nmap for openserver - SCO

This is a discussion on nmap for openserver - SCO ; anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5 and/or 6)? there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no precompiled binaries anywhere that i've found. i've found it an invaluable tool ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: nmap for openserver

  1. nmap for openserver

    anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5
    and/or 6)?

    there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no precompiled
    binaries anywhere that i've found.

    i've found it an invaluable tool on linux & want its functionality on
    sco, whether as-is, or some other tool that does the same (port scanning)
    thing...

    --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
    -Joe Chasan- Magnatech Business Systems, Inc.
    joe@magnatechonline.com Hicksville, NY - USA
    http://www.MagnatechOnline.com Tel.(516) 931-4444/Fax.(516) 931-1264

  2. Re: nmap for openserver

    Joe Chasan wrote:

    > anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5
    > and/or 6)?


    I think you're going to strike out on that.

    > there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no precompiled
    > binaries anywhere that i've found.


    There is a reason for this.

    Do not expect Fyodor to _ever_ allow Caldera_Pretending_to_be_SCO to
    distribute his work. On one hand, Caldera/SCO disclaims the entire GPL,
    yet on the other hand distributes GPL ware right off its FTP servers.
    Fyodor has been one of the few to put his foot down, and I think rightly
    so.

    Want nmap? Leave SCO far behind.

    --
    BMO

  3. Re: nmap for openserver

    Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    to support.

    But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    enforced.

    --RLR

    Boyle M. Owl wrote:
    > Joe Chasan wrote:
    >
    > > anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5
    > > and/or 6)?

    >
    > I think you're going to strike out on that.
    >
    > > there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no precompiled
    > > binaries anywhere that i've found.

    >
    > There is a reason for this.
    >
    > Do not expect Fyodor to _ever_ allow Caldera_Pretending_to_be_SCO to
    > distribute his work. On one hand, Caldera/SCO disclaims the entire GPL,
    > yet on the other hand distributes GPL ware right off its FTP servers.
    > Fyodor has been one of the few to put his foot down, and I think rightly
    > so.
    >
    > Want nmap? Leave SCO far behind.
    >
    > --
    > BMO



  4. Re: nmap for openserver



    On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:

    > Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    > to support.
    >
    > But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    > software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    > merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    > enforced.


    It is not a matter of Fyodor not liking SCO, SCO has explicitly disclaimed
    the GPL and hence article 5 of the GPL is relevant:

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
    it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    if you do not accept this License.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    How clear do you need it?


    >
    > Boyle M. Owl wrote:
    >> Joe Chasan wrote:
    >>
    >>> anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5
    >>> and/or 6)?

    >>
    >> I think you're going to strike out on that.
    >>
    >>> there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no precompiled
    >>> binaries anywhere that i've found.

    >>
    >> There is a reason for this.
    >>
    >> Do not expect Fyodor to _ever_ allow Caldera_Pretending_to_be_SCO to
    >> distribute his work. On one hand, Caldera/SCO disclaims the entire GPL,
    >> yet on the other hand distributes GPL ware right off its FTP servers.
    >> Fyodor has been one of the few to put his foot down, and I think rightly
    >> so.
    >>
    >> Want nmap? Leave SCO far behind.
    >>
    >> --
    >> BMO

    >
    >


  5. Re: nmap for openserver


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joe Dunning"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:22 PM
    Subject: Re: nmap for openserver


    >
    >
    > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:
    >
    >> Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    >> to support.
    >>
    >> But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    >> software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    >> merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    >> enforced.

    >
    > It is not a matter of Fyodor not liking SCO, SCO has explicitly disclaimed
    > the GPL and hence article 5 of the GPL is relevant:
    >
    > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
    > it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    > the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > if you do not accept this License.
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > How clear do you need it?


    Actually like everything else legal, it's not necessarily clear at all.
    Define "accept" ?
    Does any contract like this even have the authority to demand anyone else
    accept anything?
    Or is it good enough to merely adhere to it?
    I think the latter.
    If that's the case, then SCO is perfectly ok to redistribute that stuff
    because as far as I can tell they are adhereing to the gpl.

    Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!



    >> Boyle M. Owl wrote:
    >>> Joe Chasan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> anyone compile & has ready to share binaries of nmap for openserver (5
    >>>> and/or 6)?
    >>>
    >>> I think you're going to strike out on that.
    >>>
    >>>> there is some nasty stuff against sco on the source site & no
    >>>> precompiled
    >>>> binaries anywhere that i've found.
    >>>
    >>> There is a reason for this.
    >>>
    >>> Do not expect Fyodor to _ever_ allow Caldera_Pretending_to_be_SCO to
    >>> distribute his work. On one hand, Caldera/SCO disclaims the entire GPL,
    >>> yet on the other hand distributes GPL ware right off its FTP servers.
    >>> Fyodor has been one of the few to put his foot down, and I think rightly
    >>> so.
    >>>
    >>> Want nmap? Leave SCO far behind.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> BMO

    >>
    >>

    >



  6. Re: nmap for openserver



    On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian K. White wrote:

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Joe Dunning"
    > Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    > To:
    > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:22 PM
    > Subject: Re: nmap for openserver
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    >>> to support.
    >>>
    >>> But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    >>> software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    >>> merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    >>> enforced.

