In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:14:49 +0100
<1956173.j6JfsgWWC2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ [H]omer ] on Saturday 28 April 2007 06:04 \__
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> SCO Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | The SCO Group, Inc. , a leading provider of UNIX® software technology
>>> | and mobile services, today announced it has received a Nasdaq Staff
>>> | Deficiency Letter on April 23, 2007 indicating that the Company fails
>>> | to comply with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing
>>> | set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4).
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070427/laf053.html?.v=60
>>
>> Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out! Out!
>>
>> Die SCO die!
>
> Very weird. They don't respond to pinging...
>
>
> roy@BAINE:~> ping www.sco.com
> PING www.sco.com (132.147.63.12) 56(84) bytes of data.
>
> [nothing really... try it]
>
> Beep.
>
> Beep.
>
> Beep.
>
> Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
>
Not so weird. CNN doesn't respond to pinging, either.
ICMP attacks are another form of dDoS, where a box sends
out a specially crafted ping request with the target IP
to be floodpinged, as opposed to its own IP so that it
can see the response (and thereby verify proper network
functioning at about 3-4 levels).
Coupled with a botnet, such attacks can flood a target off
the Net, though its own devices (or through the devices
of unwitting intermediaries. I'd frankly have to look,
and such attacks are very easily defended against --
by simply blocking pings.)
Therefore, by itself SCO's reticence at ICMP PING responses
signifies little.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
