On 10-Aug-2000 Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Dear
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:44:45PM -0400, David Teague wrote:
>>
>> On NPR's Morning Edition they described a security hole in Netscape
>> versions 4.73 and earlier that allows 'infection' by access to
>> 'nasty' web sites. It is said to put your har
Dear
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> > > And I'll ask again, why does Debian make it available off of their server,
> > > already prepackaged? Why not go with an installation package as used for
> > > RealPlayer? That should satisfy both the zealots and the realist
Tom Allard wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > Why not just stick with an installation package like is used for
> > RealPlayer?
>
> Real does not allow redistribution of their binaries, which means that it
> would not be legal for you to fetch the binaries off of Debian's archive.
> Softwar
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Mike Werner wrote:
> So I will ask yet again. Whay not go with an installation package for all
> of the evil nasty non-free software, like they did for RealPlayer? And
> while I'm at it, why is some non-free stuff packaged up and other non-free
> stuff uses an installation pa
Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Dear friend,
>
> > > You didn't read the social contract and I consider this childish, that you
> > > even reply before that.
> >
> > Yes, I did. Accusing me of not reading it when you actually don't have the
> > slightest clue as to whether I did or not is childish.
> ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Why not just stick with an installation package like is used for
> RealPlayer?
Real does not allow redistribution of their binaries, which means that it
would not be legal for you to fetch the binaries off of Debian's archive.
Software like that requires an installer.
Dear
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:52:59PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> > archive for this [non-free] software. The software in these
> > directories is not part of the Debian system, although it has been
> > configured for use with Debian. ...
>
> And as I said in that same other pos
Dear friend,
> > You didn't read the social contract and I consider this childish, that you
> > even reply before that.
>
> Yes, I did. Accusing me of not reading it when you actually don't have the
> slightest clue as to whether I did or not is childish.
...
> > require the use of programs that
Tom Allard wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > > Please read the Debian Social Contract policy:
> > > http://www.debian.org/social_contract
> > >
> > > If you want to see which packages do exist in Debian, refer to:
> > > http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
> >
> > I went and looked at th
Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Dear friend,
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:56:03PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> > > > format, but written by someone else. So now I'm curious as to just
> > > > what it
> > > > takes to be considered to exist as part of Debian?
> > >
Some interesting editing you did here
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:08:19PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
> Netscape *is* packaged for Debian. Watch this:
[snip]
> The above reveals that Netscape is in the contrib/web section of Debian
> GNU/Linux, though.
Perhaps I should read the social contract, thoroughly. :)
Apologies.
Sven
--
You
Dear
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:08:19PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 08:05:35PM +0200, Marko Cehaja wrote:
> > Debian is kind of free-OS, with strong points on security as well.
>
> Netscape *is* packaged for Debian. Watch this:
Hmm, Netscape does exist on Debian server
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 08:05:35PM +0200, Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Debian is kind of free-OS, with strong points on security as well.
> If Netscape *would* exist in Debian, you would almost immediately find the
> security alert on Debian site, first page.
Netscape *is* packaged for Debian. Watch thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Please read the Debian Social Contract policy:
> > http://www.debian.org/social_contract
> >
> > If you want to see which packages do exist in Debian, refer to:
> > http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
>
> I went and looked at that page, and lo and behold there's a w
Dear friend,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:56:03PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> > > format, but written by someone else. So now I'm curious as to just what
> > > it
> > > takes to be considered to exist as part of Debian?
> >
> > Please read the Debian Social Contract policy:
> > http://www.debian.
Dear
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:44:45PM -0400, David Teague wrote:
>
> On NPR's Morning Edition they described a security hole in Netscape
> versions 4.73 and earlier that allows 'infection' by access to
> 'nasty' web sites. It is said to put your hard drive at risk some
> way.
>
> I assume this
Marko Cehaja wrote:
> Dear
>
> sorry, I wanted to post it to the list. So previous email went to you
> privately.
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:56:18PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> > >
> > > You are wrong. apt-get is: package handling utility. It is not
> > > Debian-Linux
> > > installer. You c
Dear
sorry, I wanted to post it to the list. So previous email went to you
privately.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 01:56:18PM -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong. apt-get is: package handling utility. It is not Debian-Linux
> > installer. You can *add* any deb packages to your Debian GNU/
Marko Cehaja wrote:
> By the way, Netscape doesn't exist in Debian.
Huh?!? apt-get install netscape *will* install Netscape 4.73 just fine.
That's how I got Netscape onto my system. Sure looks like it exists to me.
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | He that is slow to believe anything and
Dear
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:21:44AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Netscape is not GNU/Linux.
>
>
> Bollux.
>
> An exploit which leaves your system open to unauthorized data access
> for any arbitrary files would certainly make Linux, or any other
> operating system it afflicted, vu
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 06:02:11PM +0200, Marko Cehaja wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:11:30PM -0500, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> > Yes, Linux is vulnerable. The 'virus' in question is a Java applet what
> > exploits bugs in Netscape's Java implementation.
>
> To say that Linux is vuln
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Carl Fink wrote:
>
> I wonder if Mozilla is vulnerable . . . .
According to a ZiffDavis web site, Mozilla is not vulnerable, but I
want to hear that from someone I believe more strongly.
--David
David Teague, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Because software support is fr
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 06:02:11PM +0200, Marko Cehaja wrote:
>
> To say that Linux is vulnerable because Netscape has holes in not
> quite correct.
>
> Netscape is not GNU/Linux.
Phil meant that "Netscape on Linux" was vulnerable.
Even if so, Linux's security model works better than Win95/Win9
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 06:11:30PM -0500, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> Yes, Linux is vulnerable. The 'virus' in question is a Java applet what
> exploits bugs in Netscape's Java implementation.
To say that Linux is vulnerable because Netscape has holes in not quite correct.
Netscape is not GNU/L
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> On NPR's Morning Edition they described a security hole in Netscape
> versions 4.73 and earlier that allows 'infection' by access to
> 'nasty' web sites. It is said to put your hard drive at risk some
> way.
>
> I assume this is a Windo
On NPR's Morning Edition they described a security hole in Netscape
versions 4.73 and earlier that allows 'infection' by access to
'nasty' web sites. It is said to put your hard drive at risk some
way.
I assume this is a Windows problem, BUT does anybody know what this
hole is and whether Linux i
26 matches
Mail list logo
