Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #695856 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-24 19:45 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-08-28 08:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 19:45 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 01:00 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 21:18 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@Bham.com> - 2025-08-25 02:16 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 22:27 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 02:35 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 23:10 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 03:39 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 23:50 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 04:30 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 02:35 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 07:11 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 03:41 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 07:49 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 04:01 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 08:15 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Not Necessary <not@necessary.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:29 +0530
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@AL.invalid> - 2025-08-25 09:48 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Not Necessary <not@necessary.invalid> - 2025-08-25 08:53 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 09:28 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 09:45 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:38 -0500
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-25 06:06 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 02:46 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 07:12 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 09:27 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:35 -0500
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 17:07 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-26 01:52 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-26 09:47 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-08-25 05:12 +0200
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 23:20 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 04:26 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-25 06:03 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 02:44 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 07:13 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 03:43 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 08:16 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 04:35 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 09:29 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 05:46 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-25 21:54 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 18:07 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-26 01:54 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:41 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 03:46 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@AL.invalid> - 2025-08-25 08:51 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-25 14:59 -0500
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 16:31 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@AL.invalid> - 2025-08-25 22:23 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@AL.invalid> - 2025-08-25 22:26 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 19:39 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 19:39 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CtrlAltDel <Altie@AL.invalid> - 2025-08-25 23:54 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-25 20:06 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-26 01:55 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 07:45 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-26 22:50 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 01:33 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 06:38 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-26 09:51 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 10:02 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 18:57 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 15:09 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-26 15:45 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-26 17:09 -0500
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-26 19:33 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 19:39 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 06:35 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-27 09:07 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 06:14 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-28 08:53 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 17:35 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 06:36 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 17:05 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 06:07 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 06:26 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-29 08:31 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-28 16:33 -0500
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 06:37 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 06:09 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-29 08:35 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 06:32 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-29 08:46 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 06:01 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-08-31 00:31 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-31 10:06 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-08-31 19:29 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-09-01 08:26 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 06:47 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-09-02 09:10 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 10:18 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:48 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-09-01 08:43 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 03:54 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-02 21:50 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-02 23:07 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 03:24 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-03 04:09 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 04:13 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 08:04 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 04:14 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 19:48 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 06:17 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 06:33 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-27 09:07 -0400
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-28 00:43 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 06:12 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-08-28 15:41 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 17:40 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 06:30 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 06:07 +0000
Re: I may have underestimated Microsoft CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-28 08:50 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 09:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WNZqQ.623190$xyt3.288494@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #695930 |
