|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 02:24 AM EDT |
| http://theinquirer.net/?article=111
90
Again not very much info, but basically states that SCO is still down and links
to the netcraft pages discussing this. Sorry if it has already been posted
elsewhere.
w_ready99[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 02:46 AM EDT |
Eric Raymond Confirms DOS Attack:
http://linuxtoda
y.com/infrastructure/2003082501026NWCYLL
Phil Driscoll[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 03:57 AM EDT |
Looks like the DoS attack is legitimate. See Here.
Antony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
Antony, I think you should check your clock. That article is more than three
months old!
Gerhard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
| John, an Internet attack isn't enough to take out a company. And why would you
expose yourself to criminal prosecution if your target is also the target of a
legal broadside by IBM. I'ld just wait until IBM's grenades hit. (At a safe
distance off course.)
The attack on SCO is the kind of attack that a smart kid could set up. It is
clear that ESR is not telling all he knows to protect the kid (or adult who,
like me, refuses to grow up). With his actions the kid shows that he isn't an
engineer; he lacks the self-restraint and sense of responsibility that belong to
that title.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 04:17 AM EDT |
| "If IBM and RedHat will not provide even baseline indemnification, the Yankee
Group advises customers to contact SCO. It doesn't cost anything to have the
conversation and determine the cost of their binary Linux license offering. Only
after a company reviews its existing contracts and speaks to IBM, RedHat, and
SCO will it be in a position to make an informed decision as to whether it
should negotiate a license deal with SCO or stand firm and do nothing."
Are they kidding? Have they even read the "indemnification" disclaimer in the
SCO Linux License? Can a charge of intentionally misleading statements be filed
against Yankee Group?
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
| YAFTHI (Yet Another From the Inquirer), this time not about SCOX attaxx:
HP doesn't infringe on SCO
licence β official
Not much info there but what the hey - it's bank holiday in the UK.
El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
| MathFox: if ESR wanted to protect the author of such an attack, he would keep
mum about him, instead of claiming having an indirect contact. Does he expect
that he will not have to reveal his source's name when the FBI asks?
I'm still skeptical of this DoS story, and I have some doubts about ESR latest
words and actions. We don't need some high visibility guy like him blowing a
fuse and start making "McBridisms".
For instance, all this Star Wars talk is just as ridiculous as the "IBM is
behind all this" of McBride.
Ph(i)Nk 0[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
| ESR has warned us about being sardonic in our defense of Linux but,
what in Heaven's name qualifies one to be a "senior analyst"?
In the referenced article "Linux Wars Redux: IBM and RedHat Countersue SCO",
http:
//www.yankeegroup.com/public/home/daily_viewpoint.jsp?ID=10498,
the lovely and tireless Ms. Didio, senior analyst, states:
"[a]ccusing IBM of purloining portions of SCO's UNIX System V source code and
illegally inserting them into IBM's 2.4 and later versions of Linux."
"[a]nd not some other UNIX variant was placed into IBM's 2.4 and later
versions of Linux. Those arguing against SCO also aptly point out that SCO
must also prove the source of the code transmission."
IBM has morphed into a linux distributor. Anybody out there seen IBM's
distro "2.4" or any other IBM distro lately ? My cat Jingles has more
awareness of the facts about the state of Linux than does Ms. Didio.
If this is the work of a "senior" analyst at Yankee Group what do the
"junior" analysts do for Yankee Group ?
Ah yes! They drools on their bibs.
gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
| WTF do those biased shills at the yankee group not understand about
indemnification? They preach about it like they have a clue what it means.
If that's all it takes to be a senior analyst with the yankee group, even a 5
year-old child could excel to that position within a month of plowing through
their FUD.
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
a lot more research is clearly needed on canopy group. they must have some
powerful allies .the news is not that stupid are they? oh gosh i just answered
myself they are.sigh
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 06:45 AM EDT |
| I also find the ESR story difficult to believe, embarrassing, and even
offensive.
On HP, what Linux distribution do they have? As far as I know, none. This is
the second time I read about
HP being "clean", but how does that match the facts? Clean where? Clean how?
I wrote to HP the first time
this story broke, and they said they'd get back to me, but they never did.
However, an employee pointed out
to me that HP has no Linux distribution. Anyone know different?
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 06:53 AM EDT |
| PJ,
AFAIK, HP ships SuSE and/RedHat with servers on customer request, and they
recently started shipping
Mandrake 9.1 on desktop machines.
To the best of my knowledge, they have never released
an HP branded distro.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
| Slightly OT, El Reg is running an interesting analysis
of the GPL from an European viewpoint:
http://theregister.co.uk/c
ontent/35/32479.html
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
PJ,
Look at http://lwn.net/Articles/45801/ for a
discussion on two (2) lines (!) that could have been problematic in the SCO
case.
Ps: you have a really good site.
Jean-Philippe Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
I've never liked or trusted ESR since this incident in 1999.
Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
| jeez, if someone wants to commit a crime, like a felony for example,for which
one could do jail time, why do something low impact and high visibility like
knock out their website? Instead, read and publish their emails! Record their
cell phone calls. That would be very damaging to their side.
I think some folks have lost sight of the fact that this is all about money.
AFIK, from the SCO side it has nothing to do with right and wrong and virtually
nothing to do with 'legal'. Darl & Co. are like actors on a stage, reciting
lines. In this case, "a poor actor who struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more."
They will NEVER admit they are wrong about anything, nor will they admit to
lying. Its not about what they believe, or think, except that they want to get
money. So if "we" look to them for "satisfaction" or agreement, we won't get
it.
Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the legal wheels will take months or years
to grind this through, and in the meantime with the stock price up there in the
double digits, these guys are cashing in.
Remember, in a fight - like a fist fight - losing your temper will often lose
you the fight. So don't be surprised that they are working so hard to make us
crazy.
Lafayettegeorge[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
well, if it was a DDoS, it was a short one, because yesterday the connection to
the canopy-network didn't indicate any problems. So, why isn't the site up yet?
will it ever be up again? ;)
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
Well, I have an answer for the SCO stock rising problem. Seems there is a lot
of short interest in the stock. This
information at Nasdaq shows how much short interest there is. Seems
everyone thinks SCO is full of it at this point. I feel that this should
stabilize eventually, and SCOX should go the direction it should be.
Mike
Crawford[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
| andre: A traceroute indicates that the block is still in place at viawest.
Either they're slow, or the DDoS is still occurring. Your 'connection to the
canopy network' was probably SAVED by that block, because it stops the DDoS
traffic from flooding the smaller links.
In a DoS, it is advantages to try and block the attack as close as possible to
the source. In a DDoS it is difficult to do that because there are multiple
sources, so, instead you block it at a choke point, as close as possible to the
source. 'At viawest' seems to be the obvious place to do that.
Chris Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
netcraft is reporting that ir.sco.com (investor relations), which is hosted at
another location and in
an entirely different netblock, is also non-responsive. This website is a
virtual host on ip 170.224.5.43.
If you type that IP directly into your browser (http://170.224.5.43), you get a response from the
machine.
If you go to http://ir.sco.com, it connects,
but no data is transferred. Not sure what to make of this,
but it doesn't seem consistent with a DOS.
Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:44 AM EDT |
Did some snooping of my own. investor.parkplace.com resolves to the same ip as
SCO, it is completely responsive, so the ir.sco.com
site outage seems not to be a DOS.
Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
> http://ir.sco.com, it connects, but no data
is transferred. Not sure what to make of this,
> but it doesn't seem consistent with a DOS.
I let it sit there for a long time, and it finally did paint the page. I clicked
on a link there, and the same thing happened... dead air for almost 60 seconds,
but then the page arrived. That is consistent with a DoS attack. Does
anyone know: is it possible to slow down one virtual host with a DoS attack, but
leave the other virtual hosts on the same machine untouched?
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
| Mike,
Regarding stock prices, and the prices going up, I remarked yesterday that
it was possible that this could happen because of what is called a "short
squeeze" (Too many short sellers buying stock in a hurry to refund their
borrowed stock). I do not pretend that I really understand this, so is that
what is actually happening? Seems that the number for the the short interest
posted by Nasdaq are actually going down, what does it mean? Less short
selling or more short selling?
El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
| I seriously doubt ESR's assertion that there was a DDOS. The silence emanating
from SCO is absolutely deafening, given the track of their jaw muscles going
into convulsions well before their brains can formulate complete thoughts.
My guess is that they are probably happily trashing evidence. Or maybe they are
relocating the company to a country with no extradition treaty.
On the other hand, given recent finger-pointing, it could be that Chris Sontag
has told Mark Heise to sod off, and now SCO is scrambling looking for alternate
representation.
Who knows.
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
| John G: The canopy websites are on a different class C than the www.sco.com
website (.142.x rather than .140.x). If the DDoS was JUST against the
www.sco.com website, then it's perfectly reasonable for it to block the .140
class C and not all the others. Since I don't know the details of the attack, I
can't ask why just the www.sco.com IP address wasn't blocked and not the whole
class-C.
