Linux Bug

[pontiend]

It had to happen.It looks like a flaw has been found in linux.A bad one too.
The vulnerabillity is called Bashbug, sometimes Shellback.
The info is below if the link works.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hellshock-flaw-experts-warn-details-risk.html

 

[Analoguesat]

Exploits being seen already too:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29375636

 

[Lazarus]

I was going to post this a couple of days ago, but the major distros for home users had already issued updates even before the news got hold of it.

Not too surprising, though - everything written by man will be vulnerable to some extent.

I've had a patched Bash, a newly written Bash and an updated Kernel in the past two days. An impressive response that inspires confidence.

 

[Lazarus]

Bang on cue, yet another Version of Bash has just offered itself.

Someone is working hard (and inaccurately, maybe, judging by the fact this is the third recent iteration!).

 

[2cvbloke]

And linux users claim pure immunity...

 

[Lazarus]

No, they claim relative immunity.

Time may change that, of course, but relative immunity for now seems good compared with the leaky sieve of eg Micros**t.

Then there's IOS8.

 

[PaulR]

Then there's IOS8.

Which is based on a bed of Linux - yes?

So is equally susceptible - yes?

 

[Lazarus]

Indeed (Though I don't know to what extent). But the IOS8 issues seem to lie more in the realms of commercial greed - taking something that worked and "improving" it. The very idea of creating an update to a phone that stops the main feature (the ability to use it as a phone) from working is mind boggling.

 

[timo_w2s]

What about Linux based satellite receivers? Surely they have bash included?

 

[excollier]

And linux users claim pure immunity...

Yeah, it's a problem, but even at this revelation, I still won't be turned back to Microsoft's virus & malware infested high maintence "offering" of a deeply flawed OS, much less pay money for it.
I would rather donate to the upkeep of Linux distros. A matter of principle

 

[excollier]

Which is based on a bed of Linux - yes?

So is equally susceptible - yes?

Equally susceptible, as it uses Bash, but not based on Linux at all.
Apple got their base from BSD which, incidentally, is free too.

 

[PaulR]

Hmm, had forgotten that it was Unix based. Ta.

 

[battenfan]

What about Linux based satellite receivers? Surely they have bash included?

Not normally as it's huge. Embedded devices usually have busybox.
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/inte...lets-attackers-hijack-linux-and-mac-computers

 

[mickwig]

But with MS bugs you expect it to happen whereas Linux (which is also UNIX based) and Apple users are in a kind of a state of bliss (=ignorance) except the ones that are actually exploiting the exploits.

 

[PaulR]

... Linux (which is also UNIX based) ...

Must disagree with you there.

As I understand Linus Torvalds developed Linux as an alternative to Unix to get away from having to pay the high costs of the operating system. It was analogous to the situation in the 70s/80s where BIOSes were being written in a clean room environment to emulate the IBM BIOS, again to circumvent payment of high fees.

One team would look at the BIOS and determine what the result of a certain action would be (maybe reverse engineering it) and then pass that information (but not the reverse engineering) on to the second team who would develop code to create the same result. This would functionally be the same as the IBM BIOS but, crucially, could not be accused of plaguarising the IBM code. Eventually the BIOSes that were produced became superior to the IBM ones and IBM gradually slipped away as a force to be reckoned with.

I'm unsure whether Torvalds developed Linux by himself or as part of a small team but he was the catalyst for its creation as he wanted to use Unix but not pay for it! The end result was an OS which behaved functionally the same as Unix without the cost. Linux, analogously to the BIOS timeline, eventually supplanted Unix in most applications and forced the creators of Unix to look again at their pricing model.

At least, that's how I understand it...

 

[mickwig]

Must disagree with you there.

As I understand Linus Torvalds developed Linux as an alternative to Unix to get away from having to pay the high costs of the operating system. It was analogous to the situation in the 70s/80s where BIOSes were being written in a clean room environment to emulate the IBM BIOS, again to circumvent payment of high fees.

One team would look at the BIOS and determine what the result of a certain action would be (maybe reverse engineering it) and then pass that information (but not the reverse engineering) on to the second team who would develop code to create the same result. This would functionally be the same as the IBM BIOS but, crucially, could not be accused of plaguarising the IBM code. Eventually the BIOSes that were produced became superior to the IBM ones and IBM gradually slipped away as a force to be reckoned with.

I'm unsure whether Torvalds developed Linux by himself or as part of a small team but he was the catalyst for its creation as he wanted to use Unix but not pay for it! The end result was an OS which behaved functionally the same as Unix without the cost. Linux, analogously to the BIOS timeline, eventually supplanted Unix in most applications and forced the creators of Unix to look again at their pricing model.

At least, that's how I understand it...

Thats right. But not all the modules in UNIX are licensed, e.g. "bash" and many other components. Most of these developments come from a thinktank created by XEROX and others and were based in the silicon valley. The developers werde proper computer geeks who did not care about money or business. The companies like HP and most of all Apple decided to make money out of these developments and used the free code to change it around and develop their own systems. Thats why there are so many UNIX derivates and a mouse etc. (in Apple's case). The basic modules are still not registered patents. Linux was developed in a similar fashion but without the commercial aspect, similar to BSD, but on a x86 platform. Why else would there be the old UNIX components which are causing the problem??