Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: sime on 14 August 2003, 02:56
-
This has potential...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/13/internet.blaster.reut/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/08/13/internet.blaster.reut/index.html)
The question of course is will it work?
Looking here will probably answer that...
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=windowsupdate.microsoft.com (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=windowsupdate.microsoft.com)
later
Sime
-
Hehehehheheh :D
Also I see that 135 ain't doing them to good at the mo'............
25,000000 and rising (or is it off the graph????)
(http://www.root10.net/ms.png)
[ August 13, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]
-
It's not as if the planned attack on the windows update server is a surprise. They'll likely put plans into motion to reduce the worms damage.
-
someone should put plans into effect to reduce the effectiveness of their plansto reduce the worm's effect
-
M$ knows.
-
well now that it has taken effect, has anyone noticed any difference in internet speed?
[ August 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Stiller ]
-
no.
M$ is getting traffic : http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/improving_pc_security.asp (http://www.microsoft.com/security/articles/improving_pc_security.asp)
-
isnt it impossible to improve security in XP? :rolleyes:
-
Dudez, it looks like the August 16 hackathon for Microsoft was a complete failure. Take a look at this story: Microsoft gets chance to fend off attack (http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~1574193,00.html) - it attacks windowsupdate.com, as opposed to windowsupdate.microsoft.com. I thought the writer of the worm might have been a bit clueless when I heard of how inefficiently it spreads itself (I don't think the crashing is part of the plan most of the time). He wasted a good opportunity to: (i) attack M$ Windoze users and (ii) attack M$. But I'd say another variant of the worm will emerge. I'd say you could get a LOT worse than what "Blaster" can do. This badly written one's little more than a pain in the ass...
-
AND another thing.. @ the Netcraft website it was last updated some time in July, and any increase in traffic is probably due to people patching their systems before this worm!!!
-
Of course the Blaster worm didn't work
Microsoft changed to Linux
Linux doesn't have the RPC vulnerability
What's really pissing off is that M$ still has the guts to say it wasn't a big deal.
Of course it won't be if u move to Linux.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.microsoft.com (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.microsoft.com)
Microsoft.com is running on Linux too.
-
(http://promote-opensource.org/uploads/img3f3e03b95c953.jpg) (http://promote-opensource.org/modules/news/article.php?com_mode=flat&com_order=1&storyid=206)
-
Excellent!
I've got a screenshot of both those pages.
The server history is best as it clearly shows the change on the 15th.
I had no idea that IIs would run on Linux.
[ August 17, 2003: Message edited by: Bigsleep ]
-
This is only just the begining. It inspires confidence don't it that M$ can't even trust their own products, how ever it does confirm and re-affirm that M$ are in the wrong business. Don't give up the day jobs boys.
How long are we going to have to wait until M$ are off the scene so we can get on with some real work?
-
Ugh. Get a hold of yourself. Microsoft simply used Akamai's caching service to get load off of their (Microsoft's) servers.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Merlin:
Of course the Blaster worm didn't work
Microsoft changed to Linux
Linux doesn't have the RPC vulnerability
How the fuck do you even figure that?
Their servers are patched. The patch was available three weeks ago. The only reason they are "running Linux" is because they ordered a service from a different company to cache their content to cope with the bandwidth usage. Jesus.
-
Why would a multi-billion-dollar company that markets an OS need to employ the services of another company that uses a competing OS?
But I'm sure you are right that it's a caching server, since from what I know about IIs I don't see how it can possibly run on Linux.
From the netcraft FAQ:
"Webservers that operate behind a caching system, load balancer, reverse proxy server or a firewall may sometimes report the operating system of the intermediate machine. Hence reports of 'Microsoft/IIS on Linux' may indicate that either the web server is behind a Linux server that is acting as a reverse proxy, or has configured the Akamai caching system such that the first request to the site goes to one of Akamai's servers [which run Linux], or as in the case of www.walmart.com (http://www.walmart.com) has been configured to send a misleading signature."
BTW, it doesn't seem to be helping anyway, since I can't seem to pull up any microsoft sites except for the msdn site.
