Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek)
Steven Vaughan-Nichols comments on the
MyDoom worm in eWeek. "Companies are going to lose, at a guess,
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity thanks to MyDoom. And,
who are they going to blame? Microsoft for producing crappy
software?... No, what will happen is that at least some corporate IT
decision makers are going to blame Linux because one or two worm writers
decided that they had enough of SCO and decided to get back at them, and
some others decided to at least jokingly support the worm."
(Log in to post comments)
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:05 UTC (Tue) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] So I take it this guy, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols something more substantial thanpostings on slashdot this is caused by some pissed off open source person? What bilge.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:22 UTC (Tue) by lhand (guest, #11808) [Link] I hope everyone reads Bruce Peren's paper at http://perens.com/SCO/DOS/
Correct link Posted Jan 27, 2004 16:54 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] One more time, please don't omit "www"!perens.com and www.perens.com resolve to different IP addresses.
Correct link Posted Jan 28, 2004 8:55 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Which is a good thing, since the slashdot article linked to perens.com and brought it to its knees.It will be a great day when Moore's Law outpaces the slashdot effect :)
Correct link Posted Jan 28, 2004 12:04 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] I wonder if this is why www.sco.com is down also. Not from a DDOS but because it's /.'ed from people checking to see if the site is up.
These People Are Not Our Friends Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:36 UTC (Tue) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] Worm writers and people who launch DoS attacks aren't in any way, shape or form our friends. Whatever community they're part of, it isn't ours. Their behavior is uncivilized and indefensible. As a community, we need to make it clear exactly how we feel about this nonsense. Anyone who chooses to represent us with vandalism isn't representing us at all.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:38 UTC (Tue) by mdarmistead (guest, #4472) [Link] We will probably never know for sure who did this, but consider the alternatives:1. Linux nut unleashes worm to attack SCO None of these scenarios are good for us because the media is too willing to believe that we are all just a bunch of long-haired radicals that want to bring down the "establishment". They'd never consider the alternatives, after all would Microsoft LIE, CHEAT, OR STEAL?? NEVER!! *smirk* Would a group of "victims" (SCO) do it to themselves, of course not; they're honest, reliable, trustworthy lawyers would would NEVER lie to the media.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:55 UTC (Tue) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] 1. Linux nut unleashes worm to attack SCO
4. Spammer adds SCO attack to distract people from the real motive: more zombified machines.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 15:55 UTC (Tue) by Dabuk (guest, #1507) [Link] Perhaps a virus writer is irritated that people are using Linux and thus reducing the number of targets for their viruses, and so created a virus to discredit the Linux community and bring people back to Windows.Who knows? I imagine the virus writer is just some dumb kid who thinks Linux is cool because it's "subversive" and is trying to show how "cool" he is by attacking SCO.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 8:58 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] (3) is out. No one at SCO is capable of writing a half-decent worm ;)
Track them down Posted Jan 27, 2004 16:05 UTC (Tue) by mark625 (guest, #13741) [Link] The best thing the open source community could do in this case is to track down the offending sub-weasels who wrote this garbage and turn them over to the relevant authorities.This is going to be a big black eye for Linux and open source in general, no matter who wrote it. And yes, I do suspect SCO, since they have their hearing scheduled for Feb.6 regarding IBM's discovery requests. They have a big motive to DoS themselves, since they can then tell the judge that "Those big mean open source bullies hurt our servers, so we couldn't produce the documents IBM requested. Wah!" As always, the best place to find more than you ever wanted to know about the SCO vs. IBM case is found at GrokLaw. (No offense intended, LWN.) Cheers!
Track them down Posted Jan 28, 2004 9:00 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Re tracking them down, great idea. Especially since MS has posted a big reward for the writer, which one could then turn around and donate to the FSF, SPI, OSDL, etc. Wouldn't MS love that? :)
Track them down Posted Jan 28, 2004 9:49 UTC (Wed) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Whoops. s/MS/SCO/g. Although I suppose that old MS worm bounty would apply too.
