My friend had an old laptop he brought to me today. It was pretty old. It has 64 MB of RAM, a 233 Mhz processor, a 4 GB hard drive, a dead battery...a real winner! In addition, whoever set it up installed Windows XP on it, so it takes FOREVER to start up.
He asked me if I could put it in Spanish so he could send it to his niece in Puerto Rico.
I decided to take a look and see what I could do. After all, it keeps my tech skills fresh!
As I have never done a Spanish install before, I first started by going to the Windows control panel. I took a look around, and went in to the language settings. Ah ha, I thought, this should fix it. I switched everything to Spanish, restarted the machine, and waited for it to work.
Sadly, this did not work. The Windows XP system files were installed in Spanish, and this did not even change the Start Menu to Spanish. It made sense when I thought about it. All the programs were already installed in English. A little Internet research showed that in order to do what we wanted, I would need a special installation of Windows with a new license key. License keys are generally tied to a specific version of Windows, so even if I got the Spanish version, I doubted the existing license key would work.
I was also sure that my friend did not want to pay for a new XP license for this machine.
At this point, I had a few options. I could have considered pirating the key, but my personal ethics ruled this out. Even if they didn't, the risk of downloading stuff from torrents/file sharing networks (0-day viruses, getting caught) would deter me.
Besides, when I thought about what my friend wanted for his niece, it was a computer that allowed her to do Internet research and type papers. At this point I decided to investigate Linux. I figured there should be a Spanish distribution of Linux, and it would certainly run better than Windows on this machine.
I am familiar with Ubuntu Linux, but it did not look like there was a complete version, so I did some searching and found Asturix, a Spanish Linux distribution based on Ubuntu. I downloaded the CD image and burned it on to a CD.
I brought my new CD back to the old laptop, and tried to open the CD-ROM drive. No response. Luckily, I know about the trick to open a stuck CD-ROM drive with a paperclip (that's why that tiny little hole is on the front of the drive!).
I opened the drive, inserted the CD, and started the machine. I walked away and came back, and it booted directly in to Windows. I restarted, and went in to the BIOS (the computer's basic input/output system). It was correctly set up to try the CD-ROM drive before it booted off the hard drive.
I restarted again, and paid attention this time. When the computer restarted, the CD-ROM drive made a very odd sound and then stopped spinning, and then the computer booted in to Windows. To verify, I went to My Computer, and the CD-ROM drive wasn't even listed, which means it was malfunctioning.
Normally at this point, I would consider creating a USB boot drive, but this machine was so old, the BIOS did not support it.
At this point, I considered partitioning the hard drive, but it just wasn't worth the effort for me.
Showing posts with label linux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linux. Show all posts
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
No, your operating isn't perfect either
When I was in college, I gave up on Microsoft's operating systems (I got tired of Windows freezing on me) and ran a distribution of Linux called Debian for a few years. For my needs, it worked well, probably even better than a Windows system did. I did a lot of programming, and the Linux operating system was very similar to the Unix (Solaris) operating system that our assignments ran on.
When I teach introductory classes, I have students who have Macintosh computers at home or people running Linux. When we come to computer security, I will generally mention the idea of antiviruses. I generally will have some student say "I don't need one because I am not running Windows". Sometimes, I even get "you can't get a virus on a Mac (or Linux) system".
This is factually incorrect. In security, there are no absolutes. There are viruses, malware, and other programs which end up out there for both operating systems. This doesn't mean the Macintosh and Linux operating systems aren't inherently safer, however.
If I am a hacker, I have to determine my audience (much like a research paper). Who am I hacking? The answer is probably something like "new computer users". Most new computer users are not running Linux, and therefore, if you are writing an exploit, you want to target non-Linux users. Similarly, if you are writing an exploit through the Web, you want to target your biggest audience, and that would be Windows operating system users running the default browser (Internet Explorer). Of course there are other reasons you might target the Windows/IE combination (such as Active-X controls).
The reason this is on my mind...out at the Pwn2Own hacker challenge, some folks from a French penetration testing company hacked a fully patched Mac. They did it using an exploit in the Safari browser.
Link to story
Teams will also compete to create more exploits for a number of different browser/OS/plug-in today and tomorrow.
When I teach introductory classes, I have students who have Macintosh computers at home or people running Linux. When we come to computer security, I will generally mention the idea of antiviruses. I generally will have some student say "I don't need one because I am not running Windows". Sometimes, I even get "you can't get a virus on a Mac (or Linux) system".
This is factually incorrect. In security, there are no absolutes. There are viruses, malware, and other programs which end up out there for both operating systems. This doesn't mean the Macintosh and Linux operating systems aren't inherently safer, however.
If I am a hacker, I have to determine my audience (much like a research paper). Who am I hacking? The answer is probably something like "new computer users". Most new computer users are not running Linux, and therefore, if you are writing an exploit, you want to target non-Linux users. Similarly, if you are writing an exploit through the Web, you want to target your biggest audience, and that would be Windows operating system users running the default browser (Internet Explorer). Of course there are other reasons you might target the Windows/IE combination (such as Active-X controls).
The reason this is on my mind...out at the Pwn2Own hacker challenge, some folks from a French penetration testing company hacked a fully patched Mac. They did it using an exploit in the Safari browser.
Link to story
Teams will also compete to create more exploits for a number of different browser/OS/plug-in today and tomorrow.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Why Windows is necessary
I had some thoughts related to the recent blog entry about Linux. Someone asked me why I gave it up. I probably would have asked someone the same question at that point. I remember back in college being very anti-Microsoft.