[ August 17, 2003: Message edited by: Bigsleep ]
-
That is interesting about their using of Linux. There was a story about this a while ago (one of their web-serving companies they contracted used Linux), but this latest change took place just in the last TWO DAYS!! This HAS to be a direct reaction to the Blaster worm! Hmmm.. what a great example M$ themselves are setting, should other users of Windoze switch to Linux because it's not vulnerable to the worms too?! Maybe those who switch will find it's a far superior server OS (UNIX-based servers always are, anyone who chooses Windows over it needs to think again - between administration, worms...) and stick with it? One thing I do wonder about is that it's Linux, but it uses M$-IIS..
"Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 80.15.236.6 Akamai"
.. anyone care to explain that?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bigsleep:
Why would a multi-billion-dollar company that markets an OS need to employ the services of another company that uses a competing OS?
But I'm sure you are right that it's a caching server, since from what I know about IIs I don't see how it can possibly run on Linux.
From the netcraft FAQ:
"Webservers that operate behind a caching system, load balancer, reverse proxy server or a firewall may sometimes report the operating system of the intermediate machine. Hence reports of 'Microsoft/IIS on Linux' may indicate that either the web server is behind a Linux server that is acting as a reverse proxy, or has configured the Akamai caching system such that the first request to the site goes to one of Akamai's servers [which run Linux], or as in the case of www.walmart.com (http://www.walmart.com) has been configured to send a misleading signature."
BTW, it doesn't seem to be helping anyway, since I can't seem to pull up any microsoft sites except for the msdn site.
[ August 17, 2003: Message edited by: Bigsleep ]
Because they are a software company--not a hosting one. Akami is the best at what they do, and there really aren't that many companies that have 150,000 different servers placed in different geographical locations on fat pipes.
I don't think they even _cared_ what Akami used, as long as it got the job done.
-
quote:
Originally posted by -HaxorMan-:
That is interesting about their using of Linux. There was a story about this a while ago (one of their web-serving companies they contracted used Linux), but this latest change took place just in the last TWO DAYS!! This HAS to be a direct reaction to the Blaster worm! Hmmm.. what a great example M$ themselves are setting, should other users of Windoze switch to Linux because it's not vulnerable to the worms too?! Maybe those who switch will find it's a far superior server OS (UNIX-based servers always are, anyone who chooses Windows over it needs to think again - between administration, worms...) and stick with it? One thing I do wonder about is that it's Linux, but it uses M$-IIS..
"Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 80.15.236.6 Akamai"
.. anyone care to explain that?
READ THE LAST THREE POSTS.
-
M$ has mental issues.
mentally ill from redmondville
-
Lol ok people for the last time. The cache servers run Linux. Cache servers return the original server's http identity, so the cache servers run linux, M$'s servers run IIS
-
It's still funny in that Windows is using for security a company that uses GNU/Linux. They are *still* hiding behind GNU/Linux servers, whether they have a choice or not.
-
If they wanted security they would use something like Debian, Slackware, Or RedHat. But i dont think they care as long as they can affect other peoples computers than come up with a temporary cure and become the heros to the absent minded people!
Bottome Line: Gates = crook
[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]
-
READ THE LAST THREE POSTS.
Okay.
-
quote:
Originally posted by raptor:
i know it is probably true, what other choice do they have?, but how do we know they are using GNU/Linux.
can you read? i assume so since you can type (or dictate at least), well read this whole page, or get somebody to read it to you and get them to describe the pictures as well. that should answer youtr question.
-
I still can't get any page from www.microsoft.com (http://www.microsoft.com)
This happened to me once when spamcop.net was under a DoS attack as well.
Not that I care, I can usually get what I need from their ftp.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
can you read? i assume so since you can type (or dictate at least), well read this whole page, or get somebody to read it to you and get them to describe the pictures as well. that should answer youtr question.
my pupils translated that information to my brain just fine!
[ August 18, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]
-
Yeah. It's his brain that screws it up. :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
Yeah. It's his brain that screws it up. :D
really?
[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]