With moronic journos like Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Linux Doesn't Need Microsoft FUD Posted Jan 27, 2004 16:35 UTC (Tue) by stuart (subscriber, #623) [Link] Well Steven Vaughan-Nichols, I find the worm vaguely amusing, about as much as I do any other Windows worm. Why? Not because I use Linux, or think SCO are morons, but because I find it amusing that people still care. If you don't want the worm, don't use windows. Really, it's that simple.Oh yeah, why is this guy lumping all Linux users together? Get a clue. I wouldn't even know how to write a worm. I do, however, know I do not want one and protect myself accordingly. Some people can really get your back up. Stu.
With moronic journos like Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Linux Doesn't Need Microsoft FUD Posted Jan 27, 2004 17:10 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Well Steven Vaughan-Nichols, I find the worm vaguely amusing, about as much as I do any other Windows worm. Why? Not because I use Linux, or think SCO are morons, but because I find it amusing that people still care. If you don't want the worm, don't use windows. Really, it's that simple. Well, not only do I not want the worm, I don't want my bandwidth and CPU power chewed up by deleting it, and I don't want to deal with the hundreds of variously-formatted kindly alert messages telling me that Brand X virus scanner has helpfully deleted a message it's been fooled into thinking I sent. If you've got an "it's that simple" answer to that, I'd love to hear it.
With moronic journos like Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Linux Doesn't Need Microsoft FUD Posted Jan 28, 2004 2:43 UTC (Wed) by dve (guest, #15903) [Link] " If you don't want the worm, don't use windows. Really, it's that simple."15 emails per second for two days straight. Sure, it started at a measly 10 emails per minute. Within a few hours I was flooded with the stupid things. That all costs money, because (in many countries in the world) bandwidth costs dollars. Even though they're dropped on the floor at our mail-server, once they've travelled down the wire to where we can accept or reject them, we've already paid for the damned things. Never mind all the false 'virus in your email' messages I keep getting because my address was chosen by the worm as the sender of zillions of these things. Now management are wondering what this whole Open Source/Free Software thing is that they've bought into - Are they really terrorists as McBride suggests?
Software platforms and end user choices Posted Jan 28, 2004 8:49 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] but because I find it amusing that people still care. If you don't want the worm, don't use windows. Really, it's that simple.While I understand your sentiment, you would first need to convince the 250,000 or so small and mid-sized software vendors who produce Windows-based applications, and their customers who find those applications to be mission-critical, to (1) port them to Linux (2) convert their desktops, respectively. And since those choices and investments were made long before it became clear what was going to eventually happen to the Windows platform (late 1980s in many cases), please don't call those software users names for making the choices they did. sPh
With moronic journos like Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Linux Doesn't Need Microsoft FUD Posted Jan 29, 2004 15:03 UTC (Thu) by Justo (guest, #19054) [Link] There are other ways to avoid getting these types of worms, first-and-foremost of which is to not be a complete moron who downloads and runs attachments which are obviously viruses
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 19:56 UTC (Tue) by meffie (guest, #3120) [Link] Oh please. Some guys on slashdot are just going for the karma points. Back in the real world, the admins and users have to deal with these w32 cruft. This isn't reporting, it's just name calling.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 22:50 UTC (Tue) by foo@share-foo.com (guest, #7940) [Link] [root@sohomail1 cur 0]#cd /var/qmail/viruses/new/[root@sohomail1 new 0]#ls | wc -l 18171 My linux box pulled over 18000 of these bad boys out of the mail stream today. I'm willing to bet some of you can crush that number with stats from your servers. Where's the credit for mighty penguin? Pah. Some people are just ungrateful. I'm sure the worm writer(s) started writing the virus with intent on releasing it and DOSing someone long before they picked they're target. So they picked the asshole of the month. Big woop. Where is the surprise. I too must say I'm not the most sympathetic person in the world when it comes to the virus victoms. This is mainly because I spend so much time trying to defend them from themselves. Anyway, I'm sure many admins know what I'm talking about. It's not worth trying to explain because as the writer of the article said, people will still use there defective outlook clients to open up that curious attachment from admin@Internet on their unpatched systems with out of date virus software then expect it to be my crisis. Yes, blame linux. Pah.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 27, 2004 23:02 UTC (Tue) by Destructo (guest, #17736) [Link] Well we can all pretty much come up with a conspiracy; pick one. And a new story will come out of it.So what if SCO wrote it, so what if linux people cheer the hacker on, the fact is this has nothing to do with linux. it has to do more with shitty software. ...and Mr. Steven Vaughan-Nichols ; now that you finally got some hits on your website, maybe its time to fess up and show us your M$ badge.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 1:38 UTC (Wed) by ringlord (guest, #6309) [Link] Actually he is very sympathetic to Linux, and on the whole so is Eweek. Check teir coverage of Linuxworld, and other stories about Linux. If you had bothered to think before you wrote, you would have seen that he has some valid points. No matter who has been stupid enough to write this virus, it will be associated with Linux. I don't look forward to hearing from friends and coworkers "You use Linux don't you? Why are these anarchists releasing viruses on us?"
