Re: mud code stolen

From: STW (
Date: 12/04/98

-----Original Message-----
From: Doppleganger Software <>
To: <>
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 7:58 AM
Subject: Re:  mud code stolen

>analogies though.  I just wanted to make the point that if an OS requires
>you have some technical knowledge to make it secure (as you said Windows
>does) then maybe it's not the best system for a beginner's network.

I consider Windows a very good system for a beginner's network (not that
"network" and "beginner" go well together) since anything else would be
impossible for the beginner to install.

Taking Unix, NT and Windows 95, I really don't see one as being any "better"
than the others. Different strengths and weaknesses - some are good at one
thing, some better at others.

>>Back Orifice is a user education issue (actually a sysop education issue).
>>There are scanners that pick it up and clean it off, though I don't know
>>whether Norton or Dr Solomon's do yet. And what are you or your users doing
>>downloading binary executables in the first place if you have no virus

>You would be suprised.  Maybe you used the Saran Wrap or Silk Rope
>extensions for BackOrifice and attached it to a self-running joke demo.
>You know, maye an .exe of the dancing baby all drunk and smoking.
>Perhaps that coke.exe that has been making the rounds, or one of the
>numerous other joke .exe's that is going around in e-mail.

Why is my network administrator letting my users download dancing babies when
we have no virus scanning facilties (and even then...)? Admittedly some get
through, and that's when he starts cancelling accounts. For the home user,
protecting youself is just common sense (i.e. take reasonable precautions and
buy a virus scanner).

>>I think Win98 is immune to Winnuke, and NT is definately so, if you have the
>>Security Pack... oops, Service Pack 3. If you run Windows 95 you're asking

>Actually, they aren't.  I've personally tested various nuking programs
>that can take out both of them.

Which program are you using that can take out a secured NT with a nuke attack?
I'll try it out.

><grin>  Admitedly, 98 is more secure than 95, but only in the way that a
>cheap steering wheel club is more secure than nothing.  It won't stop a
>determined attacker.

What will? A determined hacker with time will break into pretty much anything
short of an utter paranoid's network, and that network is not going to be easy
to use (give pass to guard, switch on, dodge death ray, place finger on
fingerprint scanner...)

>You hear about the story of the US Navy Ageis (sp?) class missle boat
>that was disabled when someone entered a 0 into it's Windows NT operating

USS Yorktown (Tico class). It's my job to find out about NT and one of my
hobbies to do the same with warships. In an unrelated incident, the last major
NT crash we had on this side of the pond was National Westminster Bank (major
company), to a bug Microsoft claimed to have fixed in a Service Pack (so
Microsoft are either liars or confused).

>They had to tow it back to port.  I have the URL somewhere, but
>it's quite scary.

Incidentally, I've learnt never to take at face value anything written about
the armed forces from a non defence-specialist source. Far too much
misinformation or rah-rah speak, depending on who you read (but no, I'm not
denying Yorktown got herself deep-sixed, I just gave up with the newspapers
after they made claims like the US lost 0 tanks in Desert Storm when they lost
7 and had them meticulously repaired (some from write-off status) just so that
the politicos could claim the total was 0. Subtle but important difference).

Sandy Goh

Sorry this is offtopic. I will switch to email if it continues.

>     +------------------------------------------------------------+
>     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
>     | |
>     +------------------------------------------------------------+

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST