1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 02 Aug 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 427       Contents:@ Re: Any Way to Validate Username & Password from an Application?# Apache security flaw in mod_rewrite  Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft RE: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft Re: Linux on military aircraft/ Re: querying Web Services from the command line / Re: querying Web Services from the command line / Re: querying Web Services from the command line / Re: querying Web Services from the command line / Re: querying Web Services from the command line ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot ) Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot G Re: Use of script languages (Was: Tomcat user authentication question.) G Re: Use of script languages (Was: Tomcat user authentication question.)   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:44:58 +08003 From: "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> I Subject: Re: Any Way to Validate Username & Password from an Application? 1 Message-ID: <eaq6jh$fq6$1@news-02.connect.com.au>    Hi Paul,  L On re-reading my post I've just realized just how delightfully open-ended my testing requirement was.  E You should now be the proud 6-month licensee of an evaluation copy of G Tier3/hotTIP. Upon reflection, you were probably signing up to test the J authorization stuff, but think of it as the milk/bread being placed at the+ end of the aisle farthest from the door :-)    Cheers Richard Maher  I PS. I'll try to do the authorization stuff in the next wek or so. (Bugfix H version of Tier3/hotTIP coming out) Exec Mode RTL will be Macro but User% Mode server will definitely be COBOL.   J PPS. Any other volunteers please speak up! You know you want the pea-green family-truxter :-)  < "Paul Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote in message5 news:caca5$44d01fea$50db5015$28362@news.hispeed.ch...  > Richard Maher wrote: > K > > PS. I know you're more than capable of doing this yourself and possibly H > > doing a better job than me but, as an example exercise,  I have been meaning K > > to write a UWSS interface to a detatched Authentication Server and have D > > existing code available for most of it already, so if anyone was
 interestedI > > in me doing it then just let me know. (All I ask is that they sign up  for  > > some testing hours :-) > >  > I > If it's testing hours you want, consider me in. I don't mind rolling my 1 > sleeves up to do a bit of serious COBOL either.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 08:55:45 -0700 ( From: "Rich Jordan" <jordan@ccs4vms.com>, Subject: Apache security flaw in mod_rewriteB Message-ID: <1154534145.231166.32380@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>  * http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1523  = Impacts 1.3, 2.0, and 2.2 versions, but only if the site uses = mod_rewrite; there are additional conditions making it not so A straightforward but upgrades are recommended as soon as possible.   > For now I guess this is just a heads-up for those of you using> mod_rewrite, since we'll have to wait on HP to provide an ECO.   Rich CCS    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 11:30:43 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft + Message-ID: <4jbgn3F77m3sU1@individual.net>   T In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B86840182B8FB@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: > G > Well, you are likely right, but I seem to remember someone telling me F > about these "embedded systems" being connected to the local base LANJ > when they were back in the base as they ran data downloads and test dataI > to / from them. With these monthly OS kernel security issues, one would 1 > think that they would be concerned about these.   E Yet another meaningless and likely inaccurate statement by "someone". B Which Base LAN are they talking about?  The engineering LAN in theB mantenance shop where they work on the system?  SIPRNET?  NIPRNET?B Or the commercial LAN provided by the local Cable TV Company?  YouA can rest assured that these systems are never exposed to the real  world.   > G >> If you want to worry about such things, consider that the B-2 bomber : >> crew receives target coordinates via Microsoft Outlook. >>=20  > E > Now that's scary ... Think of all the time activated trojans around ; > these days .. And I don't mean the ones in the wrapper ..   A And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email   target coordinates to the B-2?    C The government (and DOD in particular) is much more concerned about C security that many people (especially those here) seem to think.  I B can give one anecdotal example myself.  When I was attending CiscoC Academy at Ft. Gordon as part of my Officer Basic Course the school D wanted to set up Wireless and add that to the course.  The Post DOIMA refused permission, even when informed that when the wireless was C being used the classroom LAN would be totally disconnected, totally D standalone.  Didn't matter, the Post rules say no wireless.  Period.  @ Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit, when it is setup and administered properly.