Please don't abuse word "anarchist" Posted Jan 28, 2004 2:52 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Just to complicate the matter even further ;) , I object against your abuse of the word "anarchist". Anarchism is a mature political theory, to use this term in the context of chaos and destruction is about as appropriate as using the word "hacker" to describe mindless script kiddies.RTFM:
Please don't abuse word "anarchist" Posted Jan 28, 2004 20:56 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Yup---and there are even leftist and rightist (and middle-of-the-road) anarchists.In the simplest sense, anarchy means "without the need of governance." In other words, people don't need to be *told* not to write viruses, because they're not stupid enough. That's the one serious problem with anarchy: there are many, many humans who follow others around like ducks. Or lemmings.
Please don't abuse word "anarchist" Posted Feb 3, 2004 4:49 UTC (Tue) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] That misconception is so common that it deserved a separate entry in the Anarchist FAQ: A.2.17 Aren't most people too stupid for a free society to work? And the problem with viruses is not about stupid people who write viruses, it is more about people who write vulnerable software and about even more stupid people who use virus-executing formats in their document flow.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 0:16 UTC (Wed) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] I can't imagine a better outcome than the recipient of the $250,000 donating it to the OSDL anti-SCO legal fund. Then again, maybe it would be just as nice to see Richard Stallman reap the reward and donate it to Free Software.-Paul Komarek
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 0:26 UTC (Wed) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] I think someone (Novell? IBM? OSDL? RedHat?) shall propose help to SCO to withstand the increase of load on their servers by providing additional and well configured servers for their web site, and additional bandwith as well if possible. Maybe some firewall would be welcome as well.But anyway, now that we know that a problem will occur, and when it will occur, a solution must be found. And we shall also try to find the real source of that worm by the way, because OS community has once again to prove its good faith due to some miserable people.
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 5:56 UTC (Wed) by moodfarm (guest, #19007) [Link] After all when Microsoft had this problem they redirected all their traffic to linux boxes, why shouldn't SCO do the same.Its got to hurt - relying on something you publicly denounce
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 7:26 UTC (Wed) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] You got a reference for this, a news article or something. I'd like to read it.Thanks,
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 10:09 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] Google search: microsoft website akamai linuxTurns up at least 40 relevant links.
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 20:01 UTC (Wed) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link] Along with what hazelsct said, just go to netcraft.com and... well, here:look up microsoft.com at Netcraft Then click on "what's that site running" for pretty much any of the servers, AFAI could be bothered to check.
Resolving the problem Posted Jan 28, 2004 7:26 UTC (Wed) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] "But anyway, now that we know that a problem will occur, and when it will occur...."Looking at netcraft's stats it seems that a lot of boxes have their clocks wrong, because sco has already been continuously inaccessible since about midnight on the 27th Jan. I'm with those who do find this somewhat amusing, but agree that it's going to reflect badly on us. Enough people need to stand up and say that we hate worms and viruses as much as the next man. We need to distinguish between our outrage at SCO (which is entirely justified), and writing worms (which is not acceptable under any provocation, except possibly warfare). Also make it clear that the problem is all those hopelessly insecure Windows boxes, not GNU/Linux, which is part of the solution. I'm glad I moved my mother over to GNU/Linux (Libranet) 2 weeks ago - this is the second worm attack she is safe against in that time.
Resolving the problem - but does the worm even attack? Posted Jan 28, 2004 9:00 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] According to this analysis (url found in a groklaw comment today): http://www.math.org.il/newworm-digest1.txt, there seems to be some doubt whether the worm actually can mount an attack on www.sco.com (scroll to the end to see that bit).
Resolving the problem - but does the worm even attack? Posted Jan 29, 2004 14:48 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, I just read that too. I had sent this correction to theage.com.auabout this earlier today. I just mailed them a followup. Both messages are below.
