Forget NT , go with UNIX !
PJ
Fred wrote in message <6eo8v7$6u9$1...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au>...
>The only thing i have to say at last is you are wasting my time and your
ass
>still stinks
Yea and you are still a lamer who can't speak english and doesnt know a
thing about NT or security, also I see you are not contradicting what I said
about how much of an idiot you are for saying that your NT server is 100%
secure because you disabled TCP/IP on your server.
PJ
p.s.
My ass can still secure a box tho..and I still say post your IP address or
are you afraid that your claims will not stand up to the test
Chris Saunderson
"PJ" <circut...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
[snip]
> Yea and you are still a lamer who can't speak english and doesnt know a
> thing about NT or security, also I see you are not contradicting what I said
> about how much of an idiot you are for saying that your NT server is 100%
> secure because you disabled TCP/IP on your server.
He's disabled TCP/IP.
> PJ
>
> p.s.
>
> My ass can still secure a box tho..and I still say post your IP address or
> are you afraid that your claims will not stand up to the test
You're going to "test his security" how, when he's got TCP/IP disabled?
Please consider what you're typing.
--
Chris "Saundo" Saunderson Chris.Sa...@adelaide.maptek.com.au
Technical Support Engineer Telephone: (08) 8379 7333
Maptek Pty Ltd Fax: (08) 8379 7377
Powered by Linux, Jolt and the Orb.
Mario Stargard
On 19 Mar 1998 12:52:07 +1030, Chris Saunderson
<Chris.Sa...@adelaide.maptek.com.au> cost the 'net hundreds, if
not thousands of dollars to say:
Is there a version of NT that is rated higher than C2? (with
the network card) I'm just curious if there is an NT equivalent to
the B2 unix machines such as DGUX B2, or even Trusted HP B1.
Cheers,
Mario
--
Mario Stargard, Systems Admin | "Security for an OPEN World"
Product Development Group | Network security solutions for
SAGUS Security Incorporated | the enterprise.
(613) 234 7300 x214 | http://www.sagus-security.com
Paul Schmehl
"PJ" <circut...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Fred wrote in message <6eo8v7$6u9$1...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au>...
>>The only thing i have to say at last is you are wasting my time and your
>>ass still stinks
>
> Yea and you are still a lamer who can't speak english and doesnt know a
>thing about NT or security, also I see you are not contradicting what I said
>about how much of an idiot you are for saying that your NT server is 100%
>secure because you disabled TCP/IP on your server.
How much of a lamer are you for thinking everyone should speak
english? This is a big world PJ, and not everyone is a native
english speaker.
Regardless of how much you want to insult a poster, the one thing
you should never do is criticize someone for their lack of proper
grammar. It only makes you look arrogant and ignorant.
Anyone who's had more than a few weeks of exposure to the
internet should know better.
paulsTAK...@utdallas.edu
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls
Technical Support Services Manager
(Reply to address is altered)
Chris Walsh
In article <3511365D...@bga.com>, Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote:
>
>It keeps making me wonder when the little NSA stickers are going
>to say "A wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft" ...
All in good time. All in good time.
--
Chris Walsh finger mac...@ece.nwu.edu
ECE Dept., Northwestern Univ. for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Evanston, IL 60208 Ph:(847) 491-8141 ICBM: 42.054551 N, 87.694331 W
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq'|dc
MindTrip
He Disabled his TCP/IP hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
hee, That KILL'S me !! hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee he ! ! ==)
-=MindTrip=-
Chris Saunderson <Chris.Sa...@adelaide.maptek.com.au> wrote in article
<4upvjj5...@fermi.adelaide.maptek.com.au>...
> "PJ" <circut...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yea and you are still a lamer who can't speak english and doesnt know
a
> > thing about NT or security, also I see you are not contradicting what I
said
> > about how much of an idiot you are for saying that your NT server is
100%
> > secure because you disabled TCP/IP on your server.
>
PJ
Chris Saunderson wrote in message
<4upvjj5...@fermi.adelaide.maptek.com.au>...
>"PJ" <circut...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>He's disabled TCP/IP.
>You're going to "test his security" how, when he's got TCP/IP disabled?
>
>Please consider what you're typing.
>
>
Are you sure that you work for tech support?? He is saying that his server
is 100% secure just because he disabled TCP/IP and you are agreeing with
him??
PJ
>Chris "Saundo" Saunderson Chris.Sa...@adelaide.maptek.com.au
>Technical Support Engineer Telephone: (08) 8379 7333
>Maptek Pty Ltd Fax: (08) 8379 7377
> Powered by Linux, Jolt and the Orb.
Hmm you use Linux and you are asking me these kind of questions?? And
supporting a dumb statement like that?? Are you sure that you do tech
support and use linux??
Fred
>Are you sure that you work for tech support?? He is saying that his server
>is 100% secure just because he disabled TCP/IP and you are agreeing with
>him??
>
>PJ
Dont try to confuse people here. What i said was" with ALL TCP/IP ports
disabled and only have TCP/IP protocol installed. The NT machine is 100%
secure on the Internet or any IP network." As a further discussion, "With
80 and 8080 port re-enabled, the chance of being hacked will not be too much
different". I would like to admit that i was suprised when some one come
out and say he/she can hack this machine via the Inet. (dont forget, the
condition is on the Internet as it was dissucssed on MY previous post, we
are NOT talking about some idiot like adiminstrator let his/her user run
something like pcanywhere without password. ) Your statement of "100% secure
my ass" (all are original words from your post regardless you r a female or
male or both) is too general without refering anything. Without considering
all the conditions i suggested in the previous post (which is unforturnately
been deleted from this news server), the discussion is going to nowhere.
