from the linux kernel:

bootsplash: silent mode.

- erik

Freenode.net just netsplitted. Here is from the ##c chat room:

saparok
17:59
wow. I didnt' realize that dd command could take down all of freenode.

On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:03 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:

Freenode.net just netsplitted. Here is from the ##c chat room:saparok17:59wow.  I didnt' realize that dd command could take down all of freenode.On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:03 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:from the linux kernel: bootsplash: silent mode.- erik

On 13 Feb 2008, at 22:03, erik quanstrom wrote:

:-).

(In case anyone hasn't seen this yet ...)

In a different part of the that strange dimension known as
The Linux Zone, someone cryptically pointed me at a hideous exploit via:

http://www.google.com/search?q=jessica_biel_naked_in_my_bed.c

which I found amusing in a sick way.

DaveL

In most /bin/sh variants (I'm not sure about original):

:(){:|:};:

Quick denial of service.

On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:24 PM, dave.l@mac.com wrote:

On Wed Feb 13 18:32:19 EST 2008, pietro10@mac.com wrote:

iirc, there were not functions in the orginal.

- erik

So I think only in bash.

How it works?

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-bash-fork-bomb/

It does use :(){ :|: &};:, but I have tried :(){:|:};: and it worked.

On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:41 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:

This just in: Repeated forks can bring down a system.
Story at 11.

#include
#include

int main() {
for (;;)
fork();
}

Look ma!

John

That is exactly how that shell attack works.

At one point, however, I think that the number of dynamically
allocated task objects should run out, and the program should just
wind about in an infinite loop of erroneous calls to fork(). What a
shame. I'm happy the OS I'm writing does so. It isn't a UNIX-like
one, but the semantics are similar.

On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:59 PM, john@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:

Both the fork bomb and naked jessica (that's what they're calling it
now) exploits have been fixed in linux for quite a while now.

john@csplan9.rit.edu wrote:

In genuine UNIX(tm) systems, there is a per-user process limit,
so eventually the fork requests start failing. However, this
program keeps trying to fork, so if you kill off some of the
child processes it will spawn replacements.

I don't think it counts as a proper "denial of service" attack,
since it affects only the invoking user (well, it does bog
down the system with swapping etc. but again, per-user resource
bounds can address that).