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 06:35:15 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154525715.842852.200400@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote: > B > Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit- > when it is setup and administered properly.   F and maybe all the CERT counts for linux are just a figment of someones imagination ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:02:26 +0200 + From: Karsten Nyblad <nospam@nospam.nospam> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft = Message-ID: <44d0b05d$0$60783$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:C > And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email " > target coordinates to the B-2?    F During the attack on Iraq, half of the bombers took of before getting G their targets.  In Afghanistan commanding officers can call in and ask  G for air support, and the enemies will be attacked by planes already in  H the air.  I do not know how the planes are getting the coordinates, but I it would not surprise me if they get them by some messaging tool so that  D they have them in writing.  I am a bit skeptical that they would be H using ordinary E-mail considering that the people on the ground need to - be sure that the pilots the information fast.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:10:59 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> ' Subject: RE: Linux on military aircraft T Message-ID: <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B86840182B9D4@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----$ > From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20A > [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon  > Sent: August 2, 2006 7:31 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ) > Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft  >=20 > In article=20 @ > <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B86840182B8FB@tayexc19.americas.cp
 > qcorp.net>, , > 	"Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: > >=20A > > Well, you are likely right, but I seem to remember someone=20  > telling meH > > about these "embedded systems" being connected to the local base LANA > > when they were back in the base as they ran data downloads=20  > and test data < > > to / from them. With these monthly OS kernel security=20 > issues, one would 3 > > think that they would be concerned about these.  >=20G > Yet another meaningless and likely inaccurate statement by "someone". D > Which Base LAN are they talking about?  The engineering LAN in theD > mantenance shop where they work on the system?  SIPRNET?  NIPRNET?D > Or the commercial LAN provided by the local Cable TV Company?  YouC > can rest assured that these systems are never exposed to the real  > world. >=20  C In general, something like 60% of all successful computer hacks and H break-ins are due to internal company issues like disgruntled employees,9 employees planning to leave, cleaning contractors etc.=20   E I have no doubt this % is much lower in the military, but you see the 	 point.=20   : External access concerns are only one small consideration.   > >=20A > >> If you want to worry about such things, consider that the=20  > B-2 bomber< > >> crew receives target coordinates via Microsoft Outlook.	 > >>=3D20  > >=20G > > Now that's scary ... Think of all the time activated trojans around = > > these days .. And I don't mean the ones in the wrapper ..  >=20C > And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email $ > target coordinates to the B-2? =20 >=20E > The government (and DOD in particular) is much more concerned about E > security that many people (especially those here) seem to think.  I D > can give one anecdotal example myself.  When I was attending CiscoE > Academy at Ft. Gordon as part of my Officer Basic Course the school F > wanted to set up Wireless and add that to the course.  The Post DOIMC > refused permission, even when informed that when the wireless was E > being used the classroom LAN would be totally disconnected, totally F > standalone.  Didn't matter, the Post rules say no wireless.  Period. >=20B > Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit0 > when it is setup and administered properly.=20 >=20 > bill  E Of course Linux can be made *more* secure with really good SysAdmins. C Same for Windows. That is not the primary issue in mission critical 
 environments.   C Its just that in order to keep that level of enhanced security, the F sheer volume of so many security issues every month means that a greatG deal of that SysAdmins time has to be spent on reviewing security patch D release notes, and then testing and QA'ing applications to make sureH there are no issues before releasing these monthly security patches into production.=20  F If that SysAdmin maintains systems being used by a number of differentB Dev groups then the problem becomes even worse as they likely have# different Apps that they are using.   E If the QA'ing and testing of these mission critical Apps is done by a E separate QA/Test group (which is often the case with prod Apps), then  their time is impacted as well.   H These are part of the hidden costs you usually do not hear to much about< (except from those in Operations and QA/Testing support).