On 2025-08-25 4:53 a.m., Not Necessary wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 02:35:12 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > >> On 8/25/2025 12:30 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>> ... the national-security agency has eyes on online life ... >>> >>> Didn’t stop them contributing the SELinux source to the Linux kernel, >>> did it? >>> >>>> GNU/Linux might be a free OS but the distros are going to have >>>> relationships with government/industry. >>> >>> Remember that most of these distros are maintained by an international >>> bunch. Which “government/industry” do you think they have >>> “relationships” >>> with? >> >> >> Government *is* international - as is the online world. The NSA and big >> tech are peers of other countries' related organizations. > > The online world *seems* international because lots of people and > organizations realized that it is simply better to adopt the American > standards for a change (TCP / IP stack) than create their own one. But it > is nowhere near as *international* as people think. China is notorious for > not allowing non-native tech companies on their shores, except Apple and > Microsoft. And China is already working on their own non-Linux-based operating system to replace Windows in their country. It's called HarmonyOS. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 14:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <urepaklge1lfc944c9j1odjc4l1etviiqt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #695930 |
Not Necessary wrote: >China is notorious for >not allowing non-native tech companies on their shores, except Apple and >Microsoft. Oh they will, if you give them your IP. Evil bastards. -- 'You buy into the cult-like talk of Stallman and his dishonest use of the word "Free".' - some thing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 06:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mh2crjF7hvsU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #695888 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 03:39:27 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <108gltf$36rru$1@dont-email.me>: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > >> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>> them. >>> >>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”? >> >> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the >> clues. > > It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. What > do you think the people have missed? Don't forget that Joel is delusional on a great many points: and this one appears to be yet another. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G OS: Linux 6.16.2 D: Mint 22.1 DE: Xfce 4.18 NVIDIA: 580.76.05 Mem: 258G "Upgrade: take old bugs out, put new ones in."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 02:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sFTqQ.64930$3ct1.19451@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #695908 |
On 8/25/2025 2:06 AM, vallor wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 03:39:27 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <108gltf$36rru$1@dont-email.me>: >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>>> them. >>>> >>>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”? >>> >>> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the >>> clues. >> >> It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. What >> do you think the people have missed? > > Don't forget that Joel is delusional on a great many > points: and this one appears to be yet another. Oh really, sir, you have disassembled the distros' binaries, to ensure they are faithful to the open source? -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 07:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108h2cs$39bj0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695913 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 02:46:48 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > Oh really, sir, you have disassembled the distros' binaries, to ensure > they are faithful to the open source? Debian have a thing called “reproducible builds”. That means they try to ensure that they can recreate a package that is byte-for-byte identical to that from a previous build.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 09:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TwZqQ.42896$gVwb.33943@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #695888 |
On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > >> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>> them. >>> >>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”? >> >> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to the >> clues. > > It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. What > do you think the people have missed? There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while. Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential backdoors. Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in Windows. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 14:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9lepakdpu435hsaknk7v00ea5dd400q4ru@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #695945 |
CrudeSausage wrote: >Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as >the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is >the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in >the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in Windows. I call BS. AFAIK, the Intel Management Engine is not something that is running, in most situations. It's for remote administration of servers and such. -- 'It's so true and this is so sad. The "community" is ruining what promised to be a great platform.' - "Hadron" arguing that "Freetards" were "forcing a halt in quality Android SW development."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 17:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Mg4rQ.386676$l%O3.372570@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #695959 |
On 2025-08-25 3:35 p.m., chrisv wrote: > CrudeSausage wrote: > >> Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as >> the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is >> the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in >> the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in Windows. > > I call BS. AFAIK, the Intel Management Engine is not something that > is running, in most situations. It's for remote administration of > servers and such. Experts disagree. Here is just one article about it: <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-intel-management-engine-a-backdoor/> -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108j41p$3p9li$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695945 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:27:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: >> >>> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>>> them. >>>> >>>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”? >>> >>> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to >>> the clues. >> >> It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. >> What do you think the people have missed? > > There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while. “For a while” being only about a month -- not long enough for it to be included in any production distros, I don’t think <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor>. > Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit > and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential > backdoors. The entire code of SELinux came from them. It’s been checked over and over by independent experts looking for anything resembling a backdoor. It’s been part of the mainline kernel for about a quarter century now. > Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as > the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is > the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in > the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in > Windows. Apparently not. My laptop vendor says they’ve disabled the IME. If they can do it, others can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 09:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YVirQ.407673$l%O3.124451@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #695992 |