People can easily come up and say, "100% secure on UNIX, my a$$".
As i started the discussion on this "100% secure", i would tend to think all
the following up posts should following the conditions i set. Any post
regardless those conditions are going to NOWHERE. Lets say, "I gave my
administrator password to all my staff" "I have published my administrator
password on the web pages" or " i set the password to NULL". These are
nothing but nonsense. They are also off topic.
Again, i have to say that I feel bad when someone show his/her ass to me no
matter its on newsgroup or street.
PJ
Fred wrote in message <6f35mj$phq$1...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au>...
>>Are you sure that you work for tech support?? He is saying that his
server
>>is 100% secure just because he disabled TCP/IP and you are agreeing with
>>him??
>>
>>PJ
>
>
>Dont try to confuse people here. What i said was" with ALL TCP/IP ports
>disabled and only have TCP/IP protocol installed. The NT machine is 100%
>secure on the Internet or any IP network."
No you said that and I qoute:
"the simplest way to make your NT server s100% secure is to disable
all the TCP/IP ports!. ( can be done via the network properties->tcp/ip
protocol->propertie->advance) then enable the 80, 8080 port for you
Webserver,. ==> reboot your machine.
In this way, no one can hack in via the network. In the worst case, the
hackers can only use IP flooding to hang your machine, but thats about it."
End qoute (cut and pasted from saved post, mind you)
Now that does not mention anywhere anything about the internet..and it is
still a contradiction in terms...NO SERVER IS 100% SECURE..can you be man
enough to admit it?
> As a further discussion, "With 80 and 8080 port re-enabled, the chance of
being hacked will not be too much
>different". I would like to admit that i was suprised when some one come
>out and say he/she can hack this machine via the Inet. (dont forget, the
>condition is on the Internet as it was dissucssed on MY previous post, we
>are NOT talking about some idiot like adiminstrator let his/her user run
>something like pcanywhere without password. )
There was again no condition...see above..you are telling me not to confuse
people but you are lying about your previous post to try to confuse the
issue. If you had stated before what you are trying to say now, I might
have had more respect for your intelligence. In addition, you stated and I
will quote again "In this way, no one can hack in via the network" Now
anyone of us who have administred a network know that disabling a port on a
"network" will not make anything even slightly secure. If you had said on
the Internet, I would have still chastised you for saying !00% secure, but I
would have not thought you that big of an idiot, just a little overzealous.
>Your statement of "100% secure
>my ass" (all are original words from your post regardless you r a female or
>male or both) is too general without refering anything.
I would think that it is pretty obvious that I am referring to the security
of your network and of your server. Its also funny how you are still
dwelling on the thought of my ass and how you can qoute me perfectly but you
seem to have some difficulty remembering what you yourself said. 100%
secure, my ass, which I did indeed say. Just in case you are having some
difficulty understanding, that was an indication of the contempt I hold
towards your statement of 100% securing a server by disabling a port or a
protocal. That is a stupid statement, now matter how you cut it.
>Without considering
>all the conditions i suggested in the previous post (which is
unforturnately
>been deleted from this news server), the discussion is going to nowhere.
>People can easily come up and say, "100% secure on UNIX, my a$$".
>
Again, you are clouding the issue..there were no conditions set. In
addition, I would laugh and say just about the same thing to anyone who said
that their Unix box was 100% secure. This is not an attack on NT, it is an
attack on your 100% secure statement...anyone who has the slightest clue
knows that there is no such thing.
>As i started the discussion on this "100% secure", i would tend to think
all
>the following up posts should following the conditions i set. Any post
>regardless those conditions are going to NOWHERE. Lets say, "I gave my
>administrator password to all my staff" "I have published my administrator
>password on the web pages" or " i set the password to NULL". These are
>nothing but nonsense. They are also off topic.
What are you talking about?? You did not set any conditions. Who said
anything about administrator passwords, publishing them on the web or
setting it to null? I have been following this thread pretty closely (for
obvious reasons) and I haven't seen anything resembling the above.
>
>Again, i have to say that I feel bad when someone show his/her ass to me no
>matter its on newsgroup or street.
>
I dont really care how or what you feel or how bad it gets, waterboy. Why
are you so fixated on my ass??
PJ
The opinions of worthless people are just that...worthless...
PS
I am STILL waiting for you to post the ip address of this supposely 100%
server...aint it funny how you just keep avoiding posting this...or
addressing why you have yet to post it.
Richard Knechtel
PJ wrote:
>
>Why are you so fixated on my ass??
>
He is probably Queer!
Just rembember, "Never argue with a fool, people might not know the
difference."
--
Richard Knechtel
(Systems Engineer/System Administrator)
(Aspiring AS/400 GURU)
(Aspiring Linux GURU)
(Aspiring VB Programmer)
I Ex-Spaminate spammers!
See US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C)
and Sec.227(b)(3)(C).
PJ
Richard Knechtel wrote in message <3516CC...@eds.com>...