=20   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  4 OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:11:03 -0400 # From: sol gongola <sol@adldata.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft 0 Message-ID: <1154527952.991232@nntp.acecape.com>   bob@instantwhip.com wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:C >> Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit . >> when it is setup and administered properly. > H > and maybe all the CERT counts for linux are just a figment of someones > imagination ...  >   ' I don't think Bill is discounting CERT. G A properly setup/protected system has a high degree of invulnerability.   / Not being on a network is the supreme firewall. 8 So is a private network, without access to the internet,2 	not through other systems on the network or other 	connected networks.7 Eliminating unused services and software on a system or , 	network means you don't have to worry about' 	increases problems with that software. 9 Having your code embedded in firmware, and only executing - 	firmware based code limits virus incursions. 7 So does limiting separating instruction and data space. : So does limiting freezing write access to executable code.  9 Properly done, a system should be protected from anything 1 except social hacking and direct physical access.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:16:50 -0400 # From: sol gongola <sol@adldata.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft 0 Message-ID: <1154528299.664164@nntp.acecape.com>   Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:D >> And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email# >> target coordinates to the B-2?    > H > During the attack on Iraq, half of the bombers took of before getting I > their targets.  In Afghanistan commanding officers can call in and ask  I > for air support, and the enemies will be attacked by planes already in  J > the air.  I do not know how the planes are getting the coordinates, but K > it would not surprise me if they get them by some messaging tool so that  F > they have them in writing.  I am a bit skeptical that they would be J > using ordinary E-mail considering that the people on the ground need to / > be sure that the pilots the information fast.   , Can the plains really be running MS windows?  ? It would have to be a protocol impervious to jamming, spamming. 7 They would be using encrypted messages with redundancy.    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:42:11 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft 9 Message-ID: <bdSdnXQKHOLBJU3ZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@libcom.com>    Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:D >> And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email# >> target coordinates to the B-2?    > H > During the attack on Iraq, half of the bombers took of before getting I > their targets.  In Afghanistan commanding officers can call in and ask  I > for air support, and the enemies will be attacked by planes already in  J > the air.  I do not know how the planes are getting the coordinates, but K > it would not surprise me if they get them by some messaging tool so that  F > they have them in writing.  I am a bit skeptical that they would be J > using ordinary E-mail considering that the people on the ground need to / > be sure that the pilots the information fast.   E I don't know, but I'm also finding the e-mail claim hard to believe.  B I'd think that such data would be desired to be fed directly into F on-board systems.  Why would anyone want a human entering data that's F already in electronic form?  A real chance of errors being introduced.  1 Yeah, it's got to be entered once, but not twice.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 08:27:10 -0700 - From: "Doug Phillips" <dphill46@netscape.net> ' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154532430.533857.206930@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F > >> And somehow, I doubt this is true either.  Why would someon Email# > >> target coordinates to the B-2?  > > I > > During the attack on Iraq, half of the bombers took of before getting J > > their targets.  In Afghanistan commanding officers can call in and askJ > > for air support, and the enemies will be attacked by planes already inK > > the air.  I do not know how the planes are getting the coordinates, but L > > it would not surprise me if they get them by some messaging tool so thatG > > they have them in writing.  I am a bit skeptical that they would be K > > using ordinary E-mail considering that the people on the ground need to 1 > > be sure that the pilots the information fast.  > F > I don't know, but I'm also finding the e-mail claim hard to believe.C > I'd think that such data would be desired to be fed directly into G > on-board systems.  Why would anyone want a human entering data that's H > already in electronic form?  A real chance of errors being introduced. > 3 > Yeah, it's got to be entered once, but not twice.  >   A Well, sure I just made it up. God forbid anyone should google it. F Here's a first-hand account published in the Christian Science Monitor (presuming they're not lying):  5 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p25s01-usmi.html>    Here's an article on COTS:  - <http://www.armada.ch/02-5/complete_02-5.pdf>   E For secure communications, it's not the application that matters, its F the way the data is communicated; the level of encryption; the privacyE of the channel. Military software is not exposed to the public in any D way what-so-ever. While physical access to *anything* can compromiseB security, planting a trojan, worm or virus in one of these systemsA would be as likely as walking out of Fort Knox with a bar of gold  stuffed down your trousers.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 09:03:58 -0700 ( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft B Message-ID: <1154534638.523314.10390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>  F I mentioned not long ago that vms should open up, this is another push) in my argument towards a open source vms.      JF Mezei wrote: e > http://news.com.com/Linux+headed+into+Boeing+antisub+aircraft/2100-7344_3-6100043.html?tag=nefd.top  > H > One of the bragging rights for VMS was its use on AWACS aircraft. Now,H > looks like Linux is good enough for similar applications (finding subs > from an aircraft). > F > And more telling is that Wind River systems has decided to use Linux* > instead of its own VxWorks real time OS. > G > One by one, the reasons for using a "proprietary" OS instead of Linux J > are falling.  And one by one, Linux is gaining "poster boy" applications& > that gives it even more credibility. > J > One more reason to put VMS on the 8086 ASAP and make it more competitive  > on industry standard machines. > J > While most of the talk is to ensure VMS survices post IA64, there shouldI > also be a focus on making sure VMS survives against its competitors and   > that means taking actions NOW.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 09:07:11 -0700 ( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft C Message-ID: <1154534831.526230.159450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:B > Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit- > when it is setup and administered properly.  >   A A few weeks ago you had a different tone, i am glad the media has  produced this article.F Linux is just a kernel, not designed to be inherently secure , its theD patches, third party software that really make it secure. And lastly the the administrators ..    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 16:19:32 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft + Message-ID: <4jc1kkF76qh1U1@individual.net>   C In article <1154534831.526230.159450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, + 	"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:C >> Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit . >> when it is setup and administered properly. >> > , > A few weeks ago you had a different tone,   D Huh?  My tone hasn't changed a bit.  Linux is still a piece of crap.D I merely said the security issues are not nearly as bad as some here would like to paint them.   C >                                           i am glad the media has  > produced this article.H > Linux is just a kernel, not designed to be inherently secure , its theF > patches, third party software that really make it secure. And lastly > the the administrators ..   I Linux is no more secure or insecure than anything else.  It is an attempt F by a bunch of primarily amateurs to duplicate what professionals spentI years doing.  Security was not their primary focus.  You get what you pay  for.  D As for how it compares to commercial operating systems, like VMS, itC can be secured, just like VMS can be un-secured.  It is more in the D hands of the administrator and his bosses just how secure the systemE is.  Everybody here likes to cite Windows insecurities.  I have run a G lab full of Windows XP machines with students as the user base for well H over a year now without one single incident of virus infection, backdoorH attack or any of the other infamous Windows problems.  Students have notF had the ability to modify system parameters or install rogue programs.I It can be done.  And, I am in the process of redoing the lab for the next E academic year and guess what, it will be even tighter as the machines D while still able to go out on the net as much as needed, will not beE reachable in any fashion from the outside.  the same can be done (and  frequently is done) for Linux.  B But all that aside, no matter how secure you make it, it's still a piece of crap.    bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 09:37:38 -0700 ( From: "geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com>' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft B Message-ID: <1154536658.626383.191220@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > In article <1154534831.526230.159450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, - > 	"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes:  > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:E > >> Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit 0 > >> when it is setup and administered properly. > >> > > - > > A few weeks ago you had a different tone,  > F > Huh?  My tone hasn't changed a bit.  Linux is still a piece of crap.F > I merely said the security issues are not nearly as bad as some here > would like to paint them.  > D What you think of any product is your voice, but to dismiss linux asE "still a piece of crap" seems to me as a strong defence of vms. I use F different operating systems myself and never say any of them are piece of crap.  E > >                                           i am glad the media has  > > produced this article.J > > Linux is just a kernel, not designed to be inherently secure , its theH > > patches, third party software that really make it secure. And lastly > > the the administrators ..  > K > Linux is no more secure or insecure than anything else.  It is an attempt H > by a bunch of primarily amateurs to duplicate what professionals spentK > years doing.  Security was not their primary focus.  You get what you pay  > for. > B Amateurs are people who just don't get paid to do something, SteveD Wozniak created the first two apple computers without getting paid ,G does it make the early apple computer crap according to your  "amateurs  = crap" methodology , crap? F There are also paid linux programmers if you just use google proberly.    F > As for how it compares to commercial operating systems, like VMS, itE > can be secured, just like VMS can be un-secured.  It is more in the F > hands of the administrator and his bosses just how secure the systemG > is.  Everybody here likes to cite Windows insecurities.  I have run a I > lab full of Windows XP machines with students as the user base for well J > over a year now without one single incident of virus infection, backdoorJ > attack or any of the other infamous Windows problems.  Students have notH > had the ability to modify system parameters or install rogue programs.K > It can be done.  And, I am in the process of redoing the lab for the next G > academic year and guess what, it will be even tighter as the machines F > while still able to go out on the net as much as needed, will not beG > reachable in any fashion from the outside.  the same can be done (and   > frequently is done) for Linux. >  i never disagree'd  D > But all that aside, no matter how secure you make it, it's still a > piece of crap. >   7 please argue constructively , i am 100% sure you can :)    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 17:04:45 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)' Subject: Re: Linux on military aircraft + Message-ID: <4jc49cF7aehhU1@individual.net>   B In article <1154536658.626383.191220@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,+ 	"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes:  > Bill Gunshannon wrote:F >> In article <1154534831.526230.159450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,. >> 	"geletine" <adaviscg1@hotmail.com> writes: >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote: F >> >> Maybe Linux is really more secure than people here want to admit1 >> >> when it is setup and administered properly.  >> >>  >> >. >> > A few weeks ago you had a different tone, >>G >> Huh?  My tone hasn't changed a bit.  Linux is still a piece of crap. G >> I merely said the security issues are not nearly as bad as some here  >> would like to paint them. >>/ > What you think of any product is your voice,    5 That's right, and you don't have to share my opinion.   F >                                              but to dismiss linux asB > "still a piece of crap" seems to me as a strong defence of vms.   H It says nothing about VMS.  It says something about Linux, nothing more.  G >                                                                 I use H > different operating systems myself and never say any of them are piece
 > of crap.   Even if they are?      > F >> >                                           i am glad the media has >> > produced this article. K >> > Linux is just a kernel, not designed to be inherently secure , its the I >> > patches, third party software that really make it secure. And lastly  >> > the the administrators .. >>L >> Linux is no more secure or insecure than anything else.  It is an attemptI >> by a bunch of primarily amateurs to duplicate what professionals spent L >> years doing.  Security was not their primary focus.  You get what you pay >> for.  >>? > Amateurs are people who just don't get paid to do something,    E While the dictionary may still have that definition, it is not really E the big difference.  After all, the Olympics was always for "Amateur"  athletes.     D >                                                              SteveF > Wozniak created the first two apple computers without getting paid ,- > does it make the early apple computer crap    G Pretty much, yes.  But by comparison to where the computer market (yes, D there already was one) already was at the time.  One simple example.H He chose to make a disk controler out of discrete components rather thanH use one of the existing LSI Floppy Controllers of the time.  The result,G total incompatability with every other system in existance.  While some - might see that as an advantage, most did not.   J >                                             according to your  "amateurs > = crap" methodology , crap?   B Ummm...  I never said "amateurs = crap", you just made that up.  IA said Linux is crap.  I've seen what's under the hood. You can put @ air conditioning in a Yugo, but it's still just a Yugo.    