two bogus messages to this list
I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party yesterday, probably some of my guests did that... - Igor. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Mon Nov 11 06:35:19 1996 Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com> Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with UUCP id GAA16814 for ichudov@algebra.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:34:44 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with ESMTP id CAA20037 for <ichudov@algebra.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA01399 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.video-collage.com (www.video-collage.com [199.232.240.107]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA01394 for <cypherpunks@toad.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with UUCP id AAA19874 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id XAA15989 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:47:00 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:47:00 -0600 From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com> Message-Id: <199611110547.XAA15989@manifold.algebra.com> Subject: FUCK ME HARD Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: O
FUCK NME HARD
From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Mon Nov 11 00:35:29 1996 Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com> Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with UUCP id AAA16188 for ichudov@algebra.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:35:24 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA19940 for <ichudov@algebra.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 01:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA00961 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.video-collage.com (www.video-collage.com [199.232.240.107]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA00956 for <cypherpunks@toad.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:03:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with UUCP id AAA19793 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id WAA15563 for cypherpunks@toad.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:36:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:36:03 -0600 From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com> Message-Id: <199611110436.WAA15563@manifold.algebra.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO
manifold::~==>premail -t cypherpunks@toad.com Chain: haystack;jam Subject: I urgently need a lot of money. Please share your money-making secrets, I am in a desperate need for cash.
In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said: .I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party .yesterday, probably some of my guests did that... just goes to proof it: Microslop and Intel boxes are secure only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key. -- Cyberspace and Information are Freedom. FUCK your WIPO, too. -attila
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila@primenet.com wrote:
In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party .yesterday, probably some of my guests did that...
just goes to proof it: Microslop and Intel boxes are secure only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.
Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box. -r.w.
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 attila@primenet.com wrote:
In <199611111238.GAA17346@manifold.algebra.com>, on 11/11/96 at 06:38 AM, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
.I did not write the two messages below. I did have a small party .yesterday, probably some of my guests did that... just goes to proof it: Microslop and Intel boxes are secure only when most of their parts are stored under lock and key.
Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.
Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL KEYSTROKES and EVENTS. This call exists from Win32s on, and can be placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded. Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping Keystrokes, events, and window contents. Does this just BEG to be exploited? If you give me normal user access to ANY microsloth machine, I can have most of the system's security broken down to NOTHING within a week. And I'm not even a good MS programmer! <Are my prejudices showing?> At least under UNIX, you damned well know you have to secure your system. Microsloth attempts to sell itself as a secure platform. --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu
Ted Garrett wrote:
Microsloth has, at the heart of it's system, a call which traps ALL KEYSTROKES and EVENTS. This call exists from Win32s on, and can be placed inside of a DLL which most users would have no idea was loaded. Even under NT, this DLL can be made to remain resident and trapping Keystrokes, events, and window contents.
Does this just BEG to be exploited?
Also, permissions of many of the system binaries on NT 4.0 are wrong. - Igor.
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Rabid Wombat wrote:
Um, not to disagree with you re Intel/Micro$loth, but most UNIX systems can be brought up in single-user mode and the root password changed by anyone with physical access to the system. You could end up with even more trouble than if someone messed with your M$ box.
This is far over-simplified. Most BSD derived Unices provide the _option_ for single-user mode not to be password protected (depending on whether the console is marked secure in /etc/ttys). A few default to this behavior, but on all it is either a configuration choice or a password is always required (as it is in USG'ish unices). -- Jim Wise System Administrator GSAPP, Columbia University jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim * Finger for PGP public key *
participants (5)
-
attila＠primenet.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Jim Wise -
Rabid Wombat -
Ted Garrett