From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-22 13:39:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nautilus.eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!newsfeed.wu-wien.ac.at!not-for-mail From: Markus Mottl Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna, Austria Message-ID: <9m159b$rcs$2@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com> <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com> <3B834E5D.B0D26AB1@adaworks.com> <9lvsic$bet9s$1@ID-9852.news.dfncis.de> <9m0193$grs$1@bird.wu-wien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: miss.wu-wien.ac.at X-Trace: bird.wu-wien.ac.at 998512747 28060 137.208.107.17 (22 Aug 2001 20:39:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-admin@wu-wien.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:39:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981225 ("Volcane") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12291 comp.lang.c:76229 comp.lang.c++:84940 comp.lang.functional:7634 Date: 2001-08-22T20:39:07+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.functional Ted Dennison wrote: > In article <9m0193$grs$1@bird.wu-wien.ac.at>, Markus Mottl says... >>As usual, official reports (i.e. by the Navy itself) that indicate >>shortcomings of their weapon technology do not circulate for too long >>for obvious reasons (but maybe they are just hidden well enough). > Well, I should point out that this isn't really "weapons technology". Its just > the engine control systems. The weapons are controlled by completely different > systems. I was referring to the ship as a whole when I mentioned "weapons technology". The Navy surely has reasons to keep up a positive image of their technology, not only to give a secure feeling to the people it's supposed to protect, but also to threaten potential aggressors. Saddam certainly had a good laugh... ;) Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl