Re: [cobalt-users] Closing the doors [Was RE: Linux differences]

[baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Colin J. Raven wrote:

> 
> Am I being excessively cynical in my old age,

Excessively cynical could be viewed in the same camp as overly
paranoid...but then again, I've always listened to those footsteps
I hear behind me...paranoia can be the first line of defence (g).



> ----------<scenario>
> 1. Individual buys QUBE/RAQ[x]/appliance_du_jour
> 2. Then registers appliance (in this scenario, it becomes mandatory)
> 3. Receives "Registration Code" [random, and not bearing any relationship 
> to I/D of owner, geography, appliance-type, ethnicity, religion, race,
> color, creed, or preference in breed of dog owned]
> 4. Subscription to "cobalt-[announce|users|security|developers]
> @list.cobalt.com *requires* valid "Registration Code" to be subscribed.

Wish you'd set you right margins at some value that doesn't wrap

Based on other items in your post, I can see some validity here, but
it would also prevent potential Cobalt purchasers from joining the list.
True, they could peruse the archives, but couldn't post a message, the
answer to which might be of interest to themselves and others. Example:
I am hosting xxx sites on a Microsoft server and am contemplating moving
everything to rAq4...What are the implications?

> ----------</scenario>
> Why??? 
> I think we have innumerable non-cobalt owners on these lists. 
> Some may well be lurking simply to learn and that's wonderful.
> Unfortunately I think we have a significant script kiddie population
> also, together with others who have less than noble intent. 

I believe you have a valid point.  But, knowing, or suspecting that,
it strikes me that instead of using a Cobalt based address, one can
subscribe to the list via an address that doesn't live on a Cobalt.
I have yet to ask my ISP if he's seeing an increase of attacks, since
some of them might be directed this way, IF your premise is valid.
Having healthy paranoia(see above) I wouldn't be surprized if there
was "a bump in the chart".

> 
> I would venture to suggest that the recent outbreak of RAQ3 hacking 
> originated from a subscriber or subscriber[s] harvesting email addresses
> from the list, and automagically-port-scanning the originating domains.
> I admit, that/those individual[s] may in fact be [a] Cobalt owner[s]. 

Anything's possible, even the outlandish notion that some folks who
use this list as a way to mine for business could do such a thing, but I
think not.  I honestly believe that the majority of folks subscribed here
are reasonable and ethical, and certainly not stupid enough to risk
their reputations and future dealings by engaging in that type of
behavior.

On the other hand, if it were found that list members are responsible for
the hijinks, I think the list members would be galvanized enough to
take steps, either formal or informal peer-related to "convince" the
offender to either disappear or stop those activiites.

> Crazy as it sounds, there is an inverted logic behind that hypothesis. 
> The above scenario therefore becomes less than robust if this theory is ever
> found to be true. 

> In truth, it likely will never be determined for sure unless some 
> determined network-sleuth gets real lucky. 

Not sure if that will ever happen.  But, it's obvious to me that all of us
need to pay closer attention to security issues, and Sun needs to make
more timely releases of security fixes.

> I don't want to restrict anyone's right to communicate with others, 

Yep. we just need to fully understand that one of the prices for that
freedom is leaving a door open for the "bad guys", and, if possible having
a very large club to exercise should they disrupt an otherwise orderly
world (g).

thom