    : > Windows in industrial and office locations for more than 10 years
    : > without a single instance of a virus or compromise in any station. It's
    : > all in knowing how to secure your OS, even if it's Linux, SCO, AIX,
    : > OS/2, Windows, etc...
    : >
    :
    : The above is, simply, garbage.
    :
    : UNIX-like OSs were created to do real work in the real world.
    :
    : M$ Oss were created by self-involved game-players who are STILL trying
    : to turn the computer/internet into a rec-room and shopping mall.
    :
    : (unfortuanetely, too many linux distros are following their lead)
    :
    : Compared to M$, *nix systems are a miracle of efficiency,stability, and
    : securtity.
    :
    :
    :
    : Posted by an M$ user, of course:
    :
    :
    : Web Images Groups Directory News
    : Searched the web for "MicroPlanet Gravity" . Results 1 - 10 of about 7,430. Sea
    : Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on
    : the search button.
    :
    : Tom's Gravity Pages
    : Almost everything about MicroPlanet Gravity and Super
    : Gravity, the free usenet news reader for Windows. ...
    : lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/ - 12k - Sep 6, 2003 - Cached -
    : Similar pages
    :

    OpenVMS was deemed "unhackable" at DEFCON9:

    http://www.pointsecure.com/Defconwhite.pdf

    OpenVMS was not allowed to compete in later DEFCON meetings because it
    wasn't deemed to be open, even though source code listings are available.

    There are some discussions in comp.os.vms about the number of CERT alerts
    for OpenVMS vs. commercial unix systems such as Solaris.

    OpenVMS is still considered the "Gold Standard" of multisite clustering;
    e.g.:

    http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/brochures/commerzbank/
    hp Alphaserver technology helps Commerzbank tolerate disaster
    on September 11

    "testing disaster tolerance

    While most large organizations today have plans for Disaster Tolerance
    (DT), few have to put them to the test. The North American
    headquarters of Commerzbank, located less than 100 yards from the
    World Trade Center in New York City, put its DT plan into action on
    September 11, 2001. Because Commerzbank relies on OpenVMS wide-area
    clustering, volume shadowing and AlphaServer GS160 systems from HP,
    the bank was able to function on September 11 because its critical
    banking applications continued to run at the primary site and were
    available from the bank's remote site..."

    Posted from an OpenVMS system using the VMS version of 'tin'.

    --Jerry Leslie
    Note: is invalid for email
    leslie, Sep 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Mimic Guest

    "Manoj Paul Joseph" <> wrote in message
    news:jIE6b.1$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    > (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    > It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    > Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Manoj
    >
    >


    There was something about theblaster worm variant directing a ddos at the m$
    update site.

    --
    Mimic

    "Without Knowledge you have fear, With fear you create your own nightmares."
    "There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand Binary,
    and those that dont."
    "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but
    when you do, it blows away your whole leg"
    Mimic, Sep 7, 2003
    #15
  16. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Mark Dodel Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:02:56 UTC, Leythos <> wrote:

    -> Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    -> less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    ->

    That is simply not true. Windows is setup from the get go for little
    security. Microsoft has builtin a number of backdoors so they can
    access your system (they of course claim its not anything insidious),
    and these are exploitable once discovered. Why are mail attachments
    automatically opened and run. Why are file extensions not displayed
    by default for the people who are too stupid to click on anything that
    someone tells them to. The users are not the problem (unless you
    consider their constant belief of Microsoft's marketing lies),
    Microsoft is. Instead of putting out patches that are just bandaids,
    they should fix the damn problems with their software.

    As to the security through obscurity claim, that is a great point.
    People should have multiple platforms available so that when Windows
    is down with the latest virus/worm/exploit they can still be running.
    I have no problems here, as I wouldn't let a Windows machine near the
    internet for any length of time.

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    http://www.os2voice.org
    Warpstock 2003, San Francisco, October 18-19th -
    http://www.warpstock.org
    Mark Dodel, Sep 7, 2003
    #16
  17. Manoj Paul Joseph

    leslie Guest

    leslie, Sep 7, 2003
    #17
  18. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 19:39:23 GMT, "Mark Dodel" <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:02:56 UTC, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >-> Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    >-> less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    >->
    >
    >That is simply not true. Windows is setup from the get go for little
    >security. Microsoft has builtin a number of backdoors so they can
    >access your system (they of course claim its not anything insidious),
    >and these are exploitable once discovered. Why are mail attachments
    >automatically opened and run. Why are file extensions not displayed
    >by default for the people who are too stupid to click on anything that
    >someone tells them to.