Bob: ir.sco.com loads a lot of its graphics from www.sco.com. So... the page
takes a long time to come up because the browser is trying to get all the
graphics before starting to render. When it finally says 'okay, these graphics
just aren't going to load', it displays the page just fine. If you want to MAKE
SURE that ir.sco.com is or is not being DDoS'd, you need to use something that
will ONLY get the initial resource, such as the 'wget' command line tool. For
me, that works just fine.
Ie, ir.sco.com is NOT being DDoS'd at this time. It only 'appears slow' because
the index page refers to graphics from the www.sco.com website. (Poor design, in
my view... it means there's two critical points of failure)
Chris Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
| Trent, dig shows investor.parkplace.com to be a cname for
ppe.client.chareholder.com, which in turn is a cname for client.shareholder.com
which resolves to 170.224.4.43. Yes, technically it's an RFC violation to have
a cname pointing to another cname, but it's pretty common and generally causes
no ill effects.
However, sco.com and www.sco.com resolve to 216.250.140.112. However,
ir.sco.com resolves to 170.224.4.43 -- the same as investor.shareholder.com.
This all makes sense. ir.sco.com is the investor relations site for SCO and
it's hosted on the systems of shareholder.com, presumably the people performing
that function for SCO. ir.sco.com is referencing a number of data items from
SCO and is timing out while getting them because the SCO site is down. This
causes many (most?) browsers to time out long before ir.sco.com gets through
trying to get the items, so it just appears that it is down. This parrot isn't
dead, it's just sleeping.
Calibax[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
| John G: The canopy websites are on a different class C than the www.sco.com
website (.142.x rather than .140.x). If the DDoS was JUST against the
www.sco.com website, then it's perfectly reasonable for it to block the .140
class C and not all the others. Since I don't know the details of the attack, I
can't ask why just the www.sco.com IP address wasn't blocked and not the whole
class-C.
Bob: ir.sco.com loads a lot of its graphics from www.sco.com. So... the page
takes a long time to come up because the browser is trying to get all the
graphics before starting to render. When it finally says 'okay, these graphics
just aren't going to load', it displays the page just fine. If you want to MAKE
SURE that ir.sco.com is or is not being DDoS'd, you need to use something that
will ONLY get the initial resource, such as the 'wget' command line tool. For
me, that works just fine.
Ie, ir.sco.com is NOT being DDoS'd at this time. It only 'appears slow' because
the index page refers to graphics from the www.sco.com website. (Poor design, in
my view... it means there's two critical points of failure)
Chris Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
| A week of bad news, with the stock going from $10 to $15 in the same timeframe,
guys who NEVER shut up turn into clams and bury themselves in the sand. Either
one of the most successful DDoS attacks ever or something else
altogether.....
There's something happening here,
but what it is ain't entirely clear.....
Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
| > There's something happening here, but what it is ain't entirely clear.....
That's what makes it interesting, innit <tt>;-)</tt>
El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
Could there be some sort of injuction similar to that in Germany taking place
against SCO? I mean, it's almost as if they've suddenly fallen off the face of
the earth. Though that in its self wouldn't be a bad thing, it seems rather
strange given the SCO's a source of rabid rants on almost a daily basis.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Stephen
Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
| Actually, there's yet another possiblity:
Maybe US federal authorities raided them take-down style.
News at 6.
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
| From the Linux Today article:
"SCO is vigorously investigating the source of the attack and the identity of
the perpetrators," said company spokesperson, Blake Stowell. "This attack came
within 48 hours of IBM's response to SCO's lawsuit against IBM alleging
intellectual property infringement. Given this close proximity in time we are
carefully examining whether a link exists between SCO's legal action and some of
the Linux community who are hostile toward SCO for asserting its legal
rights."
Didn't IBM respond to SCO's lawsuit about two weeks ago?
Alex
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
| Alex,
You've gotta check when the article was published. The article you are reading
is dated (I think) in May.
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V
123/N33/33sco.33n.html
well more lies are coming out
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
| *Cough*
Do you mean the article that begins with
"SCO today confirmed that on Friday, May 2, 2003 at approximately 10:00..."
?
It refers to the attack in May, actually.
El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
| I agree with John G. At a technical level, this is not a typical DoS attack.
At the human engineering level, why time a DoS to start at the beginning of a
weekend and allow the target two full days to defeat it before it has any
significant impact?
