Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #377146 > unrolled thread

9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 14:25 +0000
    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 17:49 +0200
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:45 +0200
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:51 +0000
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:59 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:11 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 23:14 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:20 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:38 +0200
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-21 23:13 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:17 +0000
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:35 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-21 17:23 -0400
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 21:52 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:33 +0200
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:19 -0400
                    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-22 08:33 -0400
                      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 09:23 -0400
                        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 15:48 +0200
                          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 10:02 -0400
                            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 16:07 +0200
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-22 16:46 +0100
                                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-23 09:04 -0400
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-22 14:34 -0400
                              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-22 12:45 -0700
                            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 12:10 -0700
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-21 23:05 +0100
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-21 18:09 -0400
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-22 04:35 -0700
    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 11:50 -0400
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 15:56 +0000
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 12:46 -0400
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:16 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-21 18:30 -0400
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 22:54 +0000
      Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 16:10 +0000
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:34 -0700
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:43 +0200
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:45 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-21 22:47 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-21 20:52 +0000
                Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 19:31 -0600
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-22 01:46 +0000
                  Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:30 +0200
                    A Flounder is as Flounder does Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:12 -0400
                    Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-22 13:49 -0600
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 19:31 -0600
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-22 01:44 +0000
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-22 04:29 +0200
            Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-22 11:30 +0200
              Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-22 13:50 -0600
        Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-22 08:11 -0400
          Re: 9 Year Old Linux Kernel Exploit Discovered. This is a bad one. Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2016-10-22 12:24 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#377288

Snit Slimeshit wrote:

> On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like
>>>>>> you
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot
>>>>> of dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious
>>>>> bugs actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are
>>>>> quickly issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>>>>
>>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
>>>
>>> No comments? Let me leave one.
>>>
>>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
>> 
>> Proof? *Any* at all?
>> Thought so
> 
> I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
> <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
> 
> First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
> years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
> is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
> users to install a patch as soon as possible."
> 
>>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the
>>> way.
>> 
>> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
>> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things
> 
> Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.

Well, you certainly will be able to point us to the place in that article 
where it says that it is "activly being exploited the entire time", will 
you? *Your* claim

Thought so. You are just making things up as they come along.
A bug being present that time and a bug "being exploited the entire time" 
are not the same thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377297

On 22/10/2016 15:07 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann posted:

> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>>>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot
>>>>>> of dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious
>>>>>> bugs actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are
>>>>>> quickly issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>>>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
>>>>
>>>> No comments? Let me leave one.
>>>>
>>>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
>>> 
>>> Proof? *Any* at all?
>>> Thought so
>> 
>> I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
>> <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
>> 
>> First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
>> years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
>> is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
>> users to install a patch as soon as possible."
>> 
>>>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the
>>>> way.
>>> 
>>> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
>>> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things
>> 
>> Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.
>
> Well, you certainly will be able to point us to the place in that article 
> where it says that it is "activly being exploited the entire time", will 
> you? *Your* claim
>
> Thought so. You are just making things up as they come along.
> A bug being present that time and a bug "being exploited the entire time" 
> are not the same thing.

Nope, & *nowhere* in that article does it say anything about
being "exploited the entire time". Slimeball the Drama Queen

-- 
Windows and Mac machines are mostly used for emails, writing procedures, 
creating document and drawings and storing/accessing them in various databases. 
Some of those databases are used directly for operations - timelines, flight notes, chits, etc.
Critical facilities - Mission Control, training facilities, etc. - tend to use Redhat so that they 
can get some customer support if needed.
-- James Nevik, 20+ years working at Johnson Space Center --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377418

On 2016-10-22 11:46 AM, William Poaster wrote:
> On 22/10/2016 15:07 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann posted:
> 
>> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>>>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>>>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>>>>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot
>>>>>>> of dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious
>>>>>>> bugs actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are
>>>>>>> quickly issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>>>>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comments? Let me leave one.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
>>>>
>>>> Proof? *Any* at all?
>>>> Thought so
>>>
>>> I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
>>> <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
>>>
>>> First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
>>> years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
>>> is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
>>> users to install a patch as soon as possible."
>>>
>>>>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the
>>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
>>>> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things
>>>
>>> Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.
>>
>> Well, you certainly will be able to point us to the place in that article 
>> where it says that it is "activly being exploited the entire time", will 
>> you? *Your* claim
>>
>> Thought so. You are just making things up as they come along.
>> A bug being present that time and a bug "being exploited the entire time" 
>> are not the same thing.
> 
> Nope, & *nowhere* in that article does it say anything about
> being "exploited the entire time". Slimeball the Drama Queen

A +1 from Wideload Porkster? I'm shocked!