    Are we talking about Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Office? The
    problems you mention are related to applications, not the OS (although
    with IE, the lines are very blurry). This is like blaming Redhat
    because of the hole in xpdf. At least finish picking on the thousands
    of holes in the OS, before you move onto their applications. :}


    >The users are not the problem (unless you
    >consider their constant belief of Microsoft's marketing lies),
    >Microsoft is. Instead of putting out patches that are just bandaids,
    >they should fix the damn problems with their software.



    You'll get no argument from me that MS is not proactively trying to
    secure their products. Their focus is on sales and new features is
    what drives sales. Until security is a driving force in their sales
    numbers, you'll never see a real concerted effort to secure their
    products.

    Pretty ironic that the Homeland Security folks signed a big sole
    source contract with Microsoft.


    >As to the security through obscurity claim, that is a great point.
    >People should have multiple platforms available so that when Windows
    >is down with the latest virus/worm/exploit they can still be running.


    There is some truth to this. Generally, it's not the person who
    discovers the hole that writes the worm. It's some script kiddie who
    figured out how to take the exploit description and turn it into a
    worm/virus.

    >I have no problems here, as I wouldn't let a Windows machine near the
    >internet for any length of time.


    Properly firewalled and running secure applications, I'd have no
    issues being internet connected.

    -Chris
    , Sep 7, 2003
    #18
  19. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Alan Connor Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 19:42:47 GMT, leslie <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Alan Connor () wrote:
    >:
    >: The M$ operating system is a bad hack on DOS with badly-cloned features
    >: stolen from UNIX.
    >:
    >:
    >
    > http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=97&ArticleID=4494
    > Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story
    >
    >
    > --Jerry Leslie
    > Note: is invalid for email


    Try posting a synopsis here, please.





    Alan C

    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
    Alan Connor, Sep 7, 2003
    #19
  20. Manoj Paul Joseph

    Alan Connor Guest

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 19:35:31 GMT, leslie <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Alan Connor () wrote:
    >: On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >: The above is, simply, garbage.
    >:
    >: UNIX-like OSs were created to do real work in the real world.
    >:
    >: M$ Oss were created by self-involved game-players who are STILL trying
    >: to turn the computer/internet into a rec-room and shopping mall.
    >:
    >: (unfortuanetely, too many linux distros are following their lead)
    >:
    >: Compared to M$, *nix systems are a miracle of efficiency,stability, and
    >: securtity.
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Posted by an M$ user, of course:
    >:
    >:
    >: Web Images Groups Directory News
    >: Searched the web for "MicroPlanet Gravity" . Results 1 - 10 of about 7,430. Sea
    >: Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on
    >: the search button.
    >:
    >: Tom's Gravity Pages
    >: Almost everything about MicroPlanet Gravity and Super
    >: Gravity, the free usenet news reader for Windows. ...
    >: lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/ - 12k - Sep 6, 2003 - Cached -
    >: Similar pages
    >:
    >
    > OpenVMS was deemed "unhackable" at DEFCON9:
    >
    > http://www.pointsecure.com/Defconwhite.pdf
    >
    > OpenVMS was not allowed to compete in later DEFCON meetings because it
    > wasn't deemed to be open, even though source code listings are available.
    >
    > There are some discussions in comp.os.vms about the number of CERT alerts
    > for OpenVMS vs. commercial unix systems such as Solaris.
    >
    > OpenVMS is still considered the "Gold Standard" of multisite clustering;
    > e.g.:
    >
    > http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/brochures/commerzbank/
    > hp Alphaserver technology helps Commerzbank tolerate disaster
    > on September 11
    >
    > "testing disaster tolerance
    >
    > While most large organizations today have plans for Disaster Tolerance
    > (DT), few have to put them to the test. The North American
    > headquarters of Commerzbank, located less than 100 yards from the
    > World Trade Center in New York City, put its DT plan into action on
    > September 11, 2001. Because Commerzbank relies on OpenVMS wide-area
    > clustering, volume shadowing and AlphaServer GS160 systems from HP,
    > the bank was able to function on September 11 because its critical
    > banking applications continued to run at the primary site and were
    > available from the bank's remote site..."
    >
    > Posted from an OpenVMS system using the VMS version of 'tin'.
    >
    > --Jerry Leslie
    > Note: is invalid for email




    Is this spam?


    Alan C




    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a
    Alan Connor, Sep 7, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor

    DDOS slows Internet

    Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
    Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. dorothy.bradbury
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    972
    dorothy.bradbury
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. Leo Diaz

    Linux Zombies Poised for DDoS Attacks?

    Leo Diaz, Apr 14, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    714
    JEDIDIAH
    Apr 17, 2006
  4. dos/ddos test

    , Aug 11, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,182
  5. 1PW

    Ongoing Global DDos Attack.

    1PW, Jul 9, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    896
Loading...

Share This Page