Intrusion Cleanup Forces Delay For GNOME 2.6 170
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like the GNOME site (both web and FTP) is back up and running again (from a replacement system). The restoration work is still going on, and dynamic content does not work yet. Bugzilla should be up by tomorrow (it is already in testing mode). More details are available in this announcement. Kudos to the GNOME sysadmin team for such a rapid recovery." However, blurzero writes "GNOME 2.6 was scheduled to be released sometime today, however after evidence of possible intrusion on the web server, the release has been delayed by one week, until March 31st." Update: 03/24 14:08 GMT by T : An anonymous reader points to this story on the delay at ZD Net Australia.
Re:Correlation? (Score:2, Informative)
Awwww man! (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the KDE team did this to slow Gnome down...
By the way, I've tried CVS metacity with FD.O's Xserver..... funky stuff. Translucency when you move windows! Although it chews a fair bit of CPU (when moving the window itself, that is, as just holding the window still doesn't chew CPU), it should be fixed when we finally get HW acceleration. I was able to get MPlayer to play a video in the background, hover a window over it and watch it through it. ub3r cool stuff.
Re:Must've been a real bugger (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, what you generally do is to rebuild from scratch, then carefully check and restore your repository.
How well would TripWire have worked in this kind of situation? Or is that ineffective against an all-out rooting?
This is why the authors of the host-based IDS recommend that you keep your database on media that is read-only or kept off of the machine. At that point, it becomes an administrative problem.
You could use something like Samhain [la-samhna.de], which automates a lot of the detection of changes, and supports a management console.
Remember, if it were easy, anybody could do it. Microsoft has tried this approach to system administration, and look how successful its been. :)
Re:Dumb Cracker? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dumb Cracker? (Score:3, Informative)