On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Looks like I need my tin foil hat…..
On Oct 10, 2014, at 11:19 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
-- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
Remember M$'s "3 knocks" and you are in Windoze software ?
The greater the difference between (Windoze, Lindoze etc.) and Linux the better.
I am sure M$ could have designed a much more secure operating system: But it didn't. Hence the success of superior non-Windoze operating systems. Keeping Linux pure from the Windoze influence is essential even if it means upsetting systemd fans :-)
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL…..
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on "enumerate bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I see, so you can’t back up your claim….ok.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:33 -0500, William Woods wrote:
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
You obviously didn't. Perhaps one day you may discover what others know today.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote:
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say is BASH , OpenSSL ..
Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble...
I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source".
Valeri
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote:
On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on > "enumerate > bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a > future.
I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only purchased through a monopoly 'app store'.
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not at all, and please don’t tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to imply in any way that open source is better is a misnomer.
I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I don’t belong to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot.
I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote:
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL…..
Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble...
I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source".
Valeri
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >> "enumerate >> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >> future. > > I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of the > novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps only > purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >
Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote:
Not at all, and please dont tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to imply in any way that open source is better is a misnomer.
I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I dont belong to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot.
I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my answer.
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote:
So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say is BASH , OpenSSL ..
Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble...
I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source".
Valeri
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URLs to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >>> "enumerate >>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >>> future. >> >> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of >> the >> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps >> only >> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >> > > Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed.
Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then we are pretty much in agreement here, regarding the claims made by the other member of the list, I do think if you are going to make a claim and state it as if it is fact, you should back it up
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote: Not at all, and please don’t tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to imply in any way that open source is better is a misnomer.
I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I don’t belong to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot.
I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my answer.
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say is…BASH , OpenSSL…..
Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble...
I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source".
Valeri
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >>>> "enumerate >>>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >>>> future. >>> >>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of >>> the >>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps >>> only >>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >> >> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. > > Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the USA > authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA > authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:30 pm, William Woods wrote:
Then we are pretty much in agreement here, regarding the claims made by the other member of the list, I do think if you are going to make a claim and state it as if it is fact, you should back it up
Well, I know what claim you mean (which was not mine...) As far as google is concerned, I have my own reservations, which I'm not going to talk about.
To change the subject completely: one day I thought about this. In the past one needed to recruit spies. These days if I were a head on one of these intelligence agencies I would do it much cheaper and more efficient. I would invest (just make a grant) big time in great nice IT startup company. And keep adding $$ in. Have them roll out free services, applications, everything. And information will trickle to me at much lower cost, I only would need to build huge storage center, and apply enormous computing power to process this information. I'm sure at least IBM has similar thoughts about free applications/services (at least that's what I've heard).
For what it's worth, those are just abstract thoughts, any coincidence that my thoughts might cause in your mind are pure coincidense, purely on your side, and have nothing do with any real subject, person, etc...
Putting my pointy hat back on...
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 1:07 pm, William Woods wrote: Not at all, and please donât tell me what I prefer, All I prefer is that people try to be homiest, you are right all software has bugs, but to imply in any way that open source is better is a misnomer.
I use open source, closed source, whatever tool fits the job, I donât belong to any specific church re: software, nor am I a closed/open source zealot.
I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
No, I'm happy and not offended at all. And it turns out we do pretty much the same thing. I do use closed source wherever it does the job, and for tasks that are not cover by open source. Some closed source software is great. But wherever I do want to save brain figuring out what to use for the task that has highest demands in security... you already know my answer.
Valeri
On Oct 10, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:33 pm, William Woods wrote: So claim made, nothing to back it up. Got it.
all I need to say isâ¦BASH , OpenSSLâ¦..
Nice examples. One-sided though. All software has bugs. You prefer security through obscurity (closed source, and you have to _trust_ the vendor of it). But there are numerous security issues with closed source M$ Windows system. Of course, you would prefer closed source example UNIX. Here it goes: SSH (as opposed to openSSH we all have thanks to OpenBSD project). There was an awful security hole in it about 13 years ago and as sshd daemon runs by user root, we were just waiting if stray root just will walk into our Solaris boxes. Waiting for parch from system vendor and simultaneously compiling openssh as a replacement. Those of us who had majority of boxes under Linux (hence with openssh that wasn't vulnerable) had less trouble...
I guess, you go you to your church, and I will go to mine. I do not consider "security through obscurity" a security. I prefer not to wreck my brain thinking "to what extent can I trust this corporate vendor". I prefer the code put out into open so everybody can review it. I doesn't mean that open source code will be audited diligently. But the fact that it can be gives the best reassurance for me. I do join that clever person who said "security only can be in open source".
Valeri
I am sure there are more.
But really, if you are going to claim something, at least be willing to back up what you claim is that asking to much ?
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
> On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote: > Really, you have some URLâs to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
Valeri
> > On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net > wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, October 9, 2014 21:11, John R Pierce wrote: >>>>> On 10/9/2014 6:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>>>> BTW, the whole idea of "antivirus" is flawed. It is based on >>>>> "enumerate >>>>> bad". You can't, as one never knows what will be invented in a >>>>> future. >>>> >>>> I agree, but I don't know what else you can put in the hands of >>>> the >>>> novice, unless its the iPhone world of corporate approved apps >>>> only >>>> purchased through a monopoly 'app store'. >>> >>> Which simply means: Only 'Government Approved' viruses allowed. >> >> Excellent point. Windows 95 was designed to be accessible by the >> USA >> authorities. USA anti-virus software "allows" access from the USA >> authorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To Paul and William,
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
All kidding aside; do either of you audit the source code of your OS personally... or blindly trust all RH employees "have your back"?
When it comes to "security", don't we all just, eventually, bury our heads in whichever sand makes us feel safe?
On 10/10/2014 2:31 PM, Chris Pemberton wrote:
To Paul and William,
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
All kidding aside; do either of you audit the source code of your OS personally... or blindly trust all RH employees "have your back"?
When it comes to "security", don't we all just, eventually, bury our heads in whichever sand makes us feel safe? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I should have asked about 70 messages ago... but can you guys change the subject line if you are to talk about these unrelated issues?
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 19:20 -0500, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
I do hope you will be able to understand that your lack of knowledge and your free offers of 'tin foil' are not really Centos matters.
Either is your paranoia……
On Oct 11, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 19:20 -0500, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
I do hope you will be able to understand that your lack of knowledge and your free offers of 'tin foil' are not really Centos matters.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:00:44AM -0500, William Woods wrote:
Either is your paranoia……
Enough already. Can you please take this off-list?
John
On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check for embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there... that tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably have access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd never be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the same thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an inquisitive Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on pull-out caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi access which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, October 11, 2014 9:08 am, Igal Sapir wrote:
On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p
Have you ever heard someone saying "paranoia is on my sysadmin's job description"? If you don't have an attitude described by that word you better don't run severs. Not that I would say they will end up compromised, but the chance of compromise is way higher if you don't exercise "paranoia" when setting up your server. I bet any sysadmin manual or book has security chapter which stresses it in similar wording. A few I learned from did. So, in my book Mr. Always Learning is more suitable as sysadmin than a person of an attitude you expressed. No offense, just think it over, thinking it over may help you one day.
Just my $0.02
Valer
On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net
wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check
for
embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there...
that
tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably
have
access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd
never
be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the
same
thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an
inquisitive
Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on
pull-out
caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi
access
which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one
should
worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My comment was sincere but was directed at Chris Pimberton, who I thought was really funny.
I have nothing against Always Learning other than the fact that he hijacked this thread from the original question that I asked... On Oct 11, 2014 7:27 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Sat, October 11, 2014 9:08 am, Igal Sapir wrote:
On my short list for entertainment/stand up comedy :p
Have you ever heard someone saying "paranoia is on my sysadmin's job description"? If you don't have an attitude described by that word you better don't run severs. Not that I would say they will end up compromised, but the chance of compromise is way higher if you don't exercise "paranoia" when setting up your server. I bet any sysadmin manual or book has security chapter which stresses it in similar wording. A few I learned from did. So, in my book Mr. Always Learning is more suitable as sysadmin than a person of an attitude you expressed. No offense, just think it over, thinking it over may help you one day.
