Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WINE Still Vulnerable to WMF Exploit

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the patch-up-young-linux-users dept.

Security 240

blast3r wrote to mention a ZDNet Blog posting by George Ou, stating that WINE is still vulnerable to the WMF flaw. From the article: "All applications launched inside Wine, Cedega, or Cross-Over Office are technically still exploitable. Wine runs on most x86 platforms, including Linux and the various BSDs. The surprising part about finding this flaw in Wine is that they implemented the entire Meta File API without realizing that this could be a security issue. Exploiting a Windows application running inside Wine depends on that application calling the vulnerable function with malicious data."

cancel ×

240 comments

Like my pappy always said... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412189)

Girls'll ruin you son.

Re:Like my pappy always said... (-1, Offtopic)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412330)

Father warned me about men and liquor,
but he never said a word about
women and cocaine.

-Tallulah Bankhead

Re:Like my pappy always said... (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412344)

No no no, when wine, women and song gets to be too much, stop singing.

Some Cheese with that Wine? (0)

oc-beta (941915) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412194)

I know that you are still exploitable, and that would make anyone whine, i mean, Wine.

MOD ME UP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412360)

MOD ME UP IN SOVIET RUSSIA POSTERS MOD MODERATORS UP AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA oh and slashdot I can use as many caps as I want so HAH modmeupmodmeupmodmeupmodmeup

Re:Some Cheese with that Wine? (0)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412375)

yes, please... I't really annoying to see that you have successfully implemented a version of someone else's security holes.


backwards compatibility only goes so far I guess.


Bug-for-bug compatibility to the next level (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412469)

This takes "bug-for-bug compatibility" to the next level.

Now the king of compatiblity claims is "'sploit-for-'sploit compatible"!

Finally! (4, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412197)

We can say now that Linux is truly ready for desktop because it catched up to Windows in these important features aswell!

Re:Finally! (1)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412378)

That's rather like saying that humans are on par with maggots because they can contract MRSA. Or my hoover caught a STD from the toaster because the both work off the mains.
  -1 Troll please. Thanks.

Re:Finally! (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412501)

Except for a grammar catcher!

Mud Wiggle saith (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412202)

I eat mud! Lots of mud!

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (1, Insightful)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412438)

Betcha the Wine team comes out with a fix before Microsoft does.

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412508)

Um...is that a joke, or are you unaware that MS already patched this?

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (1)

Keith Russell (4440) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412540)

I hope the Wine team has a flux capacitor. [microsoft.com]

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412582)

Why would MS want to supply a patch to WINE? They already patched thier own product.

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (1)

isolationism (782170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412611)

I'll take you up on that bet. The WINE team patching their vulnerability before Microsoft patches theirs is highly unlikely considering Microsoft already released the patch yesterday [slashdot.org] , as covered right here on Slashdot.

Unless the WINE developers have a time machine and are holding out on the rest of us. Incidentally, that would explain why WINE only runs software designed to run on OSes aged 8 yrs. and older.

Well, pay up. What'd I win?

Re:Mud Wiggle saith (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412697)

You won the right to post the parent post. Gotta love temporal mechanics ;)

I had no idea... (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412211)

...that wine provided so much of the normal windows user experience. I must start recommending it to my friends

Re:I had no idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412622)

> ...that wine provided so much of the normal windows user experience. I must start recommending it to my friends

You've misunderstood. What's being said is that you have to be drunk to use Windows. ;-)

So... (5, Interesting)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412213)

Should I be worried about my Fake Windows security or am I at no risk as long as I don't run "sol.exe" as root?

How far can someone get by working over WINE with this exploit?

Re:So... (3, Interesting)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412393)

You don't need to be root to send out 1000 spams/minute.

slashdot design ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412214)

looks strange today.

I'm confused as to why that matters? (1)

MikeSty (890569) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412218)

Just ... uhh .. disable it?

Uh, oh . . . somebody had better notify CERT. (3, Funny)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412221)

So that they can add it to their already lengthy list of known LINUX exploits!

not really a bug... (0, Redundant)

farib (823081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412225)

Just a feature, as usual !

Kudos to WINE (5, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412227)

For implementing Win32 so closely that you can actually be infected with Win32 exploits. I suspect that the effects wouldn't be as bad as the real thing though.

