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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at centos.org >>>>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CentOS mailing list >>>>> CentOS at 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 at centos.org >>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS at 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 at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++