Just my $0.02
Valer
On Oct 11, 2014 7:03 AM, "Valeri Galtsev" galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 7:20 pm, William Woods wrote:
Whats your mailing address, I will send you some more tinfoil.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net
wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:31 -0500, Chris Pemberton wrote:
Did either of you think to crack open your laptop cases and check
for
embedded key logging hardware on the MB.. it could be in there...
that
tiny mislabeled capacitor near the USB bus would be a good hiding place... or have you been blindly typing away on those keyboards for several years...? Does the firmware for your wireless card ever overstep its bounds and poke around a bit... perhaps to collect info from the key logger? That same wireless firmware could probably
have
access to your network without your knowledge... Isn't it the government that stipulates that the firmware be distributed in binary form only...? And be sure to "mute" the mic on your machine... they'd
never
be smart enough to use the speakers in reverse to accomplish the
same
thing :)
I avoid using Wifi. My keyboards are changed frequently (one of the reasons is some are allergic to tea). My home router is an
inquisitive
Asus AC68U but Wifi is disabled. My trusted firewall is iptables. My multiple backups are significant distances away. My HDDs are on
pull-out
caddies. I read all the generated daily reports.
When relatives come, a new name and password are created for Wifi
access
which does not broadcast its presence. There is no access to the LAN.
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one
should
worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate.
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:03 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
If anyone is serious about security, it is not the keyboards one should worry about but another item that is so common it is always 'overlooked'. No further comment :-)
If I were to hire sysadmin or computer security officer you definitely will be on my short list, much preferred candidate.
Thank you. I am flattered. I have never been west of Europe.
Good security is discretely "poking one's nose in", wondering about things and questioning how security might be improved - complacency and 'lack of knowledge' aren't really the best attributes .... and tin foil doesn't really help :-)
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 13:07 -0500, William Woods wrote:
I know its kinda hard for people to accept someone on a centos mailing list would use closed source, I am sorry some of you purists are offended.
I thought the entire Centos project was "Open Source". If that is correct, what attraction would a very successful, and universally loved and appreciated, Open Source project have for a 'closed source addict' ?
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:21 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Fri, October 10, 2014 12:01 pm, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
Well, that's the problem with closed source systems (Which MS Windows is and commercial antiviruses for it are). One can claim something and there is no way to prove it is right or it is wrong (or left? ;-)
I remember some clever person said: "security can only be in open source". There are systems that are not [quite] open source, even though they are based on open source. I may be out of date but some time ago (last time I cared to check) Android was not (even though it is based on Linux kernel, there is fair chunk of closed code in its kernel). Everybody is free to imagine me with tin foil hat on, or with pointy hat on...
The default setting for Android is to give Google all your passwords including Wifi ones. In Europe Google sent motor vehicles, in the guise of photographing every premise in every street, whilst secretly sniffing everyone's WiFi equipment.
I long for the day when Centos can replace Google on Android tablets.
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the USA government, started.
You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related agencies.
Have a pleasant weekend.
I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice distraction though.
I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are unwilling (or unable) to back up what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the USA government, started.
You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related agencies.
Have a pleasant weekend.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:52 -0500, William Woods wrote:
I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice distraction though.
I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are unwilling (or unable) to back up what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er.
Call me what you wish. That is definitely not going to change the truth and reality. Have a nice evening.
And you can make all the claims you want, without being willing to back them up.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:52 -0500, William Woods wrote:
I doubt you have been around longer than me, but not the point, nice distraction though.
I know quite well about google/Mozilla, yawn, old news, but if you are unwilling (or unable) to back up what you claim then I have no choice but to call out a BS’er.
Call me what you wish. That is definitely not going to change the truth and reality. Have a nice evening.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Oh as a side note, that suggests nothing other than back up what you claim.
On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Always Learning centos@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:01 -0500, William Woods wrote:
Really, you have some URL’s to back up the paranoia ?
That suggests I've been around a lot longer than you and appear, with some subjects, to know a little more than you. Many things happened when the Internet was in its infancy and before Google, then funded by the USA government, started.
You'll be telling me next Google didn't give USD 50 million to Mozilla. There may have been other payments. The default setting of Firefox is to give Google every URL the user types-in. Google is the biggest spying operation in the world, apart from the USA military and related agencies.
Have a pleasant weekend.
-- Regards,
Paul. England, EU.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Always Learning -
Chris Pemberton -
Igal ＠ getRailo.org -
Igal Sapir
-
James B. Byrne -
John R. Dennison -
Valeri Galtsev -
William Woods