On a serious note, I wonder what this means for emulation projects. If you recognize an exploit in the original environment (as possibly someone did when writing a WMF parser for WINE), do you implement the exploit in your emulator or do you introduce a potential incompatibility?

Re:Kudos to WINE (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412324)

You add a configuration flag, defaulting it to OFF.

I would also guess that it's quite uncommon that the same exploting code actually works, as many addresses will be different from a normal XP system. The same vector, i.e. a malformed WMF file resuling in a call to the abort proc of choice, is still possible, though.

Re:Kudos to WINE (5, Funny)

Afecks (899057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412348)

On a serious note, I wonder what this means for emulation projects. If you recognize an exploit in the original environment (as possibly someone did when writing a WMF parser for WINE), do you implement the exploit in your emulator or do you introduce a potential incompatibility?

WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR!

Re:Kudos to WINE (0)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412376)

Yes it is, regardless of what the authors call it.

Sure it's an "implementation" of the Windows API. I could just as easy call any other emulator an "implementation" of that hardware.

It is one piece of software that is designed to mimmick the behaviour of another piece of hardware or software in order to achieve the same functionality. That my boy, is an emulator.

Re:Kudos to WINE (1, Informative)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412458)

It's an API simulation layer. An emulator does the WHOLE environment. Wine does not do this, or you'd be able to use it under ppc linux.

Meanwhile, this tells me one thing: Windows used an OSS vector graphics lib to implement WMF, as did wine. They're both exploitable under the same lib.

Re:Kudos to WINE (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412474)

It is one piece of software that is designed to mimmick the behaviour of another piece of hardware or software in order to achieve the same functionality. That my boy, is an emulator.

Too bad that doesn't describe WINE. WINE is a run-time linker with a set of bundled libraries designed to be API compatible with the core Windows libraries. Absolutely NO emulation is happening.

Now there is a WINE for OS X project going on that uses QEmu (or was it bochs? I forget) to do actual emulation of the x86 instruction set, but that's a completely separate project from WINE. QED.

Re:Kudos to WINE (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412798)

Some definitions of 'emulation':

  • Dictionary.com:
    1 Effort or ambition to equal or surpass another. 2 Imitation of another.

  • Oxford Dictionary:
    verb try to equal or surpass, typically by imitation.

  • Cambridbge Dictionary:
    to copy something achieved by someone else and try to do it as well as they have

  • Merriam-Webster:
    3 a : IMITATION b : the use of or technique of using an emulator
    • and for 'emulator':
      1 : one that emulates 2 : hardware or software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another usually newer computer


Personally, WINE trys to equal or surpass Win32, especially by imitation. WINE copies something achieved by someone else and trys to do it as well as they have. WINE is software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another computer.

WINE fits all of those criteria, and can be called an emulator.

Re:Kudos to WINE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412559)

No, you jackass, an emulator in computer jargon is a program that translates instructions from one set to another.

The word you're searching for is imitate. WINE is imitation windows, in a sense, just like Artificial Vanilla is imitated vanilla, and faux fur is imitated fur. Imitation implies a something that is similar, but not exactly the same as the original, whereas "emulation" implies doing your dandiest to reproduce the results EXACTLY. In this instance, I suppose you can say that WINE is emulating Windows, in the non-computer related context of the word, because it's doing exactly the same thing. This does not mean that WINE is an emulator, in general, or in the computer-related context of the word, however!

Re:Kudos to WINE (2, Insightful)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412700)

That logic is crazy. That makes Perl on Windows a 'perl emulator', or Gnome libraries on Windows a 'Gnome emulator'.

An emulator is a replimentation, but it is not a mere reimplimentation of something. They are reimplimentations at different levels. Normally it's with parts of hardware mimicked by software.

Wine is at basically the same level as the original Windows...it's a bunch of libraries that have functions in them. These libraries do stuff, and sometimes talk to the OS. (And, in the case of Wine, X.)

There are a few parts of it where you could argue there is 'emulating' going on, where the software doesn't actually talk to any hardware, it just claims to, but wine is not itself an emulator, even if small parts are.

1) Whether there is anything beside that that could legitimately be called an emulator is an interesting question.

Re:Kudos to WINE (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412676)

And GNU is Not Unix...

Re:Kudos to WINE (2, Informative)

Quantam (870027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412537)

What I want to know is whether Wine is vulnerable to this [uninformed.org] design flaw that allows hardware enforced data execution protection to be remotely disabled by a clever buffer overflow (one that injects no code of its own, so cannot be prevented by DEP). I should mention that I submitted this story to Slashdot, but it was rejected.