    >>
    >> It is not a matter of Fyodor not liking SCO, SCO has explicitly disclaimed
    >> the GPL and hence article 5 of the GPL is relevant:
    >>
    >> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
    >> it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    >> the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> if you do not accept this License.
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >> How clear do you need it?

    >
    > Actually like everything else legal, it's not necessarily clear at all.
    > Define "accept" ?


    Well, legal issues are frequently not clear, but I was responding to the
    poster who saw "nothing in the GPL" that allowed Fyodor to ban SCO from
    distributing nmap. So, while the validity of Fyodor's actions may be
    doubtful, it is pretty clear that there is language that is very relevant
    to the situation.

    But, in any case, the problem is easily solved: nmap is ready available
    under Linux. Linux installs can be done very quickly these days. If
    the use is occasional, one could boot a live CD such as Knoppix.

    What also concerns me is seeing people link to outdated copies of SAMBA --
    versions with known vulnerabilities. Can one be sure that installation is
    not in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA?


  7. Re: nmap for openserver


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joe Dunning"
    Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    To:
    Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 8:38 PM
    Subject: Re: nmap for openserver


    >
    >
    > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian K. White wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Joe Dunning"
    >> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    >> To:
    >> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:22 PM
    >> Subject: Re: nmap for openserver
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    >>>> to support.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    >>>> software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    >>>> merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    >>>> enforced.
    >>>
    >>> It is not a matter of Fyodor not liking SCO, SCO has explicitly
    >>> disclaimed
    >>> the GPL and hence article 5 of the GPL is relevant:
    >>>
    >>> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
    >>> signed
    >>> it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    >>> the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    >>>
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>> if you do not accept this License.
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>> How clear do you need it?

    >>
    >> Actually like everything else legal, it's not necessarily clear at all.
    >> Define "accept" ?

    >
    > Well, legal issues are frequently not clear, but I was responding to the
    > poster who saw "nothing in the GPL" that allowed Fyodor to ban SCO from
    > distributing nmap. So, while the validity of Fyodor's actions may be
    > doubtful, it is pretty clear that there is language that is very relevant
    > to the situation.
    >
    > But, in any case, the problem is easily solved: nmap is ready available
    > under Linux. Linux installs can be done very quickly these days. If the
    > use is occasional, one could boot a live CD such as Knoppix.
    >
    > What also concerns me is seeing people link to outdated copies of SAMBA --
    > versions with known vulnerabilities. Can one be sure that installation is
    > not in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA?


    In any event, the OP is out of luck for plain technical reasons not
    idealogical ones.
    Nmap appears to want libpcap, which will possibly never happen because I
    think the OSR5 network drivers just don't do something libpcap/tcpdump
    needs.

    Someone at sco made a TLS that has something like tcpdump, but it's not
    convenient and transparent to use like on everything else. It required a
    whole seperate dedicated nic to do the listening and it had to be one of a
    smaller-than-all number whose driver supported some feature.

    Ah, here it is, several utils including a tcpdump. The tls was made into a
    skunkware package as the readme promised it would.
    ftp://ftp2.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/osr5/net/nettools/

    Perhaps it's possible on osr6

    Brian K. White -- brian@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!



  8. Re: nmap for openserver

    ThreeStar wrote:

    > Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    > to support.
    >
    > But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    > software to companies or individuals they don't like.


    The thing is that SCO/Caldera said that the GPL is unenforceable, is
    unsupported by US law, and previously said that it's unconstitutional.
    It's not the software writers saying that SCO can't use GPLed software,
    it's SCO/Caldera saying that the GPL is invalid. If the GPL is invalid,
    then what gives them the right to distribute GPLed software? If the GPL is
    invalid, the software does not revert to some weird quasi-public-domain as
    Darl and Stowell tried to say, but rather it all falls back on ordinary
    copyright law. Ordinary copyright law does _not_ give anyone but the
    original authors or those assigned the copyrights the right to distribute
    software written by the authors who chose to use the GPL.

    SCO has not accepted the terms of the GPL and has said so in court.

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1581586,00.asp

    > Such actions
    > merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    > enforced.


    It is SCO/Caldera picking and choosing what they like and don't like about
    the GPL. They cannot do so. They must accept it in whole or cease
    distributing GPLed software. Since SCO/Caldera does not accept the GPL as
    a valid license, Fyodor is well within his rights to give SCO/Caldera the
    middle finger, as _nothing else_ gives SCO/Caldera the right to distribute
    nmap.

