Spam from Microsoft?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gary J Bevans, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. The question was asked and the question was answered soooo what's your point?
     
    Fender Lizard, Sep 26, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    They can delegate most of this to outside firms.
    I'm not aware of any trend.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I agree, and I run it as a server. I don't see any advantage to using
    UNIX on the desktop, and I see a zillion disadvantages.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
  4. Wow, crushing comeback George.
     
    Mike Latondresse, Sep 27, 2003
  5. Gary J Bevans

    Eigenvector Guest

    What are you talking about? What kludge are you referring to? I know of no
    OS kludges in either UNIX or BSD, in fact my UNIX servers don't even have
    graphics hardware - and they run Motif just fine.
    I think your misled about how Motif deals with graphical calls. Again, the
    OS won't allow you to do anything you wouldn't be able to do anyway.
    Assuming that the machine has a graphics adapter in the first place, which
    many don't, so what. UNIX has always had the user deal directly with the
    hardware, rather than the software. That's why UNIX programs **can** be so
    much more efficient, they don't deal with the OS other than to make shared
    library calls. So if you're reading from a CD-ROM drive or displaying
    graphics or printing a text file you aren't compromising security by
    bypassing the OS, you're simply using equipment. The actual data itself is
    protected by the OS, the hardware doesn't need to be.
    I run the CDE and the KDE just fine at C2 security on my VMS workstations -
    no security hole there.
     
    Eigenvector, Sep 27, 2003
  6. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    The OS on which it is based, Windows NT, was, however. It has nothing
    to do with MS-DOS code.
    First people claim OS X has all sorts of advantages because it's built
    on UNIX. Now you say that it contains very little of UNIX. Both of
    these statements cannot be simultaneously true ... so which is it?
    No, but it sure makes them worth attacking.
    Like I said, I was talking about seeing this on a machine, not looking
    for stories about them on the Web.

    A search for "cardboard dolls," incidentally, turns up 46,000 hits, and
    a search for "amalgam fillings" turns up 29,700 hits.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
  7. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Bad drivers are the leading cause of OS crashes. This is because the OS
    has no choice but to trust device drivers as part of the operating
    system, which means that any bug in a device driver can crash the
    OS--and unfortunately most device drivers are poorly written and filled
    with bugs.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
  8. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    In other words, you disagree.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
  9. Gary J Bevans

    Guest Guest

    of course both can be true.

    osx is based on unix, so there are advantages (and disadvantages of
    course) because of that.

    however, osx has a LOT more than *just* unix. thus, unix represents a
    small fraction of everything in osx.
     
    Guest, Sep 27, 2003
  10. Gary J Bevans

    Godfrey Guest

    ... and OS X was not entirely copied from Unix.
    Mac OS X is not a "copy" of UNIX, either in whole or in part. Nor does it
    "contain very little of UNIX". It *is* a UNIX-based operating system. The
    things which distinguish a UNIX-based operating system are the kernel, which
    does memory management and process management, and the next tier of services
    provided by a BSD or System V library packages. Mac OS X is built on a full
    "Mach" kernel, one of the flavors of UNIX, and has an implementation of BSD
    services layered on top of that.

    From that point, Mac OS X has much much more ... fully integrated graphics
    and multimedia service layers, higher level application service layers,
    multiple integrated application run time environments, object-oriented driver
    and kernel extension architecture, all coordinated to the user through an
    over-arching system graphical interface design idiom.

    The UNIX kernel of Mac OS X lives at the heart of and is essential to the
    entire system, but in size and proportion to the whole is a relatively small
    amount of the total components which make up the operating system.

    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey, Sep 27, 2003
  11. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Kludges that allow the GUI direct access to video hardware, for one.
    These are necessary to provide better performance and flexibility. I
    haven't seen any non-trivial GUIs without it.
    Practically all of X is a kludge. If I run X server on a machine, the
    complication, overhead, and failure modes multiply alarmingly fast.
    Why can't I run the system secure with X on it, then?
    It does if you are root, or the equivalent.
    No. UNIX, like all other operating systems with even a smidgen of
    security, isolates user processes from the hardware. If you want to
    touch hardware, you have to ask the operating system; you cannot just
    issue machine instructions to the hardware yourself.
    So why is there a /dev tree?
    None that you are aware of, perhaps.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 27, 2003
  12. This virus (worm actually) is even more obnoxious because it disguises the
    address it comes from. Not only does it make the human-readable address
    look like it's from Microsoft, but it "spoofs" the internet-routing address
    to look like the message came from some other real person.

    Unfortunately, quite a few infected machines have chosen my address, and
    the result is that I've been getting literally 20-30 messages per hour from
    various ISPs' virus blockers falsely accusing me of sending messages
    containing viruses! I know at least one other person who has been having
    the same problem. I also know for certain that my machine is not infected
    because it's a MacIntosh, and this is a PC/Windows-only virus.

    Presumably the author of the virus "spoofs" the sending address, not only
    to annoy people as a prank, but also to keep the owners of the infected
    machines from having any reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with
    their machines, so they don't eradicate it from their machines, and thus it
    spreads farther. This is a virus that, when you catch it, the people
    around you get sick instead of you!

    All PC/Windows folks should check their machines for this virus, even if
    you have no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with your
    machine. Make sure that your virus definitions include "Worm.Automat.AHB"
    and "W32.Swen.A."
     
    Gary Morrison, Sep 27, 2003
  13. Gary J Bevans

    Eigenvector Guest

    Such as?????
    Such as?????
    How else are you going to reach it?
    VMS hasn't been broken in over 30 years. I'm sure I'll be just fine. Sure
    you can get into a mail daemon port or two, perhaps even into a trivial
    account (if the admin is really stupid) but the user data and the machine
    itself is completely protected.
     