I'm starting to think that Eric Raymond has been seriously misled here.
Calibax[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
| Seems if it is a DoS, its a quantum leap in technique, based on the duration of
the outage. Seems more likely they are trying to make some use of the
outage.
Meanwhile, SCOX volume is at 633,789 before 1:00pm, compared to an average
volume of 346,136. Shot from $14 to $15 to $14 and looks headed back to $15.
Just reloading the chart in hypnotic fascination all morning.
Weird is the word of the day.
Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V
123/N33/33sco.33n.html
Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
| Whoops, sorry brenda, missed your comment with the same link. :(
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Paul [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
i should have said more info when i posted.it seems the MIT guys might not have
been exactly MIT guys
who knows what they were since all evidence that leaks turns up as twisted
truth
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:18 AM EDT |
| I called 801-765-4999 and asked the SCO operator if she had any information
about the website being down.
I was transferred to a voicemail of someone in the IT department but didn't
leave a message.
No recorded statement, press statement or even instructions for the operator.
Seems strange to me.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
According to this link sco took it
down themselves and have had some problems getting it back up again. I have NOT
confirmed this
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
I quote of the article brenda and Paul posted:
Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot
specifically name the individuals.
SCO = "contract fetishists"? =)
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
Alex, you have made the same mistake as me. If you read the date on the article you
will see that it is from May 6, 2003, 14 :00 UTC, thus old news.
Antony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
| "If you don't believe me call 1-800-SCO-UNIX and ask them." (link of fava)
r.a. try this number :). I hope you're lucky.
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
http://lwn.net/Articles/46229/
did the community just get fed a slider?
it seems strange for sco not to be screaming so that makes this statement even
more believable that they are changing servers
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
| John G: Yes, having the block still in place a couple of days after the attack
would be weird. However, the attack may still be occurring.
All we REALLY know for sure is that viawest have put a block, either
intentionally or inadvertantly, on one of SCO's class-C networks, and that's it.
Everything else is speculation, since noone we've seen so far has first-hand
knowledge.
To me, a still-continuing DDoS attack on SCO, and viawest putting a block to
stop SCO's links being saturated, is the most likely (but, again, not
definitive) explaination. The evidence fits, there's motive and there's means.
(Yes, I've been watching too much CSI lately :)
Chris Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
| -> http://lwn.net/Articles/46322/
please, pray for the european parlamentarians that they make the right decision
and spare europe of software patents! although i don't live in the EU, I would
be concerned (i live in switzerland).
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
| Brenda: Hmm... okay... for the 'server change' explaination to make sense, it
would need to be because SCO are changing the LOCATION Of the servers from, say,
their own building INTO a ViaWest colocation facility.
Otherwise, there's no reason for the traceroute to stop AT viawest.
Chris
Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
| Trying to prove the 'moving the server' theory:
If they were moving the server but keeping the same IP information, then the
routing would be configured in such a way that there would be one gateway on
that same class-C, and it would be pingable. I've gone through the entire subnet
(1 through 254) and nothing response. So, either there's no gateway configured,
or they're using a weird form of proxying to save IP address space.
Also, if you try and 'ping' the network or broadcast address on a working
subnet, it will typically return SOMETHING. However, if it's blocked further
back in the chain then it'll just fail as if I was pinging a normal address. The
latter is what's happening.
This implies that they're not moving the class C, and we fall back on the
'blocked subnet' theory. Now, none of this is definitave, since there are ways
to configure a network to make it look like anything's going on... this is just
on 'likely configurations and scenarios)
Chris Cogdon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Has anybody, like, asked SCO what is going on? By phone or maybe email?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Mike
Richie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
So, Red Leader thought the Death Star was under attack, but it actually exploded
all by itself? LOL. But let's go on waiting some more. Que sera sera...
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
| hehe, the saga continues. i can hardly expect the next chapter :).
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">andre [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
btw: John, that remembers me of the situation in germany. I read some stories of
germans who tried to get infos from the german sco part. they just said nothing.
strange ;).
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
| Maybe SCO realized it was all a big misunderstanding, and they're updating the
website to include the "Sorry Cuz, My Bad" press release I'm still expecting.
;)
Weren't they supposed to respond to Red Hat today?
Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
| SCO: MIT Experts No Longer At MIT
They hired a few guys sleeping on park benches near MIT.
For SCO it was close enough. They work cheap too.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V
123/N33/33sco.33n.html
Garp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
| "Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, βTo clarify, the
individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but
are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we
cannot specifically name the individuals.β"
SCO: "Yes, our code is in Linux, but we can't/won't tell you which files."