    It's not selective enforcement. Don't like the GPL? Don't distribute GPLed
    software. It's that simple.

    I only wish more authors spoke up.

    --
    BMO

  9. Re: nmap for openserver

    In article <037501c6b83b$8152b420$6500000a@venti>,
    Brian K. White wrote:
    >Someone at sco made a TLS that has something like tcpdump, but it's not
    >convenient and transparent to use like on everything else. It required a
    >whole seperate dedicated nic to do the listening and it had to be one of a
    >smaller-than-all number whose driver supported some feature.


    OSR5's problem is that a NIC that's put into promiscuous mode can't be used for
    ordinary purposes - thus the need for separate NIC.

    >Perhaps it's possible on osr6


    Yes, I believe that UW & OSR6 don't have this problem.

    John
    --
    John DuBois spcecdt@armory.com KC6QKZ/AE http://www.armory.com/~spcecdt/

  10. Re: nmap for openserver

    In article ,
    Joe Dunning wrote:
    >
    >
    >On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Brian K. White wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Joe Dunning"
    >> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
    >> To:
    >> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:22 PM
    >> Subject: Re: nmap for openserver
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nmap is certainly free not to compile for any platform they don't wish
    >>>> to support.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I see nothing in the GPL that says authors can deny use of GPL
    >>>> software to companies or individuals they don't like. Such actions
    >>>> merely lend validity to SCO's claims that the GPL is selectively
    >>>> enforced.
    >>>
    >>> It is not a matter of Fyodor not liking SCO, SCO has explicitly disclaimed
    >>> the GPL and hence article 5 of the GPL is relevant:
    >>>
    >>> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
    >>> it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    >>> the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>> if you do not accept this License.
    >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>> How clear do you need it?

    >>
    >> Actually like everything else legal, it's not necessarily clear at all.
    >> Define "accept" ?


    >Well, legal issues are frequently not clear, but I was responding
    >to the poster who saw "nothing in the GPL" that allowed Fyodor
    >to ban SCO from distributing nmap. So, while the validity of
    >Fyodor's actions may be doubtful, it is pretty clear that there
    >is language that is very relevant to the situation.


    >But, in any case, the problem is easily solved: nmap is ready
    >available under Linux. Linux installs can be done very quickly
    >these days. If the use is occasional, one could boot a live CD
    >such as Knoppix.


    Sources are also availabe at insecure.com. They also have a long
    preamble to the GPL which explains their views. It's and
    interesting read to say the least.

    >What also concerns me is seeing people link to outdated copies
    >of SAMBA -- versions with known vulnerabilities. Can one be sure
    >that installation is not in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA?


    Good point.

    Bill


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

  11. Re: nmap for openserver

    Joe Dunning wrote:
    ....
    > What also concerns me is seeing people link to outdated copies of SAMBA --
    > versions with known vulnerabilities. Can one be sure that installation is
    > not in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA?


    SOX doesn't require the latest version of all software to be running at
    all times. Almost the opposite: in a SOX shop all changes and a
    rollback plan normally are tested in a non-production environment
    first. Organizations have discretion to bypass normal deployment
    procedures in emergency situations. All of us have seen security
    patches and updates wreak havoc on systems, so that discretion is
    normally exercised sparingly.

    If the comment is directed at SCO in particular, they ran into issues
    with some of the latest Samba code and dependencies not compiling
    correctly on a non-gcc compiler. The latest Samba should be on the
    next OpenServer release.


  12. Vegas Show


    SCOforum2006 Attendees,

    It was great seeing so many old friends and faces.
    I hope most of you got out before the airlines
    went on alert.

    - Jeff Hyman
    Lone Star Software Corp.
    http://www.LONE-TAR.com

  13. Re: nmap for openserver



    On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, ThreeStar wrote:

    > Joe Dunning wrote:
    > ...
    >> What also concerns me is seeing people link to outdated copies of SAMBA --
    >> versions with known vulnerabilities. Can one be sure that installation is
    >> not in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or HIPAA?

    >
    > SOX doesn't require the latest version of all software to be running at
    > all times. Almost the opposite: in a SOX shop all changes and a
    > rollback plan normally are tested in a non-production environment
    > first. Organizations have discretion to bypass normal deployment
    > procedures in emergency situations.


    I think you missed my point. Installing a new capability with known
    vulnerabilities (whether the latest version or an older version), may be a
    violation of SOX and/or HIPAA.

    It's not a matter of how you update a running installation, rather, I was
    higlighting problems when making a new installation of a new capability.
    Although, not having a plan to update from a known vulnerable version to
    a secure version may also be a problem.

    Actually, I suspect that SOX requirements are sufficiently vague that
    until these are tested in court, no-one really knows what is and what
    is not acceptable practice.

+ Reply to Thread