Weekly Edition
Return to the Security pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
SCO.com defaced
Somebody managed to deface SCO's web site (running on Apache and Linux,
incidentally) over the weekend. For those who have to see it, images have
been posted at Netcraft
and The Inquirer.
This crack may be good for a quick smile, but attacks of this nature are
not the way to defeat SCO. Look for the inevitable "see how Linux users
behave" press release in the near future.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 15:22 UTC (Mon) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] A Dutch
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 15:53 UTC (Mon) by soul_rebel (guest, #26314) [Link] well then i would say, solidarity with marinus!socialist greetings to holland, good luck with the trial.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 15:58 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] For those needing help with the reference: Google it.Renegade loner gives excuse to purge dissidents.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 16:40 UTC (Mon) by bastiaan (guest, #5170) [Link] You give SCO too much credit: they may think they can start an IP 'world war' , but we know better :-)
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 15:52 UTC (Mon) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] Contrary to the corporate world, where firms have the responsability over their employee because they chose and pay them, the OSS community can not take the blame for each and any individual acting on his own, even when that individual thinks he shares the OSS movement spirit.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 16:02 UTC (Mon) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] s/thinks/is deluded with the notion that/
The world is full of idiots. Some of them run Linux, yes, because "OSS r wai betar tehn teh ms sh*te!!!1111" Those of us who bother to open our eyes can actually point out why and where OSS is better than closed software, and also why defacing web sites is a stupid idea.
Master Fu will be pleased when this stranger from the land of Woot returns, as he will surely have gained enlightenment to the ways of Unix.
SCO.com defaced Posted Dec 5, 2004 23:00 UTC (Sun) by Saigua (subscriber, #6069) [Link] Defacing web sites (intending good fun) is an excellent idea; it's just that WIKI's have a little learning curve. It's the fraud-in-turn around that makes people with cuffs get them out.
Hey you! Upload that uninstalled Oracle package back, it's 31 days old!
Okay, just some of the fraud, in cases where there's some sense to it. Hopefully the defacer can agree to suffer buying 4 more DVDs at the regular price and satisfy the relevant judge that he understands a liability to social order that much.
Not the $40k DVDs SCO May publish as long as they're blanks, either.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 15:57 UTC (Mon) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] I would have preferred LWN to ignore such antics.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 16:09 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] I wouldn't've.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 16:35 UTC (Mon) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link] Sociopathic assholes receive payment in-kind. More at 11.
Non-linux tools used Posted Nov 29, 2004 16:48 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Someone pointed out to me that Adobe (non-Linux) tools were used to edit the image. Check out the image header.Big crooks have littler crooks to bite 'em, and so on down, ad infinitum. Bruce
Non-linux tools used Posted Nov 29, 2004 23:12 UTC (Mon) by im14u2c (subscriber, #5246) [Link] Interesting. Yes, if you look at the headers in it, you see the following strings in the headers:
Ducky Ducky is apparently an Adobe easter egg. (It's near the bottom of the page.) --Joe
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 20:46 UTC (Mon) by ken_i_m (guest, #4938) [Link] I think it points out the reason why SCO took their recent path to seek $$$ through litigation. The real story is not that some script kiddies defaced their website. The real story is that SCO lacks the technical chops to properly admin a websever. Is it any wonder they are having trouble getting customers to fork over major bucks for their OS?
That their legal case is doing so poorly just indicates that the folks still at SCO simply lack what it takes to be a contender in any field of endeavor.
cheers,
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 29, 2004 21:06 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] As we've read here in LWN, some important free software sites have also been compromised. Having a site defaced doesn't automatically make you incompetent.Oh, and Intellectual proprietarian vandals trashed EFF documents at WIPO, so now both sides have pinheads to be ashamed of.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 30, 2004 4:25 UTC (Tue) by ken_i_m (guest, #4938) [Link] First, let me state that I am in no way defending the defacement. I even referred the the prepetrators as "script kiddies" (not a term of endearment). Additionally, the sk_idiots played into SCO hands by knocking the chip off their shoulder and giving them the opprotunity to cry "Woe, unto me. For I have been attacked by un-civilized vandals." Though they appear to be letting media hacks do the crying for them at the moment.
Regarding that chip on their shoulder. It was only last spring that sco.com was the target of a virus-spread DDoS. This establishes a clear precedent that there are *_idiots out there that may specifically target their web presence. Another interpretation is that they did not care if it got defaced or not. So...
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 30, 2004 8:07 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] ...company with multi-millions in revenue...Yeah, the, how much was it?, 50*10^6 $? from Canopy Group for litigation. Venture capital for law innovation. As far as I know, the SCOx's only product is litigation and FUD services. Clients: Micro$oft, Sun, ...? OK, the defacing was a stumped idea, but I certainly enjoyed to watch the result.
Marginally related: SCO violating GPL? Posted Nov 29, 2004 23:21 UTC (Mon) by im14u2c (subscriber, #5246) [Link] Should someone sue SCO for violating the GPL, or am I misunderstanding this clause of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Since SCO wants $$ for Linux licenses, they're effectively abridging the GPL through sublicensing with an incompatible license, and so lose all rights to the software under the GPL. Thus, they cannot use Linux themselves. Yet, according to Netcraft, they run Apache on Linux. Or are they using a hosting company that won't eat the SCO dogfood?
Marginally related: SCO violating GPL? Posted Nov 30, 2004 1:54 UTC (Tue) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link] IBM includes GPL violation on their contributions to the Linux kernel among their counterclaims in the suit.
GPL doesn't cover use Posted Dec 11, 2004 0:01 UTC (Sat) by ljardine (guest, #26602) [Link] You'll note that nowhere in #4 ( 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License...) does the word 'use' appear. It's perfectly legal to use a GPL program without accepting the license; furthermore, the GPL cannot take the right to use away, even if you have accepted it.
The right to use the program comes from the entity distributing the program to you having the right to do so; if you have aquired the program from someone with the right to give it to you, you can always use it. In addition, depending on your jurisdiction, you may have 'fair use' rights which the GPL (or other, less Free licenses) cannot take away either.
This is not legal advice. Consult your lawyer if you want legal advice.
SCO.com defaced Posted Nov 30, 2004 10:54 UTC (Tue) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] A quick smile is the only purpose of this defacement, I suspect, and I think it was very well performed.
As for defeating SCO - do we really have to? Aren't they doing it all by themselves?
apparently an open door Posted Dec 2, 2004 16:26 UTC (Thu) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] according to several posters on Groklaw, the site was not protected. it's contents could have been changed by anonymous FTP or through a HTTP "login" which required neither login or password.
my only concern it that it might have been a fly trap; however, although trivial to do (log client ip's), SCOX technical abilities have been far from stellar to date.
|
|||||||||||