As I get further in to my career, I've learned one thing. Linux is not going to overtake Microsoft any time soon as accepted in the general public, and there are some reasons.
A) After many semesters of teaching some of the introductory courses, I see the trouble people have with the Microsoft Windows operating system. I consider Windows to be simpler than the Linux operating system. If all machines went to Linux tomorrow, we'd be reducing access to computers and technology, which would hold back society. People will give up rather than learn it.
B) Managers are scared of open source software. If a catastrophic failure occurs, there is no one to sue. If, however, there was a flaw in the Microsoft operating system that caused problems, people can turn around and sue Microsoft. They may not win, but there is comfort in that.
C) There are a lot of applications that were designed for Windows that people use. Without the use of Windows compatibility layers, these tools don't run in that environment. Most companies won't bother emulating the operating system, because that adds complexity, and they certainly won't bother re-writing. The company my father used to work for had an OS/2 application that was written in the 1980's. They were still running this operating system in 2001 on a bunch of machines just for that one application.
D) People push how secure the Linux operating system is, as well as browsers such as Firefox. Are they inherently more secure? Yes, they are. I don't doubt this. Part of the reason, however, is that if I am a hacker I am not attacking those platforms. Why? Two reasons. First, because the people using them are more computer savvy, so you are trying to hack smarter users - and a hacker wants the easiest targets possible. Secondly, there are more people using Windows and Internet Explorer, so one nasty little targeted virus hits a larger user base. If there were suddenly a large portion of the market using any tool, be sure that people will attack it and find exploits. It's not worth it to write a Linux virus today.
The reality is that in many ways in our own lives, we tend towards "this is not what I know" as a reaction to new things. For all of you who are very pro-Linux, think of how you would react if someone wanted to replace something you are comfortable with with something new. Most people resist change, and that's just the way the world works much of the time.
These are the things you would have to overcome if you want to get a society over to Linux. It's not good enough to say "well, it's more secure" - because people won't give up what they know for that promise. In that way, being hacked is in many people's minds much like speeding - no one ever thinks they are going to be the one pulled over until it happens.
It doesn't mean I like it. This is just what I consider the reality. You can only change in small increments. You would likely never be able to walk in to a company and say "I think we should all go to Linux" because you'd probably hear "I think you should go to ...somewhere". The larger the company, the more resistance to change.
As I get further in to my career, I've learned one thing. Linux is not going to overtake Microsoft any time soon as accepted in the general public, and there are some reasons.
A) After many semesters of teaching some of the introductory courses, I see the trouble people have with the Microsoft Windows operating system. I consider Windows to be simpler than the Linux operating system. If all machines went to Linux tomorrow, we'd be reducing access to computers and technology, which would hold back society. People will give up rather than learn it.
B) Managers are scared of open source software. If a catastrophic failure occurs, there is no one to sue. If, however, there was a flaw in the Microsoft operating system that caused problems, people can turn around and sue Microsoft. They may not win, but there is comfort in that.
C) There are a lot of applications that were designed for Windows that people use. Without the use of Windows compatibility layers, these tools don't run in that environment. Most companies won't bother emulating the operating system, because that adds complexity, and they certainly won't bother re-writing. The company my father used to work for had an OS/2 application that was written in the 1980's. They were still running this operating system in 2001 on a bunch of machines just for that one application.
D) People push how secure the Linux operating system is, as well as browsers such as Firefox. Are they inherently more secure? Yes, they are. I don't doubt this. Part of the reason, however, is that if I am a hacker I am not attacking those platforms. Why? Two reasons. First, because the people using them are more computer savvy, so you are trying to hack smarter users - and a hacker wants the easiest targets possible. Secondly, there are more people using Windows and Internet Explorer, so one nasty little targeted virus hits a larger user base. If there were suddenly a large portion of the market using any tool, be sure that people will attack it and find exploits. It's not worth it to write a Linux virus today.
The reality is that in many ways in our own lives, we tend towards "this is not what I know" as a reaction to new things. For all of you who are very pro-Linux, think of how you would react if someone wanted to replace something you are comfortable with with something new. Most people resist change, and that's just the way the world works much of the time.
These are the things you would have to overcome if you want to get a society over to Linux. It's not good enough to say "well, it's more secure" - because people won't give up what they know for that promise. In that way, being hacked is in many people's minds much like speeding - no one ever thinks they are going to be the one pulled over until it happens.
It doesn't mean I like it. This is just what I consider the reality. You can only change in small increments. You would likely never be able to walk in to a company and say "I think we should all go to Linux" because you'd probably hear "I think you should go to ...somewhere". The larger the company, the more resistance to change.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Linux and Continental
This weekend, a good friend of mine got married in Florida. I flew down on a Continental flight, and they've upgraded their aircrafts to have little computer based systems that include free music, TV shows, movies, and games on demand (note: this may only apply to certain continental crafts). That's pretty cool by itself. However, being a computer person, I was curious about how it was done, and when I flew back, I was among the first people seated. I got to see them rebooting the system, and to my surprise, it was a Linux based program.
I did a little search and it turns out this is more common than I realized. The Linux-based in-flight entertainment systems are pretty common and have been replacing the phones that no one ever seemed to use on the planes.
Definitely an upgrade, and a few games of Sudoku and an episode of Fringe made the flight go very quickly!
Link to story
I did a little search and it turns out this is more common than I realized. The Linux-based in-flight entertainment systems are pretty common and have been replacing the phones that no one ever seemed to use on the planes.
Definitely an upgrade, and a few games of Sudoku and an episode of Fringe made the flight go very quickly!
Link to story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)