Emulated First Post (1)

extremescholar (714216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412228)

This post is set to run under Linux, but to be vulnelable to Windows bugs. Bug for bug compatability!

whatever whatever whatever (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412231)

whatever whatever whatever whatever whatever !!!!

Make a copy? (5, Interesting)

vandon (233276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412232)

Can't you just make a copy of the fixed gdi32.dll from a working windows machine?

Re:Make a copy? (5, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412441)

No, the Win32 version is (mostly) just calling down to the Win32K.sys file in the kernel. This isn't present in WINE. There are also other issues, but this single fact is the killer that makes it totally impossible to work. (aside from licensing issues :-)

License? (2, Funny)

John3 (85454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412460)

What is this license you speak of and why would I need one for software?

That's just wrong... (2, Funny)

John3 (85454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412233)

So in this situaion, Windows systems updated with the most recent patch are more secure than machines running WINE.

TGIF cause stuff like this makes my head hurt.

Re:That's just wrong... (3, Insightful)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412475)

Think statistics.

How many applications that pass WMFs (ie: email clients and browsers) do you use under linux that require Wine? Now how many do you use under windows that would be potentially exploited?

This is far less serious for Linux users than Windows users.

Re:That's just wrong... (1)

Wonko (15033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412632)

So in this situaion, Windows systems updated with the most recent patch are more secure than machines running WINE.

Possibly in theory, but not likely in practice. I would bet that most people who have Wine installed don't actually even use it. The rest of the people that do use it likely only use it for a handful of specific programs.

Talk about bug-for-bug compatibility! (0, Redundant)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412235)

I mean, I'd heard the phrase bandied about, but it looks like WINE actually achieved it with its WMF functions!

OMFG!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412241)

WINE is teh suck!!! Only a total loser company/project could let a known exploit go this long without a patch.

OMFG! The sky is falling! WINE is teh suck! Where can I buy a copy of Windows Vista?!?!?

It's called satire. Look it up.

Transmeta Crusoe (4, Informative)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412242)

This reminds me of the initial press release on the Crusoe, one of the clueless reporters in the audience thought that the Crusoe would somehow avoid Windows crashing. One of the Transmeta people pointed out to him that if Windows crashes, the Crusoe will faithfully crash in the same way.

Asleep at the wheel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412243)

Hello? Anyone awake? All too busy at CSE?

Isn't that the Goal? (3, Interesting)

lordofthechia (598872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412244)

After all, from winehq.org: "Wine has always strived for "bug for bug" compatibility"

Perfect emulation (5, Funny)

miscz (888242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412255)

This shows how great Wine is. It even emulates exploits and being late with the patches! Hurray for Wine!

serious question (2, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412261)

does anyone use wmf files?

Re:serious question (3, Insightful)

fred_sanford (678924) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412334)

it doesn't have to be a wmf file to be effected. jpg, gif, bmp, that use wmf headers can still execute code.

Re:serious question (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412354)

I used to use it to insert vector images in Word. It was the only real alternative since Word didn't support anything more serious like .ai, .pdf or .eps.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412372)

Virus and malware writers use WMFs all the time :)

Re:serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412396)

Windows media player uses compressed WMFs for skin files.

We do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412459)

We're a major financial services/software company, and one of our QA suites uses a WMF file (for what, I'm not sure.) Symantec Antivirus started complaining about this in the wake of the WMF exploit and broke our build, despite the fact that CVS assures us the file hasn't changed in 5 years.

Re:serious question (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412487)

Yes.

This website for example has quite a bit of WMF files. The internet is teeming with them. Oh, you think they have to end in .wmf, I see. Well, you'd be mistaken. Any image format (_any_) that Windows understands is a WMF file. That's right, all of them. Not only that, but quite a few document formats also fall under that umbrella, but most of them are Windows-proprietary anyways.

Thanks for trolling!

I don't understand (5, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412278)

The WINE libraries don't even include an equivalent of the DLL that causes the problem for Microsoft.

How does WINE manage to duplicate a flaw in a function that WINE doesn't even implement?

Re:I don't understand (2, Interesting)

makomk (752139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412329)

I expect it's like Windows 98 - you can't get infected by websites, but you can get infected by viewing a WMF using some program that uses the Windows API to display them. (For example, most Word clipart is WMFs, IIRC.)