"Yes, our experts have proven it; however, we can't/won't tell you who they
are."
I sense a pattern here.
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
| SCO's FTP server seems to be working just fine. I just tried the following:
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/
and it still works. Howevever, their mail server does not seem to be working.
The following just hangs:
telnet mail.ut.caldera.com 25
Looks like an attack to me, otherwise why would both the mail server and web
server be down? The attacker either forgot/ignored their ftp server or decided
that it would be good to keep it available since SCO is distributing Linux 2.4
from there.
Tim Macinta [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
This is rediculous - it can't ba a dDoS. If it is, there are lots of things you
can do - like change the IP address for sco.com. I checked the authoritative
name server (ns.calderasystems.com), and they didsn't do that. If the dDoS
script is using host name lookup, they can easily trace back what the hosts are
and block them.
An upgrade also wouldn't take them off line at all necessarily - just set up a
backup and change the IP addresses while you upgrade the other server. Even if
they were hacked they should be able to get back up in hours (assuming they have
a backup :)).
I have had dDos's, hacks and upgrades and the only thing that kept down a web
site I managed for long was when a back hoe broke the fiber and my ISP didn't
have a redundent connection (and that didn't last 3 days).
The only scenarios that make sense are:
1) They are completely incompetent.
2) They got dDoSed and arn't doing anything about it for maximum piblicity.
3) They really don't have a backup (see 1)
4) Daryl or Chris flipped out about stuff on their web site and is now having
the lawyers look at every comma.
5) They were shut down (like in Germany)
6) (And I hope it is this one) They have been bought or settled with IBM - this
would explaiun they unusual rise in price as well.
Mike Richie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
D. did do further investigation on that <http://theregister.co.uk/c
ontent/35/32479.html>?
Any insightfull information on its origin "Gary R. Lea, IPRI Senior Research
Fellow & Lecturer in Industrial Property Law Queen Mary Intellectual Property
Research Institute"?
In writing "we have to copy in order to use", he is definitively wrong with his
interpretation concerning EU law. It is not only suboptimal to talk about
actions within a computer that executes a program as making "copies" in the
sense as the word "copy" is used in copyright (like: you cant run this on a
machine with 2nd level cache, that would require another licence for another
copy" harhar), this semantical problem has long been solved. I was sure,
only trolls would today bring up "arguments" like that "Lecturer in Industrial
Property Law".
He may be speaking for his institute, I don't believe he is speaking for UK, he
is not speaking for Europe.
(Unfortunately, it is not easy to find a serious reference that talk about
solving a nonexisting problem).
Sorry for being rude, but that kind of sophisticated stupidity creates physical
pain for me.
Gerhard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
what i cant understand is why news people arent all over this
this is just about at the point it is ridiculous.
wonder if that is hatch that is connected with orrin hatch?
probably the story twists and turns and has absolutely no facts on sco side yet
the stock continues to rise.i dont feel sorry for people that listen to this
type of story and lose money then.
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
| Sorry - formatting lost
This is rediculous - it can't ba a dDoS. If it is, there are lots of things you
can do - like change the IP address for sco.com. I checked the authoritative
name server (ns.calderasystems.com), and they didsn't do that. If the dDoS
script is using host name lookup, they can easily trace back what the hosts are
and block them.
An upgrade also wouldn't take them off line at all necessarily - just set up a
backup and change the IP addresses while you upgrade the other server. Even if
they were hacked they should be able to get back up in hours (assuming they have
a backup :)). I have had dDos's, hacks and upgrades and the only thing that kept
down a web site I managed for long was when a back hoe broke the fiber and my
ISP didn't have a redundent connection (and that didn't last 3 days).
The only scenarios that make sense are:
1) They are completely incompetent.
2) They got dDoSed and arn't doing anything about it for maximum publicity.
3) They really don't have a backup (see 1)
4) Daryl or Chris flipped out about stuff on their web site and is now having
the lawyers look at every comma.
5) They were shut down (like in Germany) 6) (And I hope it is this one) They
have been bought or settled with IBM - this would explain they unusual rise in
price as well.
Mike Richie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
New news report
here where sco says its a ddos, but uncaractistly(sp?) sco didnt take the
oppertunity to bash the open source community.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
SCO was purchased by a Mr. Cypher this morning, Lou showed up with 1 billion in
gold bars in SCO's lobby.
The only strange thing was Lou Cypher insisted on a separate contract with each
SCO exec,
signed with his personal red pen......