    Eigenvector, Sep 27, 2003
  14. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Many changes in NT 4.0 to improve GUI performance and "look and feel,"
    and to allow the high-school code of Win95 to be imported without the
    need to make it reliable or secure.

    Whatever kludges in X that require a lower security level on the OS and
    freeze the OS solid from time to time.
    Such as the 3,584 new files in my home directory, the system stalls that
    are so solid that I have to reset the hardware, and whatever it is that
    makes it impossible to run X servers at high security settings for the
    OS. I rapidly got tired of playing with it.

    Maybe someday I'll install a second UNIX system just to use as a client
    for the real system. That should be safe.
    BY TALKING DIRECTLY TO THE HARDWARE. You don't do that by addressing
    the /dev tree, you do that by executing machine instructions like IN and
    OUT or SIO or whatever the platform supports.
    I didn't think anyone had used VMS in 30 years.

    In any case, I'm not sure what you mean by "broken."
    So the daemon ports and trivial accounts don't count as user data and
    aren't on the machine?
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 28, 2003
  15. One could fill a set of 26 encyclopedias with that which you are not aware.
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Sep 28, 2003
  16. Gary J Bevans

    Eigenvector Guest

    Such as????? Come on here, I would like a specific reference here!!
    Such as????? Come man, name a few things. You mention these kludges that
    I've never encountered, name a lower security level that I've never
    experienced. Sit down at a UNIX workstation, and without a valid account,
    get in - please I really would like to see you do it.
    How are you going to reach a piece of hardware on a machine without knowing
    its hardware address in advance? Unless you speak the CPU's form of binary,
    then insert yourself into the computer like some cheesy Tron recreation you
    can't get around the OS. That is what /dev is for, to provide an avenue for
    programmers to talk to hardware without worrying about translations,
    libraries, DLL's, or any other software layers to slow down execution speed.
    Programs like the UNIX `dd` do not translate the contents of the equipment
    they are interacting with, they simply dump its contents to the output
    destination file - what you do with it later isn't its problem. Explain how
    you talk to a piece of hardware within a program without going through the
    OS at least on a minimal level?
    VMS has a large following, has always had a large following, and will
    continue to keep that following. That you don't hear about it testifies to
    the fact that you do not use a computer in any meaningful fashion outside of
    personal use. Most computers are used for work, not playtime at home.
    Granted the photographers in this group probably have no need for UNIX, but
    since they don't make up the bulk of the users in the world I'll exempt them
    from this discussion.
    hacked, spoofed, cracked, logged into without prior authorization..
    No, they do not. Yes they are on the machine, but that won't get you any
    closer to the data you really want and you still can't trash the machine if
    that's your goal.
     
    Eigenvector, Sep 28, 2003
  17. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I no longer have the source code in front of me, nor do I recall the
    detailed explanation I was given on the changes made. I do recall,
    though, that a lot of NT 4.0 GUI code was lifted wholesale from Windows
    95 (a _much_ more poorly written OS), and NT had to be tweaked to get
    this inferior code to run. Windows Explorer is still a weak spot for
    NT-based operating systems, even today, and this largely thanks to its
    Windows 95 ancestry. (Fortunately, WINFILE still runs, if you have a
    copy of it.)
    I don't know. All I could do was press the RESET button to reboot.
    Shutdown didn't work.
    Perhaps you will encounter and experience them, in time. I did.
    How is that relevant to this discussion?
    The hardware addresses are pretty much fixed on PC-based systems.
    With machine instructions like IN and OUT (names vary, depending on the
    hardware platform).
    Now apply this logic to your admission above that you've never
    encountered the kludges I've described or the security level I
    mentioned. Are you sure you want to continue down that path?
    You've never used covert channels?
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 29, 2003
  18. Gary J Bevans

    Eric Gisin Guest

    | Eigenvector writes:
    |
    | > Such as????? Come on here, I would like a specific
    | > reference here!!
    |
    | I no longer have the source code in front of me, nor do I recall the
    | detailed explanation I was given on the changes made. I do recall,
    | though, that a lot of NT 4.0 GUI code was lifted wholesale from Windows
    | 95 (a _much_ more poorly written OS), and NT had to be tweaked to get
    | this inferior code to run. Windows Explorer is still a weak spot for
    | NT-based operating systems, even today, and this largely thanks to its
    | Windows 95 ancestry. (Fortunately, WINFILE still runs, if you have a
    | copy of it.)
    |
    This whole thread is clueless rantings of OS fanatics. How did you look at the
    source code?

    They did not put Win95 code into NT4. There is little difference between 3.5
    and 4 GDI, except stuff moving to the kernel.

    Explorer was not developed on 95, it first appeared in NT 3.5, codename SUR.
     
    Eric Gisin, Sep 29, 2003
  19. Gary J Bevans

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Think carefully, and guess.
    I supposed they changed the comments and a few other lines, but a lot of
    NT 4 changes came from Win95, and the code was almost as unreliable in
    NT as it had been in Win95.
    NT 3.5 is more secure and stable, at least in theory.
    All I remember in NT 3.x was File Manager and Program Manager. SUR
    sounds familiar, but I don't remember what it refers to.
     
    Mxsmanic, Sep 29, 2003
  20. Gary J Bevans

    Eigenvector Guest

    The sum answer to my question of "Such as" is - you simply don't know and
    are guessing.
     
    Eigenvector, Sep 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.