Re:I don't understand (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412331)

The flaw is in gdi32.dll; WINE implements gdi32.dll I'm not sure if WINE implements shimgvw.dll, but that is not where the flaw technically is; that just happens to be the easiest way to exploit the flaw.

Re:I don't understand (3, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412332)

"/* Heavy wizardry */"

(If you know Perl, you'll understand)

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412369)

The DLL in question is a common library used to load and view image files. The real WMF parsing is going on in GDI32 and Win32K.sys (GDI32 relies on Win32k, which is generally not called directly), though. So, you can't run explorer.exe from XP to get fancy thumbnails, but you CAN open an exploiting WMF file in several programs, and get the exploit all for free. As I noted in another comment, it's unlikely that a WMF effective on XP would also be effective on WINE, as it will probably be relying on the specific address space layout, though.

I'll worry when M$ retains SCO's legal team (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412389)

or the Darl everyone loves to hate... "Surely WINE contains windows code, how else can it possibly exhabits the exact same flaw? We demand WINE development team to come clean and turn over their first borns as sign of good faith..."

Re:I don't understand (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412447)

I seem to remember that if you have Windows installed on another partition, WINE can optionally use the original Windows DLLs. Presumably, this is the configuration that is vulnerable.

This can't be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412281)

Wait, but isn't Wine OSS? How can it be that M$ has delivered a patch to a vuln but an OSS that suffers from the same problem is still lagging behind. Why doesn't some intrepid OSS developer just jump in and fix it? Isn't that the promise of OSS. Oh well, thanks to the power of OSS, every single Wine user can just download the latest source, fix the affected code, and rebuild the binaries themselves. Oh and hope that the next release doesn't wipe out what they just did, or that they have the development resources to do the fix correctly and not make things worse.

Not that insecure (1)

Beuno (740018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412299)

Considering wine runs on top of Linux, as long as you don't play with knives (AKA run things as root), this shouldn't be a problem.
Well, unless you are worried about you're fake windows...

Re:Not that insecure (3, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412400)

Well, if you run as the same user as your normal home directory, it can be devastating enough. It's not like you need to be root to send out a thousand mails with your "personal" pictures transformed into virus vectors.

Patching WINE? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412301)

So all you have to do is run the WINE autoupdater? :-)

Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery (5, Insightful)

Schezar (249629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412308)

I suppose this speaks very highly of the WINE developers. After all, they're not out to make something better than Windows: they're out there to duplicate every broken, strange, or inexplicable behaviour Windows exhibits.

Wine is Not an Emulator, but it's purpose is to allow all of us in Linuxland to use software developed for Windows. That means that it must replicate even the broken parts.

Luckily, I assume two things:

1. The WINE devs will plug this as soon as they get around to it.

2. Anyone using WINE successfully is probably canny enough to make due until then without getting themselves compromised.

You hold aces in your sleeve :) (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412419)

Well, admit however that if WINE didn't have this hole you would post an entirely different story on Slashdot :)

Actually, not this time (but often other times) (1)

Schezar (249629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412499)

Heh.. Actually, in this specific case, I wouldn't. (Though for many other assertions I make, you're spot on ^_~)

I use Wine extensively in my work, typically to allow corporations with archaic, proprietary software developed for Windows to migrate wholly or partially to Linux. I've found that many applications are poorly coded and end up using strange or broken Windows APIs. They'll use a bug as a feature and rely upon it to function.

Simply put, I rely on the Wine guys to implement every "feature" of Windows, no matter how broken it is. Say they'd noticed this and corrected it. They likely would have done it in a slightly different way from Microsoft. Wine would have branched slightly from the Windows API tree, and I would have ripped out more of my hair.

yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412465)

The surprising part about finding this flaw in Wine is that they implemented the entire Meta File API without realizing that this could be a security issue. ... and your comment:

I suppose this speaks very highly of the WINE developers.

If you ask me, it is more suspicious than anything else. My guess is that someone with access to Microsoft code has (probably on more than one occasion) contributed to the Wine project. That code was probably blindly copied into the project with little-to-no auditing whatsoever.

Re:yeah right (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412587)

Oh yeah, because noone can ever independently produce a piece of code that functions 100% identically to other code, including bugs and everything else, right?

Re:yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412607)

Not code with the complexity of Win32/Wine. If this happened in CS class, you'd probably be thrown out of university.