-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377312

On 2016-10-22 10:07 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-22 8:33 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-22, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, when you posted it I *was* already informed.
>>>>>>> Not only that, I got an update shortly before
>>>>>>> Linux users generally don't need such a "service" from trolls like
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the usual dance.  A long-time bug finally surfaces, we here a lot
>>>>>> of corporate shills screeching about the DANGER DANGER DANGER, a lot
>>>>>> of dismissing of the "many eyes" that ignores just how few serious
>>>>>> bugs actually slip through the many-eyes gauntlet, the patches are
>>>>>> quickly issued, and it is forgotten until the next major bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
>>>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
>>>>
>>>> No comments? Let me leave one.
>>>>
>>>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
>>>
>>> Proof? *Any* at all?
>>> Thought so
>>
>> I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
>> <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
>>
>> First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
>> years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
>> is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
>> users to install a patch as soon as possible."
>>
>>>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
>>> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things
>>
>> Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.
> 
> Well, you certainly will be able to point us to the place in that article 
> where it says that it is "activly being exploited the entire time", will 
> you? *Your* claim

Apparently, you're too dumb to understand what "actively" means.

> Thought so. You are just making things up as they come along.
> A bug being present that time and a bug "being exploited the entire time" 
> are not the same thing.

You truly are an idiot, Peter the Klöwn. I enjoy every time you move the
goal posts to prevent yourself from admitting what kind of a fool you are.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377318

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Snit Slimeshit wrote:
> > On 2016-10-22 9:48 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> And zero comment on the 5 Zero Days on Windows from just last week.
> >>>> FIVE. So much for that proprietary software yielding good quality. LOL.
> >>>
> >>> No comments? Let me leave one.
> >>>
> >>> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
> >> 
> >> Proof? *Any* at all?
> >> Thought so
> > 
> > I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
> >
> > <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
> > 
> > First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
> > years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
> > is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
> > users to install a patch as soon as possible."
> > 
> >>> and allowed hackers to compromise a large number of systems along the
> >>> way.
> >> 
> >> Except it wasn't obviously a "large number"
> >> "Allowing" and having "actually being exploited" are different things
> > 
> > Previous paragraph, Peter the Klöwn.
> 
> Well, you certainly will be able to point us to the place in that article 
> where it says that it is "activly being exploited the entire time", will 
> you? *Your* claim

The paragraph does explicitly state that exploits in the wild were being found.

Were they literally the "entire time"?   No data in that citation to say one way or 
the other.  Granted, the statement from 'Slimer' might have been literary hyperbola, 
or pragmatically close enough to being 100% true...

... but regardless of if it was 9 days, 9 weeks, 9 months or 9 years, the fact
remains that the citation does unambiguously state that exploits do exist in the wild.

And that there were exploits does make this materially different than MS
plugging some zero days where there's no smoking gun evidence that any 
of them were, or had ever been, exploited.  

 
> Thought so. You are just making things up as they come along.  A
> bug being present that time and a bug "being exploited the entire time" 
> are not the same thing.

No, they're not -- and yet the citation did clearly say that the bug was
confirmed as being exploited.  Can't say for how long, but if one were
to randomize it, the initial estimate would have been for the past ~5 years.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377316

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-7, Silver Slimer wrote:
> >> No comments? Let me leave one.
> >>
> >> The 9 year-old Linux bug was actively exploited during that entire time
> > 
> > Proof? *Any* at all?
> > Thought so
> 
> I'll provide it, knowing that your dumb ass will ignore it either way:
> <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/>
> 
> First paragraph: "A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine
> years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system
> is under *active exploit*, according to researchers who are advising
> users to install a patch as soon as possible."

For your next trick, Snit, you can explain the difference between "is under" and "had been under".

Your lack of reading comprehension gives you away every time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377228

On 21/10/2016 22:23 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Marek Novotny posted:

> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>>
>>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>>>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>> 
>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>
>> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
>> did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
>> reverted to the original state
>
> I have to wonder if Jim made this much stink over the 5 zero days
> Microsoft had to patch a week ago...
>
> https://threatpost.com/microsoft-patches-five-zero-days-under-attack/121211/

I doubt that he did.