And IB said it is primarily amateurs that did it.  It started out as crapC (do we really need to re-hash the Torvalds-Tannenbaum debate again) D and the lack of serious knowledge or experience by a majority of theD people working on it today means it will never catch up to the model8 it tried to emulate.  And then there is NIH syndrome....  H > There are also paid linux programmers if you just use google proberly.  B Like I said, wether or not they get paid has little to do with theA meaning of the term today.  It has a lot more to do with the work  they do.   >  > G >> As for how it compares to commercial operating systems, like VMS, it F >> can be secured, just like VMS can be un-secured.  It is more in theG >> hands of the administrator and his bosses just how secure the system H >> is.  Everybody here likes to cite Windows insecurities.  I have run aJ >> lab full of Windows XP machines with students as the user base for wellK >> over a year now without one single incident of virus infection, backdoor K >> attack or any of the other infamous Windows problems.  Students have not I >> had the ability to modify system parameters or install rogue programs. L >> It can be done.  And, I am in the process of redoing the lab for the nextH >> academic year and guess what, it will be even tighter as the machinesG >> while still able to go out on the net as much as needed, will not be H >> reachable in any fashion from the outside.  the same can be done (and! >> frequently is done) for Linux.  >> > i never disagree'd > E >> But all that aside, no matter how secure you make it, it's still a  >> piece of crap.  >>  9 > please argue constructively , i am 100% sure you can :)   G "Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."  I can't argue that Linus E is something it is not.  There is one lesson to be learned for VMS in I all this Linux garbage, but we already know it is wasted.  The only thing F Linux beats other OSes at is hype.  It is an extremely good example ofH what you can do with strong marketing.  You can sell anything, no matter& how inferior it is to the competition.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 01:45:40 -0700   From: "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net>8 Subject: Re: querying Web Services from the command lineC Message-ID: <1154508340.863995.158930@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: .=2E >   > .NET is not available for VMS,  4 Interestingly there is a .NET client as part of JAMS http://www.mvpsi.com/    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:04:53 -0400 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>8 Subject: Re: querying Web Services from the command line. Message-ID: <dF%zg.72704$fG3.40628@dukeread09>   Ian Miller wrote:  > Arne Vajhj wrote: > ..! >> .NET is not available for VMS,  > 6 > Interestingly there is a .NET client as part of JAMS > http://www.mvpsi.com/   - As I read their docs it is only their Windows  product that is .NET:    Quote:  G "We developed JAMS in 1989 for the OpenVMS platform. One of the things  E that made JAMS so successful was it's platform specific nature, JAMS  D embraced OpenVMS and exploited the unique features of the operating H system. When we decided to move JAMS to the Windows platform, we wanted H to follow that same methodology. We didn't try to port our OpenVMS code H to Windows, we took our successful design and reimplemented it in C# on I top of the Windows .NET Framework. We exploit the unique features of the  A Windows Server operating system and the result is a more robust,  C reliable product that is easy to integrate with your applications."    Arne   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 04:38:30 -0700   From: "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net>8 Subject: Re: querying Web Services from the command lineC Message-ID: <1154518710.359322.168440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>    According to9 http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/07/01/2488744 C there is a .NET Data Provider for OpenVMS in their product, which I  thought was interesting.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:23:40 -0400 6 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>8 Subject: Re: querying Web Services from the command line. Message-ID: <4P0Ag.72707$fG3.55414@dukeread09>   Ian Miller wrote:  > According to; > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/07/01/2488744 E > there is a .NET Data Provider for OpenVMS in their product, which I  > thought was interesting.   Data Provider = database driver    in .NET terminology   1 I read it as if they have Windows code written in & .NET that could access teh VMS system.  4 BTW, it would be possible to port Mono to VMS, so we3 could get .NET - I have just not heard anyone doing 
