22/06/01 15:02:43, "Mark Wilkinson" mark@wiggis.com wrote:
I find that the occasional reboot on NT helps to keep things a bit more stable.
About once a week does it for me...
My old faithful 486 DX-4/120 with 64meg of crappy old memory and a slow HDD, which runs our firewall has an uptime of:
laurie@firewall:~ > uptime 3:27pm up 315 days, 20:30, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I'd like to see *any* windows box do that, even if all it does is route and filter traffic between three NICs...
Cheers, Laurie. --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com PGP key at http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Brown wrote:
My old faithful 486 DX-4/120 with 64meg of crappy old memory and a slow HDD, which runs our firewall has an uptime of:
laurie@firewall:~ > uptime 3:27pm up 315 days, 20:30, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
cool, don't get caught out by the 497.1 day uptime bug as I did a few weeks ago.. I thought I had been hacked, turns out the uptime couter wraps ;)..
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Neill Newman wrote:
Laurie Brown wrote:
My old faithful 486 DX-4/120 with 64meg of crappy old memory and a slow HDD, which runs our firewall has an uptime of:
laurie@firewall:~ > uptime 3:27pm up 315 days, 20:30, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
cool, don't get caught out by the 497.1 day uptime bug as I did a few weeks ago.. I thought I had been hacked, turns out the uptime couter wraps ;)..
Are there not some remote root exploits against the Linux kernel in the tcp stack, before 2.2.19? or is that my imagination? or was it only a theoretical vulnerability?
Adam
Adam Bower wrote:
Are there not some remote root exploits against the Linux kernel in the tcp stack, before 2.2.19? or is that my imagination? or was it only a theoretical vulnerability?
sshhhh ;).. there are, but I think they are quite hard to exploit.. not your usual script kiddie stuff.. but then a seasoned blackhat will compromise a machine no matter how well it is bolted down ;)..
Adam
This message is Copyleft - all rights reversed Adam
Let's all look forward to Windows XP with it's ability to let these guys write raw TCP/IP stuff. Scary!
In theory, Linux should be easier to hack because hackers can look at the source code for vunerabilities but in practice, Windows is easier. The conclusion to draw from that is that Windows must be written very sloppily.
FWIW.
Mark W.
-----Original Message----- From: alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk [mailto:alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Neill Newman Sent: 22 June 2001 16:14 To: Adam Bower Cc: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Microsoft is right Re: [Alug] Microsoft FUD
Adam Bower wrote:
Are there not some remote root exploits against the Linux kernel in the tcp stack, before 2.2.19? or is that my imagination? or was it only a theoretical vulnerability?
sshhhh ;).. there are, but I think they are quite hard to exploit.. not your usual script kiddie stuff.. but then a seasoned blackhat will compromise a machine no matter how well it is bolted down ;)..
Adam
This message is Copyleft - all rights reversed Adam
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/
http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
Mark Wilkinson wrote:
In theory, Linux should be easier to hack because hackers can look at the source code for vunerabilities but in practice, Windows is easier. The conclusion to draw from that is that Windows must be written very sloppily.
or conversly, the linux IP stack is written very well/securely ;)...
FWIW.
Mark W.
-----Original Message----- From: alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk [mailto:alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Neill Newman Sent: 22 June 2001 16:41 To: mark@wiggis.com Cc: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Microsoft is right Re: [Alug] Microsoft FUD
Mark Wilkinson wrote:
In theory, Linux should be easier to hack because hackers can
look at the
source code for vunerabilities but in practice, Windows is easier. The conclusion to draw from that is that Windows must be written very sloppily.
or conversly, the linux IP stack is written very well/securely ;)...
FWIW.
Mark W.
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/
http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
Whoops...
Or both even :-)
-----Original Message----- From: alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk [mailto:alug-admin@stu.uea.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Neill Newman Sent: 22 June 2001 16:41 To: mark@wiggis.com Cc: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Microsoft is right Re: [Alug] Microsoft FUD
Mark Wilkinson wrote:
In theory, Linux should be easier to hack because hackers can
look at the
source code for vunerabilities but in practice, Windows is easier. The conclusion to draw from that is that Windows must be written very sloppily.
or conversly, the linux IP stack is written very well/securely ;)...
FWIW.
Mark W.
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/
http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
-
Adam Bower -
Laurie Brown -
Mark Wilkinson -
Neill Newman