Re:yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412655)

If Wine devs had independently recreated SetAbortProc, they would've seen how easily exploitable it is and reported it to Microsoft. Microsoft, in turn, would've quietly fixed the bug without making any press releases about it, unlike the panic you saw this week.

Wine is insecure. (1)

Ober (12002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412326)

That's why OpenBSD does not have it working on their platform.
Not that lacking kernel threads, or half a dozen other things could be the REAL reason. :p

Not impressed (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412333)

Until I can get my Linux box rootkitted by Sony DRM.

slashdot homepage is fucked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412339)

Don't tell me I'm the only one who noticed that this site's homepage looks terrible.

Re:slashdot homepage is fucked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412405)

No you're not. Dunno wtf's going on.

Why should they realize it's a problem? (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412352)

The surprising part about finding this flaw in Wine is that they implemented the entire Meta File API without realizing that this could be a security issue.

Remember, the goal of WINE is to duplicate the API as exactly as possible. And up until a few days ago, that *was* part of the API.

WINE isn't supposed to be an improvement, just a duplication of the API so that win32 apps can run on x86 *nix. It should be no surprise to anyone that their implementation of the metafile API is exactly like the one in Windows. That's the point.

Re:Why should they realize it's a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412470)

That should also means that ReactOS, the free windows copy got this exploit too. :D

Re:Why should they realize it's a problem? (1)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412768)

The point was that if they spent the time working with this format and re-implementing it in WINE, they should have seen the potential exploit. Instead they blindly implemented it without analyzing the format (which you can't really blame them, considering how much crap they have to parse through).

too funny (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412359)

"they implemented the entire Meta File API without realizing that this could be a security issue"
ROFL! TARD TREE HUGGING OPEN SOURCE LOSERS!!!!!

borked (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412379)

Slashdot.org is broken!

Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412413)

If I got hit with the WMF flaw, I'd go drink some WINE too.

Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (-1, Flamebait)

XflopThreeShitty (943599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412426)

i dunno have u herd ps3 will run linix but now it is tainted by M$ crap? is this a secrit M$ attack on sony? shud sony su?

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (0, Redundant)

chrisjwray (717883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412443)

Is this supposed to be an SMS message or are some of the keys on your keyboard missing? Either way, what are you on about???

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (0, Offtopic)

XflopThreeShitty (943599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412516)

lamea$$ gramer naz!

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412571)

It's not that he's a grammar Nazi, it's just that your post was as coherent as Syd Barrett's lyrics.

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (1)

XflopThreeShitty (943599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412665)

I dont lisen to lamea$$ hiphoprapcrap t00! metal r00lZ \m/

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412535)

Maybe it's an attempt at a troll.

Maybe he's brain damaged.

Maybe the liquid nitrogen has run out and there's not much mentation left.

Maybe he's nine and he's trying to be cool to impress us.

I'm certainly impressed. I didn't know that our canine colleagues had learned how to use computers.

Re:Linix tained by M$ crap. ps3?!?!?! (1)

XflopThreeShitty (943599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412615)

not 9 try 39!!! and i werk for Noble $$$$ winnerz so dont be al hussey mr smarty pants!!! how bout ansering my query insted huh?!?!?1?1?! mabee your the 1 who'se 9!!!!

Crazy Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412432)

Man, Slashdot looks messed up.

ReactOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412439)

Perhaps the ReactOS people should check their code as well, especially since they're starting to implement network support into it for version 0.3.0.

Well, there you go... (5, Funny)

stinky wizzleteats (552063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412504)

All applications launched inside Wine, Cedega, or Cross-Over Office are technically still exploitable

That's 3 Unix/Linux vulnerabilities to 1 for Windows. Windows is more secure.

Re:Well, there you go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412698)

Don't bite your tongue.

It's only natural that the few vulnerabilties in *nix would be implementing the Windows API. Sad.

The traditional "joke", with a twist? (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412524)

For WINE users, here's a patch [microsoft.com] .

Wow, I could never imagine this time would come, after all those here's a patch [mozilla.com] jokes!

Congrats WINE (1)

hkb (777908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14412604)

This just goes to show the WINE project's dedication to accurately reproducing the Windows libraries.

*drum hit*

Thank you, thank you, next show at 10!

if you want to run windows apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14412712)

run windows... dont see how it could be much simpler
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...