Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nah, don't worry:
> 1) Linux has already a patch against it (2.0.32-pre5, soon to be 2.0.32),
I installed 2.0.32 and it works fine, especially in avoiding the bug.
If Linux would behave better when the virtual memory is filled there
is almost no way l
> Umm -- isn't ^] your telnet client's responsibility?
Err, I can't answer that decisivly but lets put it this way, I'm using
Debian's standard telnet client which works with CTRL-] with everything
else
> Of course, since it's a mostly graphical OS (not many console
> mode programs) telnet i
On Mon, Nov 17, 1997 at 11:48:33AM -0900, Adam Shand wrote:
> > There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have
> > seen it in use.
>
> There is a telnetd for NT (I have a copy lying around somewhere) but
> unless they have improved it dramitically it has some... err,
> There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have
> seen it in use.
There is a telnetd for NT (I have a copy lying around somewhere) but
unless they have improved it dramitically it has some... err, problems.
Like you can't have more then one person logged into it at
Carey Evans writes:
> There was a Perl script posted to BugTraq that would search for the f00f
> opcodes in a program, and a C program that wouldn't get noticed but would
> crash anyway.
You would have to scan all memory that is both writable and executable as
well as the text pages to defend agai
Lukas Eppler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> New Pentium bug
[snip]
> This sounds like a "don't use linux" statement from intel. They don't even
> mention Windows NT, which is a multi user platform, too. And why the hell
> has this something to do with multi user systems? Is the mentioned code in
There is a telnet daemon for NT. I do not know what it is called, but I have
seen it in use.
On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:21:04 PST George Bonser ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>> On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote:
>> > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequenti
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:21:04 PST George Bonser ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote:
> > 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly).
> > I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session
> > (hence sequenti
On 16-Nov-97 Philippe Troin wrote:
> 3) NT is not multi-user, it's sequential multi-user (and even that, badly).
> I mean, you cannot telnet onto an NT box and crash an other user session
> (hence sequential). Furthermore, IMHO, it doesn't need a pentium bug
> to crash it.
You are wr
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:13:35 +0800 I wrote:
>
> 2) Intel has been estonishingly linux-friendly (Linux went to their
-^
> headquarters discussing the linux patch, they mention Linux on the
> web page they devoted to the bug)
You shoul
On Fri, 08 Mar 1996 15:26:15 +0100 Lukas Eppler ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> There was a message in my newspaper this morning
> (Tages-Anzeiger,17.Nov.97, Switzerland, www.tages-anzeiger.ch)
> Which said the following (translated, my english isn't perfect)
> -
> New Pentium bug
>
> Inte
11 matches
Mail list logo