>PJ wrote:
>>
>>Why are you so fixated on my ass??
>>
>
>He is probably Queer!
>
>Just rembember, "Never argue with a fool, people might not know the
>difference."
>
You know man, you are absolutely right!!! This guy is really not worth it.
PJ
Fredrik Bonde
PJ wrote:
So what if he's a queer? He might be a idiot but being gay really doesn't
belong to the story...
cheers,
--
----------------------------------------------
Fredrik Bonde
fredri...@nospam.iconmedialab.co.uk
PGP key available
-----------------------------------------------
Fred
> I am STILL waiting for you to post the ip address of this supposely 100%
> server...aint it funny how you just keep avoiding posting this...or
> addressing why you have yet to post it.
To shut your mouth up, one of my testing servers ip is posted. and
anyone can do whatever he/she want on it except physical logon. I can
say it is 100% secrue, its also 100% attack proof. (any kind of ip
attacks). It open for hack/attack in these 3 days. I wont sugges people
attacking it in his/her 1st try. because i dont want it hang while
someone else is trying to hack.
ping/telnet/nslookup/tracert to that ip would not get any respone
because all ports are disabled. as a hint: 80 port is enabled.
it has been up for 2 hours from my 1st post. haven't any connection
attemp yet.
If you believe you can hack/attack it. go do it. only 70 hours left from
now.
if there is not a directory on my c:\ "i peed on you hard disk" in 70
hours. you are a sucker!
I dont want this meaningless discussion to continue anymore becuase it
is nothing but wasting my time. To prove what you said, go hack it. If
you cant do it, as i said before, you are not in the position to
question how much i know, and as a matter of fact, i can said " you
dont know much about security". (also note i m not gonna use a question
mark in that statement, because i m too confident that you know nothing
about security). I can properbly add " you dont know much about NT, do
you?". HA!
Go ahead, kid, 70 hours to go
Fred
>Is a DNS tool. Most machines are not DNS servers, since a single DNS
server
>can handle the zone information for many domains, each of which can have
>many hosts. (I am truely the master of the obvious today :). You are
>completely incompetent if you are incabable of setting up DNS for your
>web server.
well, suprisingly more people want to join this meanless discussion, fine.
but guess you missed my 1st post. As i said, it is a temporary setting,(only
for 72 hours). I did not assign host name to it. therefore, you cant do
nslookup.
>>tracert to that ip would not get any respone
>It will get almost all the way there, which is good enough. Or have you
>disabled everything at the firewall? Or have you even heard of filewalls?
It will stop at that subnet router. that is it. it should not/does not
intend to be considered as a messurement on how good you are. It is just a
reminder that ALL port of the machine is disabled except 80. you simply dont
need to worry how much i know about firewall, it is off topic. and bet you
are not in the position to question me about that.
>And probably running IIS, judging by the uninformed nature of your
comments.
Your are wrong, just plain wrong. I did not run IIS.
well, as i said in the 1st post, it is run on a NT DEFAULT setting. (which
part you dont understand?, NT or Default setting?. ) In case you dont know
about NT, i can tell you that IIS is NOT the default setting of NT.
>>it has been up for 2 hours from my 1st post. haven't any connection
>>attemp yet.
>Gee. That doesn't have anything to do with DNS being broken? Does it?
I dont think so, hacking does NOT need DNS at ALL
>Go away troll.
well, if you don't like to discuss anything about my previous post, just
dont reply! I though it was something between me and PK. I dont force any
one to join, but if you think you want to join, welcome!
PJ
Fred wrote in message <3519107A...@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au>...
<---Much silliness snipped--->
I don't see an IP address anywhere...does anyone see an IP address...I am
looking for your famous 100% secure, 100% attack proof IP and I don't see it
anywhere...
PJ
PJ
PJ wrote in message <6fcvln$7j6$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>
>>
>>Go ahead, kid, 70 hours to go
>
>
>I don't see an IP address anywhere...does anyone see an IP address...I am
>looking for your famous 100% secure, 100% attack proof IP and I don't see
it
>anywhere...
>
>PJ
>
Sorry about the cross posting, I am trying to keep it in just the NT admin
news groups, but it keeps getting crossposted and I usually just
respond...will keep trying, sorry
PJ
George Marengo
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:27:57 +1000, "Fred"
<fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>well, it is too late to say that, the ip was post 3 days ago on
>comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security. titile is "machine ready for hack",
>and got some following up posts regarding the NT machine.
I haven't been following this thread, but what can you do on the
internet with a machine that has TCP/IP installed but all ports
disabled?
miguel
>>if there is not a directory on my c:\ "i peed on you hard disk" in 70
>>hours. you are a sucker!
>I don't see an IP address anywhere...does anyone see an IP address...I am
>looking for your famous 100% secure, 100% attack proof IP and I don't see it
>anywhere...
that's why it is so secure, dumdum! You have to guess the ip first, and you
only have 3 days for that.
go figure.
Fred
>that's why it is so secure, dumdum! You have to guess the ip first, and you
>only have 3 days for that.
>
>go figure.
well, it is too late to say that, the ip was post 3 days ago on
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security. titile is "machine ready for hack",
and got some following up posts regarding the NT machine.
You can always use that as your execuse, but the time wont wait for you, As
a matter of fact, the machine has run for nearly 3 days now.