On 2025-08-25 9:52 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:27:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> On 2025-08-24 11:39 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:10:47 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/24/2025 10:35 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >>>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> Which Linux distros have “backdoors”? >>>> >>>> I shouldn't have to tell you, if you were aware, paying attention to >>>> the clues. >>> >>> It’s all Open Source -- remember, “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow”. >>> What do you think the people have missed? >> >> There was a backdoor in the xz utils that went undetected for a while. > > “For a while” being only about a month -- not long enough for it to be > included in any production distros, I don’t think > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor>. A month is still a while. >> Also, I recall that the NSA got involved in Linux development for a bit >> and provided some utilities which were perceived to be potential >> backdoors. > > The entire code of SELinux came from them. It’s been checked over and over > by independent experts looking for anything resembling a backdoor. It’s > been part of the mainline kernel for about a quarter century now. It's possible that it has since been verified, but I recall it being a controversy around 2010-2015. >> Either way, it doesn't matter which operating system you use as long as >> the Intel Management Engine is part of their line of processors as is >> the Platform Security Processor for AMD. With that kind of backdoor in >> the machine, you're just as insecure in Linux as you would be in >> Windows. > > Apparently not. My laptop vendor says they’ve disabled the IME. If they > can do it, others can. Which laptop vendor is this? I believe that ThinkPenguin disables it, but System76 might as well. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 05:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mh22kcF790qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #695882 |
W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze: > I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them. OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course, that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-24 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hEQqQ.92370$jEC7.2532@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #695886 |
On 8/24/2025 11:12 PM, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote: >> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them. > > OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course, > that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!? It could be seen that way, that I might have written "Linux distros also have them", instead, but I'm writing in a less formal way, perhaps. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 04:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mh26vaF7pl1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #695886 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:12:12 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote: > W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze: >> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have >> them. > > OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course, > that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!? They aren't prohibited and can sometimes be used for good effect. However if English isn't your native language avoiding them entirely is a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 06:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mh2cm4F7hvsU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #695886 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:12:12 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> wrote in <mh22kcF790qU1@mid.individual.net>: > W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze: >> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them. > > OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course, > that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!? It's a bit of nuance. He's basically saying that Linux has backdoors, despite our expectations. He is, of course, full of hooey, but whatever. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G OS: Linux 6.16.2 D: Mint 22.1 DE: Xfce 4.18 NVIDIA: 580.76.05 Mem: 258G "Wear natural fibres. Hug your cat."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 02:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <EDTqQ.64929$3ct1.39979@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #695907 |
On 8/25/2025 2:03 AM, vallor wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:12:12 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 > <jaworski1978@adres.pl> wrote in <mh22kcF790qU1@mid.individual.net>: >> W dniu 25.08.2025 o 04:27, Joel W. Crump pisze: >>> I'm OK with their backdoor, it's not like Linux distros don't have them. >> >> OT: Is this "double negation"? I remember from English language course, >> that this is prohibited by its grammar. Isn't it?!? > > It's a bit of nuance. He's basically saying that Linux has backdoors, > despite our expectations. > > He is, of course, full of hooey, but whatever. If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code that monitors the user. I consider that essentially a backdoor, because you aren't in complete control like Larry with his bare-bones configuration. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108h2e8$39bj0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695912 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 02:44:52 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code > that monitors the user. Do you have any evidence of this? Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose, available in all the common Linux distros.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 03:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_uUqQ.253328$nuHb.150988@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #695916 |
On 8/25/2025 3:13 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code >> that monitors the user. > > Do you have any evidence of this? > > Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose, > available in all the common Linux distros. The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi to phone home. It's why I didn't think about using Debian again until recent times. And I've seen distros in more recent times show signs that there's a monitor embedded in the code. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108h64h$3a5r3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695919 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 03:43:54 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 8/25/2025 3:13 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >>> If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code >>> that monitors the user. >> >> Do you have any evidence of this? >> >> Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose, >> available in all the common Linux distros. > > The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient system, > when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi to phone > home. That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 04:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <IfVqQ.61270$j831.42057@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #695927 |
On 8/25/2025 4:16 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> If it's not a backdoor, it's definitely a "phoning home" thing, code >>>> that monitors the user. >>> >>> Do you have any evidence of this? >>> >>> Remember, you have extensive monitoring tools for this very purpose, >>> available in all the common Linux distros. >> >> The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient system, >> when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi to phone >> home. > > That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it to > do. Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in question had weak security. But it happened. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-25 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108hael$3b03f$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695928 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 04:35:52 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> The first time I installed Debian, many years ago, on an ancient >>> system, when it booted it instantly hacked into my neighbor's WiFi >>> to phone home. >> >> That doesn’t make sense. Debian doesn’t do anything you don’t tell >> it to do. > > Of course it doesn't make sense, it was weird. The WiFi in question > had weak security. But it happened. It asked you to pick a network, and you picked the wrong one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web