Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Caldera The Internet

SCO Group Web Site Attacked Again 564

FreeLinux writes "With not much SCO news today, it seemed that this story was needed - Reuters is reporting that, SCO is again suffering under a DDoS attack that has crippled their web site and email system since Wednesday morning. For the third time this year, the SCO Group's Web site came under attack, apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system. The denial-of-service attack started at 6:20 a.m. EST Wednesday and continued through the day, said Blake Stowell, spokesman for the Lindon-based company."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Group Web Site Attacked Again

Comments Filter:
  • Come on guys... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by micantos ( 252195 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:30PM (#7686599)
    Grow up. Settle it by the law.
  • Kinda Sad... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by irokitt ( 663593 ) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (ruai-setirdnamihcra)> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:31PM (#7686602)
    I don't see how this is going to help. Knowing SCO, they might try to make themselves the martyrs and use the attacks to cast a bad light on the Linux community in general. This issue has already gotten nasty enough anyway.
  • by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:34PM (#7686627) Homepage
    That's right, while the rest of the mainstream media happily reported whatever SCO told them to say, despite the evidence not appearing to support the DDoS story, Groklaw posted a detailed analysis of the situation. Now was it so hard for /. admins to take a quick glance over there, the source for accurate SCO news, before just posting Yet Another SCO Spin version of the story?

    Folks, if it's a SCO story, check with Groklaw before passing judgment. For every bit of FUD coming out of Linden, a blast of anti-FUD is lobbied back.

  • Re:bad image (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheLinuxSRC ( 683475 ) <slashdot.pagewash@com> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:40PM (#7686700) Homepage
    I thought the same thing.

    I mean, what the hell is " apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system" supposed to mean? I think that is a dangerous assumption. After all, it is probably Windows machines that are the 'bots, right?
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:41PM (#7686705) Journal
    Hell, *I* use Linux and dislike SCO, but this is just a tad unprofessional. OK, I'm kinda disgusted by this behavior - it destroys a moral "high ground" that might be useful to have shortly.
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stefman ( 37546 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:42PM (#7686716)
    I don't think that DDoS and cracking is the solution, but unfortunately, the law is not always helpful either.

    Look at what the use of the law did for the abuse of monopoly power by MS. It was a slap on the wrist for MS and their continued monopolistic practices.

  • by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:43PM (#7686729) Journal
    Before I start I should say I absolutely condemn the DDoS against SCO, if there really is one happening.

    I find it quite sad that our community has to loudly distance itself from supposed DDoS attacks and such against SCO while SCO makes a total mockery of the legal system and justice in general with their current campaign. For those who may not have noticed some earlier posts, discussion on Groklaw has brought up the possibility that this isn't a DDoS, but either just idiotic network admins on SCO's part, or perhaps even an intentional takedown to *cough* allow for a nice bit of publicity on their part. Whatever the true case is (and I'm not advocating any as the real one, I'll leave that for others to decide), SCO has certainly scored some nice negative publicity towards the OSS crowd, even if the DDoS is real and the attackers have nothing to do with OSS.

    IIRC there was an earlier supposed DDoS against SCO's servers that turned out to be that the servers were just down.

    In any case, it's nice to see the /. crowd (as always) advocating fair play and not using vigilante justice. Too bad SCO doesn't seem to believe in the fair play bit.

  • by stwrtpj ( 518864 ) <> on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:46PM (#7686751) Journal

    From the article header:

    For the third time this year, the SCO Group's Web site came under attack, apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system.

    Where in the article did it say this? I certainly can't find it.

    Slashdot editors might want to RTFA before approving a post. The submitter of this one got a wee bit overzealous.

  • by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:47PM (#7686763) Homepage
    Look at what SCO does to the Linux community.. fractures and bickering... Destroying something that was supposed to be moral and good for all.

    One can almost feel the power of the ring at work....
  • by gvc ( 167165 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:51PM (#7686792)
    SCO's press release served its purpose. Search Google News for "SCO" and you will see headlines like "SCO attacked by Linux folk." The real news - that SCO lost in court and that SCO's financials are starting to smell - is completely pushed aside by the DOS headlines.
  • by gnuadam ( 612852 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:53PM (#7686805) Journal

    That is interesting. Perhaps you should email pj? I'd definately go mention this over on groklaw, and give as much detail about where you work as you are comfortable doing.

    If they are lying about this, this would play into Red Hat and IBM's suits/coutersuits very well. I mean, we all know they lie to the press all the time, but something like this is just over the top.