SCO has not been heard from since.
nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Oops sorry, bad link. Try this one.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
|
http://biz.yahoo.com/d
jus/030825/1353000763_1.html
SCO Group's Web Site Target Of Hacker Attack, Again>SCOX
Monday August 25, 1:53 pm ET
By Marcelo Prince, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Rand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
If these news stories are correct, then I assure you these guys are incompetent.
They haven't even changed their IP address. I certainly wouldn't buy an OS from
these guys (even if it is licensed UNIX). I think they are building this up for
publicity, or they are just lying.
Mike Richie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
there is something wrong with this report.3 days without them hollering to news
no way not sc.they cant be quiet
hehehehe
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
pj: HP via Cambridge Research Lab ported Linux to the original Ipaq 3600.
They've been porting the Linux Kernerl to every modem of IPAQ since. Along the
way a distribution called Familiar based on Debian with a lot of help from
numerous individuals and orgranizations. It's hosted at http://handhelds.org/.
Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
www.sco.com is back, now lets see what is missing.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
For the record, at 2:26 PM EDT, ftp.sco.com (216.250.140.126) and
www.caldera.com (216.250.140.125) are both up, while www.sco.com
(216.250.140.112) is still down. This doesn't look like a blocked Class C to me,
at least not anymore. OK, guys who know more about this than do I (and I
stipulate that there are more than a few of those lurking here); what does this
indicate?
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
| "Maybe US federal authorities raided them take-down style."
That makes the most sense at this point. We have a company that is physically
incapable of keeping their mouth shut who loves to make embarrassing bald-faced
lies to the public on a daily basis, but haven't been heard from in almost three
days. We have the ever-popular Ms. Didiot who just happens to be hiding out and
is "unavailable" until Sep. 3. We have a web site which is down, and nothing
else but that one site, for a period well beyond any DDoS to date.
The silence is easily explained if the people normally doing the talking are in
lock-down tanks. Ms. Didiot got sent on vacation by her company to avoid
subpoena servers. The site isn't responding because the computers are in a
police evidence lab.
Makes the most sense to me. If only it were true...
J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
| Shall we all take the discussion to the commentary extension of PJ's latest
article?
An btw, all the servers are back up again!!
Check it out.
El Tonno[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
| Damn! www.sco.com is back up. Guess they're not in the hoosgow after all. :(
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">J.F. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
OT: GPL in EU
After having a ride on my bike to calm down, I reread that great information on
European Copyright from
Gary R. Lea.
I now particularly like his "knowledge" about
Germany's Copyright Law 1965.
It is fine to learn that english is the genuine language here in Germany.
Until now, I thought we had a Deutsches Urherberrecht. Which in fact
sounds to Michel German even stranger than its almoust literal translation
German Right-Of-The-Original-Creator may sound to you.
I will not try to speak for that famous lecturer, but I think there's no
real problem for the rest of society to understand that, while you may sell any
Copyright or even any right to do any exploitation you can not even think of,
you will have a hard time to sell the fact of being the "original creator".
Gerhard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Tim, yesterday ftp was down and mail was up, from what readers posted. So I'd
say if the reverse is true today, it's more consistent with them upgrading, one
server at a time.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 25 2003 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
| Hackers cut off SCO Web site
http://news.com.c
om/2100-1002_3-5067743.html?tag=fd_top
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562
&ncid=738&e=6&u=/ap/20030825/ap_on_hi_te/sco_group
Garp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 26 2003 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
ecprod: "We have Swiss bank accounts, but we can't tell you where ..."
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Wesley
Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 28 2003 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
| Yankee Group's DiDiot:
"Corporations should be proactive in seeking indemnification. Review the
indemnity clauses in all software contracts. Contact IBM and RedHat and demand
answers on the issue of indemnification or contact the reseller directly to
determine whether you are covered and to what extent. Many software vendors have
a cap on liability coverage. If IBM and RedHat will not provide even baseline
indemnification, the Yankee Group advises customers to contact SCO. It doesn't
cost anything to have the conversation and determine the cost of their binary
Linux license offering. Only after a company reviews its existing contracts and
speaks to IBM, RedHat, and SCO will it be in a position to make an informed
decision as to whether it should negotiate a license deal with SCO or stand firm
and do nothing."
I think you should counter this argument with the fact that the SCO Linux
License does not provide any indemnity against 3rd party claims of IP
infringement. You can see the SCO Linux license here: http://lwn.net/Articles/43085/
da[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