-- 

What IS remarkable, is that a well developed ape has come
to realise that he lives on a planet, circling a sun, in a 
planetary system, within a galaxy, within a universe.
- Professor Michio Kaku - Theoretical Physicist -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377229

On 2016-10-21, William Poaster <wp@dev.null> wrote:
> On 21/10/2016 22:23 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Marek Novotny posted:
>
>> On 2016-10-21, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:49:06 +0200
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users
>>>>>> > unfettered root access."
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop
>>>>>
>>>>> It is 90% of work on Unix to overtake machine is to gain shell access...
>>>>> It was 15 years ago, I guess it is now true as well...
>>>> 
>>>> Point is it took the many eyes 9 years to discover this exploit.
>>>> Not a good advertisement for the many eyes theory.
>>>
>>> It *was* discovered 9 years ago. Linux Torvalds himself patched it, but he 
>>> did not do a good job according to himself. His patch was later removed and 
>>> reverted to the original state
>>
>> I have to wonder if Jim made this much stink over the 5 zero days
>> Microsoft had to patch a week ago...
>>
>> https://threatpost.com/microsoft-patches-five-zero-days-under-attack/121211/
>
> I doubt that he did.

I wonder why that is...  

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377268

Peter wrote:
> It is a bad one. But only for server machines, not desktop 

As if Linux has any appreciable market share in "desktop", particularly 
since desktop market share discussions on COLA invariably get servers 
& supercomputers cited to try to claim that Linux hasn't been a failure.

Good news that it has been patched, but it's history does illustrate, unfortunately, 
that the open source many eyes approach isn't the magical panacea for quality
that it is often claimed by some of its fanboys.  Basic lesson is that shit happens 
in every human endeavor process...something that's whacking Samsung this month too.

-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377158

On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
> 
> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
> unfettered root access."
> 
> 
> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
> wrote:
> 
>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
> reliably. Scary stuff.
> 
>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
> system and execute it also works.
> 
>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
> facing server is vulnerable. "

The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
nude body in barbecue sauce.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377161

On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>> 
>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>> unfettered root access."
>> 
>> 
>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>> 
>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>> system and execute it also works.
>> 
>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>
> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
> nude body in barbecue sauce.

You fucking ruined my lunch with that one!!
That disgusting slob is hideous.
I'll bet the hookers he hires charge him combat pay because he is so 
repulsive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377177

On 2016-10-21 11:56 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>
>>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>>> unfettered root access."
>>>
>>>
>>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>>>
>>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>>> system and execute it also works.
>>>
>>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>>
>> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
>> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
>> nude body in barbecue sauce.
> 
> You fucking ruined my lunch with that one!!
> That disgusting slob is hideous.
> I'll bet the hookers he hires charge him combat pay because he is so 
> repulsive.

He doesn't hire hookers because they aren't open-source. He only sleeps
with the bodies of women that have been opened up and examined by "many
eyes."

-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377207

On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 11:56 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>
>>>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>>>> unfettered root access."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>>>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>>>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>>>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>>>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>>>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>>>>
>>>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>>>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>>>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>>>> system and execute it also works.
>>>>
>>>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>>>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>>>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>>>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>>>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>>>
>>> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
>>> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
>>> nude body in barbecue sauce.
>> 
>> You fucking ruined my lunch with that one!!
>> That disgusting slob is hideous.
>> I'll bet the hookers he hires charge him combat pay because he is so 
>> repulsive.
>
> He doesn't hire hookers because they aren't open-source. He only sleeps
> with the bodies of women that have been opened up and examined by "many
> eyes."

Sounds like a doctor I used to know. He and his wife were swingers. The 
scuttle butt around the hospital was that he whored his good looking 
wife out for gang bangs where anonymous men would fuck her without a 
condom and after the multiple men, like 20+ or more, were done with her, 
he would clean her out with his tongue and then be the last to fuck her.

Word got around the hospital and he was fired.
It was too bad because aside from his strange hobby, he was an excellent 
doctor.

Go figure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377234

On 2016-10-21 4:16 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-21 11:56 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>>>>> unfettered root access."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>>>>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>>>>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>>>>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>>>>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>>>>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>>>>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>>>>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>>>>> system and execute it also works.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>>>>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>>>>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>>>>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>>>>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>>>>
>>>> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
>>>> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
>>>> nude body in barbecue sauce.
>>>
>>> You fucking ruined my lunch with that one!!
>>> That disgusting slob is hideous.
>>> I'll bet the hookers he hires charge him combat pay because he is so 
>>> repulsive.
>>
>> He doesn't hire hookers because they aren't open-source. He only sleeps
>> with the bodies of women that have been opened up and examined by "many
>> eyes."
> 
> Sounds like a doctor I used to know. He and his wife were swingers. The 
> scuttle butt around the hospital was that he whored his good looking 
> wife out for gang bangs where anonymous men would fuck her without a 
> condom and after the multiple men, like 20+ or more, were done with her, 
> he would clean her out with his tongue and then be the last to fuck her.
> 
> Word got around the hospital and he was fired.
> It was too bad because aside from his strange hobby, he was an excellent 
> doctor.
> 
> Go figure.