Fred
>I haven't been following this thread, but what can you do on the
>internet with a machine that has TCP/IP installed but all ports
>disabled?
it was someone call "PJ' saying a TCP/IP machine with all ports disabled is
"100% secure my ass" (original words). and when i said the machine with such
config is secure, he/she asked "you dont know much about security, do you",
well, this is it, the machine is there, and 100% secure. in 4 more hours, I
will turn it off, I dont think any one can
successfully hack/attack it in these 4 hours.
What can i do with this machine?, emm, i can use it to shut PJ 's big mouth
up.
George Marengo
>What can i do with this machine?, emm, i can use it to shut PJ 's big mouth
>up.
O.K., thanks. I thought you were using it for HTTP and FTP yet had all
the ports closed down.
Dan Davis
There is still NetBIOS for an attack. Of course, asking him to post his IP when
he has TCPIP disabled is sort of lame anyway. The real question is, if and how is
he connected to the internet with his NT box.
Shadowman
sha...@magibox.net
Chris Saunderson wrote:
> "PJ" <circut...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yea and you are still a lamer who can't speak english and doesnt know a
> > thing about NT or security, also I see you are not contradicting what I said
> > about how much of an idiot you are for saying that your NT server is 100%
> > secure because you disabled TCP/IP on your server.
>
> He's disabled TCP/IP.
>
> > PJ
> >
> > p.s.
> >
> > My ass can still secure a box tho..and I still say post your IP address or
> > are you afraid that your claims will not stand up to the test
>
> You're going to "test his security" how, when he's got TCP/IP disabled?
>
> Please consider what you're typing.
>
> --
PJ
Dan Davis wrote in message <351CF2CC...@magibox.net>...
>There is still NetBIOS for an attack. Of course, asking him to post his IP
when
>he has TCPIP disabled is sort of lame anyway. The real question is, if and
how is
>he connected to the internet with his NT box.
>
>
Yea but he said that he had posted the IP address..my question is where was
the IP posted?? Anyway this is just a big waste...Fred, you are just a big
idiot...I am sure that you believe otherwise, but after listening/reading
your drivel, you are just not worth my time..you claim you posted your IP
address, why did you not post it in the same thread, instead of making an
entirely new post where no one would know where to find it??...you are a
coward and you misrepresent the facts and you still know nothing about
security..I will still be around but this is the last post to this
thread...I think that everyone who has had to endure this will agree that it
is time for this thread to die.
Fred
>>Yea but he said that he had posted the IP address..my question is where
was
>the IP posted?? Anyway this is just a big waste...Fred, you are just a big
>idiot...I am sure that you believe otherwise, but after listening/reading
>your drivel, you are just not worth my time..you claim you posted your IP
>address, why did you not post it in the same thread, instead of making an
>entirely new post where no one would know where to find it??...you are a
>coward and you misrepresent the facts and you still know nothing about
>security..I will still be around but this is the last post to this
>thread...I think that everyone who has had to endure this will agree that
it
>is time for this thread to die.
The reason i posted it outside this thread is : i dont want you to use it as
a execuse. saying that not enough ppl read this thread. I believed that
posted outside this thread would have more ppl to read it. and therefore get
a better chance to be hacked. well. i stll can afford the server run for
another 15 hours before its been delieve back to compaq tomorrow.
admin Password :$#Admin^123)
132.234.21.124 with same config.
and the previouse post is on "comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security"
under the title " machine ready for hack". whether you can find it is
simply not my problem, but of cause, you can use that as your execuse.
I dont mind you call yourself an idiot in 15 hours
George Marengo
>admin Password :$#Admin^123)
>132.234.21.124 with same config.
>
>and the previouse post is on "comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security"
>under the title " machine ready for hack". whether you can find it is
>simply not my problem, but of cause, you can use that as your execuse.
Fred, the IP you posted was easy to find using the "machine ready for
hack" using DejaNews. If other people can't find the original, then
you're right, it's their problem. I tried a port scanner on your
posted IP and found no open ports. Good job.
brian moore
Too bad you didn't check the return codes:
[durin:~] 195 % telnet 132.234.21.124
Trying 132.234.21.124...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Network is unreachable
You're not getting past the router.
Traceroute has a nice router loop, though:
12 core.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.241) 658.59 ms 579.381 ms 599.562 ms
13 gu-gw.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.162) 508.67 ms 639.267 ms 489.605 ms
14 gu.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.161) 618.776 ms 579.495 ms 559.322 ms
15 gu-gw.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.162) 498.842 ms 499.351 ms 519.48 ms
16 gu.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.161) 560.565 ms 659.231 ms 599.559 ms
17 gu-gw.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.162) 518.956 ms 479.326 ms 499.457 ms
18 gu.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.161) 609.037 ms 559.448 ms 549.451 ms
19 gu-gw.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.162) 478.768 ms 509.321 ms 519.576 ms
20 gu.questnet.net.au (203.22.86.161) 638.995 ms 629.29 ms 589.673 ms
So the way to make NT secure is to deny routing to it.
Thanks for the info.
Fred
certain connection attemps are filtered before it reach to the machine. not
only "tracert", but also ping,....