 that port.   Arne   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:20:48 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 8 Subject: Re: querying Web Services from the command line) Message-ID: <op.tdnt4yemzgicya@hyrrokkin>   H On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:23:40 -0700, Arne Vajhj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:   > Ian Miller wrote:  >> According to < >> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/07/01/2488744F >> there is a .NET Data Provider for OpenVMS in their product, which I >> thought was interesting.  > ! > Data Provider = database driver  >  > in .NET terminology  > 3 > I read it as if they have Windows code written in ( > .NET that could access teh VMS system. > 6 > BTW, it would be possible to port Mono to VMS, so we5 > could get .NET - I have just not heard anyone doing  > that port. >  > Arne > H .NET intermediate language is a disappointingly low level of abstractionF and otherwise very amateur.  Compiler technology was considerably more sophisticated 40 years ago.    ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:50:56 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot$ Message-ID: <eaqe4f$614$1@online.de>  D In article <eaqdr9$5sg$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de3 (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:    G > Today, for the first time since then, I wanted to boot the satellite. B > (It hadn't been booted since a few days before the problem aboveI > occurured.)  It does a MOP boot.  This doesn't work.  It keeps trying.  H > The LAN is OK as far as I can tell (LEDs flashing when expected etc). B > The console settings (BOOTDEF_DEV etc) on the satellite are OK.   # The error message on the console is   ,    ..file open failed for bootp/ewa0.0.0.4.1   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:37:58 +0100 / From: "R.A.Omond" <Roy.Omond@BlueBubble.UK.Com> 2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't boot4 Message-ID: <eaqgsm$lhb$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: F > In article <eaqdr9$5sg$1@online.de>, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de5 > (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:   >  > G >>Today, for the first time since then, I wanted to boot the satellite. B >>(It hadn't been booted since a few days before the problem aboveI >>occurured.)  It does a MOP boot.  This doesn't work.  It keeps trying.  H >>The LAN is OK as far as I can tell (LEDs flashing when expected etc). B >>The console settings (BOOTDEF_DEV etc) on the satellite are OK.  >  > % > The error message on the console is  > . >    ..file open failed for bootp/ewa0.0.0.4.1  ; I seem to remember you asking about putting a switch in the : LAN topology ... have you done that ?  If so, what kind of switch is it ?  ; (Reason I'm asking: I have also recently encountered, ahem, = "strange" behaviour when trying to MOP boot diskless clients. 9 I'm fairly sure that the switch in between (some model of : Cisco Catalyst) is doing something;  at the start of every> MOP cycle (the diskless client tries a number of MOP requests,= then cycles to BOOTP, then back to MOP), the switch drops the : link for about a second.  Eventually after a very variable; length of time, the request succeeds and the client boots.)   	 Roy Omond  Blue Bubble Ltd.   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 09:23:31 -0700   From: "Ian Miller" <ijm@uk2.net>2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't bootC Message-ID: <1154535811.792693.186820@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>   E some Cisco switches are known to drop ethernet frames that are not IP  when they are busy :-(   ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 10:35:49 -0700 / From: "Volker Halle" <volker_halle@hotmail.com> 2 Subject: Re: strange problem: satellite won't bootB Message-ID: <1154540149.070991.189590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   Phillip,  . >    ..file open failed for bootp/ewa0.0.0.4.1  F This does not look like an error messages associated with MOP boot. Is( the satellite trying to boot via BOOTP ?   Volker.    ------------------------------   Date: 2 Aug 2006 11:32:39 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)P Subject: Re: Use of script languages (Was: Tomcat user authentication question.)+ Message-ID: <4jbgqnF77m3sU2@individual.net>   < In article <44d0855a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,, 	"Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes: > O > So one Sunday afternoon a few weeks back I was backing up source code on our  M > development machine, an AS-4100 (2 x CPUs, 512 MB of memory). There was no  L > one else logged in AND there was no one accessing the system via the web. L > Every 30 seconds the Tomcat process would jump to 30% CPU utilization for L > 2-3 seconds and then back off. I'm assuming this has something to do with 7 > Java garbage but this is only speculation on my part.    ^^^^^^^^^^^^    Is there any other kind of Java?   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  $ Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:15:01 +0100* From: "Richard Brodie" <R.Brodie@rl.ac.uk>P Subject: Re: Use of script languages (Was: Tomcat user authentication question.), Message-ID: <eaq1fm$i40$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>  Y "Arne Vajhj" <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:XYTzg.72683$fG3.71842@dukeread09...   A > And ? The interpreted nature of Python does not vanish by magic & > just because is uses Java byte code.  @ This is starting to get rather theological to me. If it has four0 legs and barks, is it still essentially a duck?    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.427 ************************