I just read your Jan 30 article "MyDoom-B targets Microsoft". It makes two statements without much background information. I "Hacker activists in the Linux software community have been blamed which is true, but the allegation appears to be in error. In the "The anti-SCO hackers' worm ..." Which is an unproven and unsupported statement. Here are some
'Experts say the creation of MyDoom was almost certainly funded
"Yeah, it definitely has ties to spammers," said Neel Mehta, a
'Editor's note: A word in this column has been modified to
http://www.perens.com/SCO/DOS/
"SCO, is suing Linus Torvalds, inventor of the Linux operating Where did you get the information about Linus being sued? I have SCO vs. IBM (and countersuit) There have been threats from SCO against many individuals, If I am in error about this please let me know (or write a followup And finally, there should not be a comma after "SCO" at the beginning
Additional information showing that the MyDoom-A worm is not created http://www.math.org.il/newworm-digest1.txt "... in a test environment ... the only activity I can get it to Please update the article.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 6:08 UTC (Wed) by dusty (guest, #14668) [Link] Sadly the truth will most likely never be known as to who the authot of this virus is. The thing that saddens me the most is that both sides continue to lose. I say we should all try to take the high road. I personally hope that whoever is responsible goes to jail. We are nearing a critical time in the GNU/Linux world, in that we are either vindicated or vanquished. The path to vindication is one that we continue to travel. We simply do not need any enemies from within. The truth is that SCO has already changed the mood of Linux. We should never allow ourselves to become the things we despise.Much Love peeps, *Me.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 7:22 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I have been saying this about criminals in our industry all along. I have used the metaphor of an unlocked house, and said that just because it's unlocked, that doesn't mean someone has the right to steal property from it. I have been told that people who leave their doors unlocked have their "heads in the sand." This applied to the problems with the GNU servers and the Debian servers.I do not intend to change my views. People who cause this kind of harm are criminals, and if anyone reading this is in a position to get those people arrested, please act. Also, if anyone reading this was involved in *any* of these criminal acts, note this: Your days are numbered. Sooner or later, you will pay. The guy at news.com keeps repeating about how SCO "incurred the wrath of the Linux community." I say this: Those of you who are causing us harm by sending viruses, breaking into computers, and using unknowing, innocent people to route your notion of "free advertising" around the internet, understand that you have now hurt the very people who are most likely skilled enough to find you and have you convicted.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 8:15 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Technically, the worm doesn't do a thing to Linux systems. Like all important e-mail worms, MyDoom is solidly based on Windows' inherent security shortcomings. Neither Linux nor Mac systems can get it. "So... Linus & cĒ should be arrested for making secure systems!... " No, the problem is that this worm is apparently the product of some ticked-off Linux fan deciding to get back at SCO " WHERE IS THE PROVE ? ... AND THE ZILLIONS OF *before this* M$WormOS VIRUS ?... Or, why not,... the product of SCO and or his Ma$ter, to blame on Linux and play the victim !... I did several occasions, and nobody is free of saying, sometime, some really stupid things, but...THIS GUY IS SMOKING FROM McBride STUFF... He knew "we" had blind leaders in the IT industry, but how come so twisted comments appear in the press ?,... , is denying evidence in favor of protection of "Ma$ters bulls??? propaganda" marketing hype, gonna solve all security problems ?... Lets face it,... M$WormOS from Redmond has structural flaws, that make it a *child play* this kind of attacks.
With Friends Like These, Linux Doesn't Need Enemies (eWeek) Posted Jan 28, 2004 12:17 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Easiest way to DDOS www.sco.com? Just mention it's under attack ... then it gets /.'ed by people checking to see if the site's up and when it'll be up again. A self fulfilling prophesy.People, please don't go to www.sco.com to see if its up.
Wondering the techniques MyDoom uses and missing technical details Posted Jan 29, 2004 2:17 UTC (Thu) by ebirdie (subscriber, #512) [Link] I have been wondering, what is the new techniques MyDoom uses to spread so wildly? Aswell I think not all details are revealed. Could this be DMCA protection in practice? The virus descriptions state, that MyDoom can activate on NT, 2k, XP and even Server 2003, The ".scr,.pif,.exe... attachment + careless user" technique is old and used model. What is
|
|||||||||||