Elroy
This guy MUST be good! I didn't think NT machines could stay up for
three days..... :)
-elroy
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:27:57 +1000, "Fred"
<fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Elroy wrote:
>
> This guy MUST be good! I didn't think NT machines could stay up for
> three days..... :)
>
They stay up pretty good if you don't install any software on
them. :^)
Jeff
Gorazd Bozic
In article <6fn49i$813$1...@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au>,
Fred <fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
> certain connection attemps are filtered before it reach to the machine. not
> only "tracert", but also ping,....
Then not only you disabled all ports, but you filter out ICMP traffic
before packets reach your NT box. Ah... So potential coding errors in
TCP/IP stack on Windows NT concerning ICMP packet handling are dealt
with your router, so you should say "100% secure with all ports disabled
and router filtering ICMP".
And if you still run applications on your NT box which are allowed to
initiate connections to Internet, your machine is still prone to bugs
in those applications. MS IE buffer overrun in URL parsing comes to
mind... And if you allow users to download anything from the net, you
could become a victim of a trojan horse.
The things I mentioned above may not occur within three-day period, but
never say "100% secure". Who knows what bugs still lurk in Microsoft's
TCP/IP stack?
--
Gorazd Bozic, ARNES SI-CERT * gorazd...@arnes.si tel:+386 61 125 1515
Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana * http://www.arnes.si/ fax:+386 61 125 5454
Slovenia * http://www.arnes.si/si-cert/
Fred
>>And if you still run applications on your NT box which are allowed to
>initiate connections to Internet, your machine is still prone to bugs
>in those applications. MS IE buffer overrun in URL parsing comes to
>mind... And if you allow users to download anything from the net, you
>could become a victim of a trojan horse.
nope, the machine was just for testing purpose. As a temporary setting, we
didnt run anything(applications) on it. And it was waiting for sending back
for warranty, no one used it for anything during the testing period.
>The things I mentioned above may not occur within three-day period, but
>never say "100% secure". Who knows what bugs still lurk in Microsoft's
>TCP/IP stack?
The "100% secure" was under certain conditions, and it was not a general
meaning of 100% secure, Its meaning and conditions are stated before this
thread turned into personal insulting stuff. (it should be a few weeks ago)
I dont think it should be mentioned again since the test is over. (btw, the
machine was there for more then 100 hours, not just 3-days, heh)
MetaBork
This thread is plain silly, lemme add some stupidity.
Can I just ask a question? Question is: what is a server with its
TCP/IP stack (or ports, or whatever) disabled good for?
I mean, NT sucks big time as a web server, as the cracking of NASA
(and other US govt agencies) web server shows.
Now, sure, if NASA had disabled port 80 on their web server, nobody
would even have noticed that they had been cracked.
Plus, a 3 day period is also totally pointless. There was a contest
featuring a MacOS web server. It eventually got cracked a year later. Right,
it was hard to crack, but the proof was there.
Lemme throw a contest too. I'll give $1000 and a kiss on the butt to
anybody who cracks a Linux 3.0 machine[1] in the next 12 minutes.
This reminds me of this story of the wannabe sysadmin who had
heard that suid programs were dangerous and issued a "find / -type f -exec
chmod a-s {} \; " or similar.
[ Followups set to the only appropriate newsgroup ]
==
[1] What, it does not exist yet? You have 11 minutes to write it!
--
----------------------+
ni...@MetaBork.ML.ORG |
Paris, FRANCE +---------------------------------------
Joseph C. Lystad
Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
I have had NT on for much more than 3 days, only once had a problem-bad sector on
hd caused stop 000009a error. Remapped it, works fine. Installed quite a bit of
software, no problems.
Tip #1: Install MS products first. Sp3, hotfixes, other things-Office, whatever.
Tip#2: Install Regclean 4.1 and a good uninstaller, norton or cleansweep.
Tip #3: Don't ignore installation errors-try to figure out what happened. Keep an
organized dir structure and root dir clean.
Tip #4: Reboot if necessary by program.
Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
cd.
Tip #6: run a nt disk defrag often. like diskeeper lite.
Tip#7: still having problems, open up case and switch power supplies. Unclean
power signals can cause blue screen. Set memory bios settings to default.
Hope this helps.
Mark Landin
>Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
>cd.
But when you do this, don't you have to reinstall all the SPs and
hotfixes you applied before?
It's the need to do things like this that make people say "NT sucks".
The cavalier attitude towards .DLLs by NT software vendors is very
frustrating. Maybe the software installs a Win95 DLL, or maybe it
overwrites a good NT DLL with a slightly older (or slightly newer) DLL
which causes all kinds of problems. Many users will never consider NT
a robust operating system until this particular issue is resolved.
---
Mark Landin "Is the 'poop deck' what I
T. D. Williamson, Inc. think it is?" -- Homer Simpson
UNIX Sys. Admin upon joining the Naval Reserve
jimm...@yahoo.com
In article <352B68A8...@pilot.msu.edu>,
"Joseph C. Lystad" <lyst...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> I have had NT on for much more than 3 days, only once had a problem-bad sector on
> hd caused stop 000009a error. Remapped it, works fine. Installed quite a bit of
> software, no problems.
>
>
> Tip #1: Install MS products first. Sp3, hotfixes, other things-Office, whatever.
What ??? so if MS releases new products or new hotfixes, i hava to reinstall my 1200 machines ???