I can't imagine how a guy can be turned on watching his wife be treated
like an object. That's pretty disgusting to say the least.


-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377236

On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 4:16 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-21 11:56 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>>>>>> unfettered root access."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>>>>>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>>>>>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>>>>>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>>>>>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>>>>>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>>>>>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>>>>>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>>>>>> system and execute it also works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>>>>>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>>>>>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>>>>>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>>>>>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>>>>>
>>>>> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
>>>>> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
>>>>> nude body in barbecue sauce.
>>>>
>>>> You fucking ruined my lunch with that one!!
>>>> That disgusting slob is hideous.
>>>> I'll bet the hookers he hires charge him combat pay because he is so 
>>>> repulsive.
>>>
>>> He doesn't hire hookers because they aren't open-source. He only sleeps
>>> with the bodies of women that have been opened up and examined by "many
>>> eyes."
>> 
>> Sounds like a doctor I used to know. He and his wife were swingers. The 
>> scuttle butt around the hospital was that he whored his good looking 
>> wife out for gang bangs where anonymous men would fuck her without a 
>> condom and after the multiple men, like 20+ or more, were done with her, 
>> he would clean her out with his tongue and then be the last to fuck her.
>> 
>> Word got around the hospital and he was fired.
>> It was too bad because aside from his strange hobby, he was an excellent 
>> doctor.
>> 
>> Go figure.
>
> I can't imagine how a guy can be turned on watching his wife be treated
> like an object. That's pretty disgusting to say the least.

Me either but this was a thing both of them were into so I say whatever 
floats your boat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377164

On 2016-10-21, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 10:25 AM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/most-serious-linux-privilege-escalation-bug-ever-is-under-active-exploit/#p3
>> 
>> "Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users 
>> unfettered root access."
>> 
>> 
>> "The in-the-wild attacks exploiting this specific vulnerability were 
>> found by Linux developer Phil Oester, according to an informational site 
>> dedicated to the vulnerability. It says Oester found the exploit using 
>> an HTTP packet capture, but the site doesn't elaborate. Update: In 
>> e-mails received about nine hours after this post went live, Oester 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Any user can become root in < 5 seconds in my testing, very 
>> reliably. Scary stuff.
>> 
>>     The vulnerability is easiest exploited with local access to a system 
>> such as shell accounts. Less trivially, any web server/application 
>> vulnerability which allows the attacker to upload a file to the impacted 
>> system and execute it also works.
>> 
>>     The particular exploit which was uploaded to my system was compiled 
>> with GCC 4.8.5 released 20150623, though this should not imply that the 
>> vulnerability was not available earlier than that date given its 
>> longevity. As to who is being targeted, anyone running Linux on a web 
>> facing server is vulnerable. "
>
> The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
> too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
> nude body in barbecue sauce.

It took 9 years for those many eyes to discover the security problem.
And when you think about it, the brightest and best of the Linux 
community are the ones working on the kernel, it only goes downhill from 
there regarding other parts of Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377173

On Friday, 21 October 2016 09:10:32 UTC-7, Jim Polaski  wrote:
> > The many eyes of the Linux community failed again. They were probably
> > too busy masturbating to the thought of Wretched Stallman covering his
> > nude body in barbecue sauce.
> 
> It took 9 years for those many eyes to discover the security problem.
> And when you think about it, the brightest and best of the Linux 
> community are the ones working on the kernel, it only goes downhill from 
> there regarding other parts of Linux.

Twenty years and many eyes and not a single cult member can show KDE being of value.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377212

On 21 Oct 2016 16:10:29 GMT
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:


Hi flatfish.

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377214

On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2016 16:10:29 GMT
> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi flatfish.

Sorry but you are wrong.
Very wrong.
Of course that won't prevent the COLA Cabal from jumping on the 
bandwagon even though your statement has no factual basis.
It's the way the COLA Linux Cabal works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377216

On 21 Oct 2016 20:45:50 GMT
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> On 2016-10-21, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > On 21 Oct 2016 16:10:29 GMT
> > Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi flatfish.  
> 
> Sorry but you are wrong.
> Very wrong.
> Of course that won't prevent the COLA Cabal from jumping on the 
> bandwagon even though your statement has no factual basis.
> It's the way the COLA Linux Cabal works.
> 
Ok, I'll call you Jim then, but don't change nick. Enough time as Jim
and you will be Jim...


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web