Linux Group's Servers Hacked

PCWorld.com ^ | Monday, November 24, 2003 | Paul Roberts

[Bush2000]

Oh, I see. Hacking is only wrong, illegal, etc. when it is done to some one you like. Otherwise it's a source for glee.

Uh, don't put words in my mouth. Hacking into servers that you don't own and without the owner's permission is always wrong and illegal. I've never said anything to the contrary. But it's worthwhile to note that, based on high-profile attacks like this one and others, the wild security claims made by some Linux kneepadders need to be reevaluated. Every OS has significant security weaknesses.

[Dominic Harr]

People mocked Michael Jordan when he'd miss a free throw, too.

When you've got a leader known for excellence, there's always "ankle-biters" who love to jump all over the few mistakes.

Aren't there, always?

The constant drumbeat of this kind of post of yours is one of the things that convinces me linux's success has been greater than anyone realizes. It's only when you get good that all the losers of the world begin to follow your every move waiting, *hoping* for you to finally make a mistake so they can 'bring you down'. It is imperative, of course, for you to ignore, excuse or down-play the many mistakes by your chosen solution in the mean-time. But that's your day-job anyway, so no prob, right?

From following the posts of MS-advocates on public boards, I'd say their favorite type of govt would be a Hypocracy.

Now, flame away, and remove all doubt.

[Bush2000]

People mocked Michael Jordan when he'd miss a free throw, too.

Debian ain't the Michael Jordan of operating systems. Not even close.

[Dominic Harr]

Debian ain't the Michael Jordan of operating systems.

Pretending you don't get the actual point only makes people think you're a stupid ankle-biter, instead of just a sour-grapes ankle-biter.

And believe it or not, I don't think you're stupid.

Just young.

[justlurking]

An update on this particular exploit:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2003/msg00212.html>

The short version: it's a local root exploit, not a remote root exploit.

Translation for anyone not understanding the difference: the attacker has to be logged into the machine as a local (non-root) user. The Windows equivalent would be to allow someone to log in to your system with a username that isn't included in the administrator group, and then having them successfully gain administrator privileges.

This isn't an security hole that can be exploited remotely (i.e. by attacking an open port to the 'Net).