> Tip#2: Install Regclean 4.1 and a good uninstaller, norton or cleansweep.
Uninstaller ??? LOL ... wonder what they will do with the regfile ...
> Tip #3: Don't ignore installation errors-try to figure out what happened. Keep an
> organized dir structure and root dir clean.
yeah i know ... only root (administrator) can install software (mostly) ... thats SOO useful!
(Always getting depressed when trying installing software as non-admin on our NTs)
> Tip #4: Reboot if necessary by program.
WHAT ??? i should reboot my DNS & AFS & WWW-server ??? are you nuts ???
> Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
> cd.
I am impressed of your smart techniques ...
> Tip #6: run a nt disk defrag often. like diskeeper lite.
Yeah better 5 times a day ... so that all servers and deamons will lag.
> Tip#7: still having problems, open up case and switch power supplies. Unclean
> power signals can cause blue screen. Set memory bios settings to default.
Sure you will still have problems! ...
cause i dont wanna run around and config 1200 local BIOS'es ...
>
> Hope this helps.
>
Tip #8: Forget NT and run UNIX ... for ex. BSD or Solaris (Ack) :-)
[Both (Open)BSD and Solaris are available for Intel-CPUs ...]
Hope it Helps (it WILL do :-P)
Just keep in mind ... NT is pathetic if you have more than ONE Workstation ...
we have some NTs in our network ... but ppl. dont wanna use them serious .. they keep playing Quake :-P
/Jimmy927 -- The man who wondering when NT goes multiuser. --
Roger Ramsey
In article <352B68A8...@pilot.msu.edu>, lyst...@pilot.msu.edu
says...
> Tip #1: Install MS products first. Sp3, hotfixes, other things-Office, whatever.
> organized dir structure and root dir clean.
> cd.
> power signals can cause blue screen. Set memory bios settings to default.
This looks an awful lot like my standard checklist (g). I'd like to add
one more item:
Tip #8: Use WHQL Certified drivers whenever possible and keep drivers as
up to date as possible.
Roj
Roger Ramsey
In article <352b7ed5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, m5...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> >cd.
>
> hotfixes you applied before?
>
> It's the need to do things like this that make people say "NT sucks".
> The cavalier attitude towards .DLLs by NT software vendors is very
> frustrating. Maybe the software installs a Win95 DLL, or maybe it
> overwrites a good NT DLL with a slightly older (or slightly newer) DLL
> which causes all kinds of problems. Many users will never consider NT
> a robust operating system until this particular issue is resolved.
This isn't an **OS** issue, it's a **vendor** issue and when you have the
largest platform developer base in the world with everyone-and-his-
brother doing their own thing, it's a wee bit hard to control.
You can't pin irresponsible developers on NT. The SDKs include
installers that have code to interrogate DLLs to determine their versions
during installation but if the vendors decide to ignore this...
Roj
Roger Ramsey
In article <6gftpd$3s0$1...@news.kth.se>, jimm...@yahoo.com says...
> > Tip #1: Install MS products first. Sp3, hotfixes, other things-Office, whatever.
Where does he say that? Exercise some common sense here. HotFixes do
not require complete re-installs, but as a Windows NT administrator,
doubtless you already know that.
> > Tip#2: Install Regclean 4.1 and a good uninstaller, norton or cleansweep.
> Uninstaller ??? LOL ... wonder what they will do with the regfile ...
If you track installs with a simple **freeware** utility such as PC
Magazine's In Control it will log all additions and changes to the file
system and Registry Keys. You can then back out an app manually. The
commercial uninstallers simply add automated backout, but then again,
being thoroughly proficient in the Windows world, you already know this
too.
> > Tip #3: Don't ignore installation errors-try to figure out what happened. Keep an
> > organized dir structure and root dir clean.
> yeah i know ... only root (administrator) can install software (mostly) ... thats SOO useful!
> (Always getting depressed when trying installing software as non-admin on our NTs)
Also safer: I wouldn't want my everyday user community installing God-
the-universe-and-everything...
> > Tip #4: Reboot if necessary by program.
> WHAT ??? i should reboot my DNS & AFS & WWW-server ??? are you nuts ???
I do believe he meant during the install procedure, but as you have
installed myriad Windows programs, I'm sure you're familiar with this
point and it was just a minor slip.
> > Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
> > cd.
> I am impressed of your smart techniques ...
Doesn't seem to take much in this particular case, does it?
> > Tip #6: run a nt disk defrag often. like diskeeper lite.
> Yeah better 5 times a day ... so that all servers and deamons will lag.
You can purchase defraggers that have set-it-and-forget-it functionality
that will defrag on off-hours after a certain threshold of fragmentation
is reached. But yet again, being well versed in the Windows world you
know this already also.
> > Tip#7: still having problems, open up case and switch power supplies. Unclean
> > power signals can cause blue screen. Set memory bios settings to default.
> Sure you will still have problems! ...
> cause i dont wanna run around and config 1200 local BIOS'es ...
Whoever installed your workstations to begin with was a tad lax then:
while we may on occasion specify certain settings for new workstations
with the vendors, we always check them as the boxes go in.
Our user base is a wee bit larger than yours though: 9000+ users.
> Tip #8: Forget NT and run UNIX ... for ex. BSD or Solaris (Ack) :-)
> [Both (Open)BSD and Solaris are available for Intel-CPUs ...]
Perhaps for back-end apps but certainly not practical for common everyday
users (unless of course those users happen to be engineers). Also most
business organizations have better things to do with their money than
line vendors pockets with unnecessary hardware and software purchases.
> Just keep in mind ... NT is pathetic if you have more than ONE Workstation ...
> we have some NTs in our network ... but ppl. dont wanna use them serious .. they keep playing Quake :-P
Interesting personnel motivation problems: why are you telling us about
them?
> /Jimmy927 -- The man who wondering when NT goes multiuser. --
Roj
"The man wondering when Jimmy will learn correct English."
S-E Engbraaten
In article <MPG.f955f60c...@news.hwc.ca>, rra...@hpb.hwc.ca (Roger Ramsey) writes:
> In article <352b7ed5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, m5...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:08:09 -0400, "Joseph C. Lystad"
> > <lyst...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> > >cd.
> > frustrating. Maybe the software installs a Win95 DLL, or maybe it
> > overwrites a good NT DLL with a slightly older (or slightly newer) DLL
> > which causes all kinds of problems. Many users will never consider NT
> > a robust operating system until this particular issue is resolved.
>
> This isn't an **OS** issue, it's a **vendor** issue and when you have the
> largest platform developer base in the world with everyone-and-his-
> brother doing their own thing, it's a wee bit hard to control.
>
> You can't pin irresponsible developers on NT. The SDKs include
> installers that have code to interrogate DLLs to determine their versions
>
> Roj
I'd like a bit of clarification here. Isn't it an OS issue when the
vendors aren't able to either:
1) Use the DLL's that come with the OS.
2) Install their own, without interfering with other DLLs.
Put another way: Why don't we have the DLL problem in the Unix world?
Regards,
Stein-Erik
Chris Rogers
<-snip->
>
>
> Tip #1: Install MS products first. Sp3, hotfixes, other things-Office, whatever.
> Tip#2: Install Regclean 4.1 and a good uninstaller, norton or cleansweep.
> Tip #3: Don't ignore installation errors-try to figure out what happened. Keep an
> organized dir structure and root dir clean.
> Tip #4: Reboot if necessary by program.
> Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
> cd.
> Tip #6: run a nt disk defrag often. like diskeeper lite.
> Tip#7: still having problems, open up case and switch power supplies. Unclean
> power signals can cause blue screen. Set memory bios settings to default.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
you can have all this... OR:
Tip #8: Install some form of UNIX!
Chris Rogers
UNIX System Administrator
For a resume: http://undertow.csh.rit.edu/root/resume.html
For PGP key: finger phi...@undertow.csh.rit.edu
Your mouse has moved. Please wait while Windows restarts for the change
to take effect.
J. A. Sigler
Mark Landin wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:08:09 -0400, "Joseph C. Lystad"
> <lyst...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Tip #5: Some progs install win95 dll's. This causes error, re-expand nt file from
> >cd.
>
> But when you do this, don't you have to reinstall all the SPs and
> hotfixes you applied before?
>
> It's the need to do things like this that make people say "NT sucks".
> The cavalier attitude towards .DLLs by NT software vendors is very
> frustrating. Maybe the software installs a Win95 DLL, or maybe it
> overwrites a good NT DLL with a slightly older (or slightly newer) DLL
> which causes all kinds of problems. Many users will never consider NT
> a robust operating system until this particular issue is resolved.
>
> ---
>
> Mark Landin "Is the 'poop deck' what I
> T. D. Williamson, Inc. think it is?" -- Homer Simpson
> UNIX Sys. Admin upon joining the Naval Reserve
The DLL issue is one of many that cause NT to be a real pain for
admins. There are other issues that cause NT to be rejected for
consideration as a robust, secure OS like lack of stability, lack of
fault tolerance, and lack of scalability. It seems that a lot of IS people
fall into the trap and go with NT because it is seen as a cheap and
easy solution. If you are going to try to serve more than a reasonably
small network, NT is clearly not the way to go. And as we are all
very aware, there are also very good reasons not to go with NT if
security is a major concern....
--
_________________________________________________________________
Jon Sigler Unix Systems Administrator
FlashNet Communications http://www.flash.net/
$ echo $SHELL BSD,BSD,BSD and even more BSD!
/usr/local/bin/ksh Try FreeBSD-3.0 www.freebsd.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Highbandwidth
sounds like an administration problem to me!
Joseph C. Lystad wrote in message <352B68A8...@pilot.msu.edu>...
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Potoff wrote:
>
>> Elroy wrote:
>> >
>> > This guy MUST be good! I didn't think NT machines could stay up for
>> > three days..... :)
>> >
>>
>> They stay up pretty good if you don't install any software on
>> them. :^)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> > On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:27:57 +1000, "Fred"
>> > <fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >>that's why it is so secure, dumdum! You have to guess the ip first,
and you
>> > >>only have 3 days for that.
>> > >>
>> > >>go figure.
>> > >well, it is too late to say that, the ip was post 3 days ago on
>> > >comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security. titile is "machine ready for
hack",
>> > >and got some following up posts regarding the NT machine.
>> > >
>> > >You can always use that as your execuse, but the time wont wait for
you, As
>> > >a matter of fact, the machine has run for nearly 3 days now.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>
sector on
>hd caused stop 000009a error. Remapped it, works fine. Installed quite a
bit of
>software, no problems.
>
>
whatever.
>Tip#2: Install Regclean 4.1 and a good uninstaller, norton or cleansweep.
>Tip #3: Don't ignore installation errors-try to figure out what happened.
Keep an
>organized dir structure and root dir clean.
>Tip #4: Reboot if necessary by program.
file from
>cd.
Fred
>Put another way: Why don't we have the DLL problem in the Unix world?
maybe UNIX world dont want to take the advantages of DLLs?
cos...@nospam.enteract.com
In comp.security.unix Fred <fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> wrote:
: >Put another way: Why don't we have the DLL problem in the Unix world?
: maybe UNIX world dont want to take the advantages of DLLs?
yes, that's it.
thank you, drive through.
Pascal Gienger
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:15:38 +1000, Fred <fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au> \
wrote:
>
>>Put another way: Why don't we have the DLL problem in the Unix world?
>
>
>maybe UNIX world dont want to take the advantages of DLLs?
You misspelled "I don't know anything about thr Unix Shared Objects Technique"
a little bit.
Why is it an advantage to put shared objects in 477892789 different DLLs
layed all over the filesystem? To put all the objects in one Shared
Object Library (.so) and to "link" only the needed objects automatically at
each invocation of the binary is nicier, don't you think?
Is it possible that this thread is really horribly off-topic?
Pascal
--
p...@znet.de Factum Data - A woman without a man
http://pascal.znet.de/ Pascal Gienger - is like a fish without
573...@skyper.de (Subj!) Inselg. 13, 78462 KN - a bicycle...
http://echo.znet.de:8888/ echo \8888:ed.tenz.ohce\\:ptth
Edward Hengeveld
Christ will you people stop with the NT / UNIX war.
It's a waste of my time to listen to you people bull shit about this
subject.
If you like NT fine, If you like UNIX fine (I use both) But lets drop the
subject ....
Highbandwidth wrote in message
<6ghf3i$458$1...@nntp0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net>...
The UnSeen
<article edited down>
In article <MPG.f955e6b3...@news.hwc.ca>,
rra...@hpb.hwc.ca (Roger Ramsey) writes:
> In article <6gftpd$3s0$1...@news.kth.se>, jimm...@yahoo.com says...
>> [Both (Open)BSD and Solaris are available for Intel-CPUs ...]
>
> Perhaps for back-end apps but certainly not practical for common everyday
> users (unless of course those users happen to be engineers). Also most
> business organizations have better things to do with their money than
> line vendors pockets with unnecessary hardware and software purchases.
Not that Micro$oft doesn't fill your machines up with useless non-Office
Automation type applications.... ;) NT (IMHO) only really applies to
Office-Automation functions. It's a propriatary<SP?> solution that, if
left somewhat unaltered post admin OS installation, is stable enough for
most day-to-day functions. Now if you're talking about running some CPU
intensive load producing applications, then surely you're not even thinking
about NT...
NT (Nice Try) looses big time in my inter-operation catagory, Micro$oft
(Sun is quilty of this too, to a lesser degree) chooses to often to ignore
public discussion of potiential "standards" and implements their own.
Enter Net-Show, "Active Directory" (aka LDAP), kerberos (extended in NT5 - apparently not compatable with the MIT release), MS Exchange, etc...
Just my $.02...
--
Lyle Bateman
Roger Ramsey wrote:
> > Tip #8: Forget NT and run UNIX ... for ex. BSD or Solaris (Ack) :-)
> > [Both (Open)BSD and Solaris are available for Intel-CPUs ...]
>
> Perhaps for back-end apps but certainly not practical for common everyday
> users (unless of course those users happen to be engineers). Also most
> business organizations have better things to do with their money than
> line vendors pockets with unnecessary hardware and software purchases.
Just as a quick aside (I don't run or use NT), I can install and configure a *NIX network for you for far
less per unit cost than an MS network, either 95 or NT. Its called Linux - stable, supported, free, and
runs on machines that NT would laugh at and shut down (like a 486 SX with 8mb, for example). And I don't
know about NT, but Linux runs at least 50% faster than Win95 on the same hardware with the same sort of
apps.
Cheers,
lyle
>
--
Sincerely,
Lyle W. Bateman
System Consultant
PECC Ltd.
NOTE: My views are my own, and do not represent the views
of my employer, unless explicitly stated.
robert
"Fred" <fr...@no.spam.kurango.cit.gu.edu.au>:
>>Put another way: Why don't we have the DLL problem in the Unix world?
>maybe UNIX world dont want to take the advantages of DLLs?
Which are what, exactly? I have shared libraries on my machines,
different versions of the same library can co-exist next to eachother,
and I hardly ever have to recompile a program after installing a new
library-version.
No, instead I want loads of DLL's clobbering my disk, overwriting older
versions with which they ofcourse are not compatible, therefore making
my machine unstable...sure.
robert
Carl Cox
AMEN!!!
Edward Hengeveld wrote in message <#bYHDGAZ9GA.135@uppubnews03>...
Warvoj
We must continue arguing!
Once the argument stops, someone will come in and take control of all operating
systems, and we will be forced to continue with something as crudy as Win-95.
The arguments must continue to keep competition strong.