  • suspect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sydlexic ( 563791 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2003 @11:59PM (#7686832)
    It is highly suspect that a company who's web site was felled by an ancient and easily defended 'attack' was able to so expertly and swiftly identify the cause in time to write up and distribute a press release before the close of business.
  • by mcleodnine ( 141832 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:01AM (#7686851)

    I've been folowing this story all day and the last thing I expected to see on /. was a regurgitation of "facts" with a 'questionable heritage'.

    Several sites (groklaw, lwn) have already pointed out that the claims of being hacked [] should be viewed with a liberal ointment of skepticism for any of the following reasons;

    • SCO was full of shit on the last DDoS 'attack'
    • SYN flood? Are you bullshitting me? A corporate firewall that can't handle something as old as that? Was it a high volume attack?
    • Funny that every other network server on the same subnet was still available (ie:
    • my personal favorite "and corporate operational traffic to be unavailable during the morning hours including e-mail, the company intranet, and customer support operations" - corporate intranet down from a DDoS?. If that means that employees can't surf because they get ported through the same address space as their http server then I guess the GNU.Linux community has little to worry about. Anybody that dim couldn't possibly find their way to court let alone be the plaintiff in a three billin dollar lawsuit.
  • linux users? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gyratedotorg ( 545872 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:08AM (#7686892) Homepage
    just out of curiousity, what do you think makes people assume that any attacks on sco are from the linux community? to me, its almost as if got attacked and everyone blamed the mom-and-pop stores. ridiculous.
  • its amazing.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@sup[ ] ['paf' in gap]> on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:11AM (#7686907)
    It's amazing that they are only DoS'd during their employee's working hours.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:20AM (#7686949) Journal
    The group(s) would be attacking all SCO boxes online rather than just a single web site. Why take down the company if you can simply make their customers quit buying their crap. No, I suspect this is just a hoax.
  • double bluff? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by another_twilight ( 585366 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:20AM (#7686952)

    There is a decent chance that their claims are designed to inflame.

    Claim the Open Source community is behind it and you get a bunch of people who have already been accused starting to think they may as well commit the 'crime' for which they are being blamed.

    Sure the claims made by SCO have always been seen to be ridiculous, from a technical POV. But their point has never been to convince the geeks. They are playing to a larger audience and seen in that light their bumbling and fumbling, technically, starts to look a little more deliberate.

    Call me paranoid, but SCO could be trying to create the incident they claim is ocurring right now.
  • FUD (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:22AM (#7686970)
    the SCO Group's Web site came under attack, apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system

    Please tell me how they know what these 'hackers' were unhappy with. This could have been done by anyone.
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wwest4 ( 183559 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:31AM (#7687019)
    The law is never helpful from the perspective of someone who has lost a case. If MS/SCO/whoever wins and the opposition exhausts appeals, then I'm willing to let a particular case drop.

    As for the precedent the decision establishes - it can also be fought an argued against or nullified without ddos and cracking. Granted, it's difficult and often seems hopeless at that point.

    I'm all for fighting the good fight, but there is no use in 1) exacting vigilante justice because you are impatient or 2) exacting vengeance because you stand to lose from a judgement. The republic (what's left of it) provides legal avenues from which to punish violators, establish new legislation, and overturn precedent. I'm not sure those avenues are completely shut just yet. With many citizens, such methods are not practical to effect an individual's desires in the short term, but they at least provide long-term potential. Think of your kids, and think of the rights you enjoy now because people fought for them despite the fact that they would probably not see their efforts through to fruition.

  • by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:32AM (#7687021) Journal

    The fundamental principle of civil disobedience is found in Thoreau's formulation that "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." An act is not civil disobedience unless the protestor is at credible risk of being arrested. For a protest to deserve the honor of being described as civil disobedience, it requires risk and sacrifice.

    Gandhi spent time in prison. As did MLK. And so did many of the serious anti-war activitists in the 60s.

    There's a second issue. SCO is not a government. There is recourse through justice against SCO. So civil disobedience is, again, not appropriate; civil disobedience is directed against a government guilty of an injustice which cannot be redressed through ordinary means.

    Those launching a DDoS against a company that's doing something stupid are risking nothing, are sacrificing nothing. They are also providing SCO with ammunition in their attempts to paint all Linux users as criminals (pirates, copyright violators, communists!). They're vandals, pure and simple, and the fact that they're vandalizing an asshole's house isn't a valid justification.

  • Edit on main page (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zeppelingb ( 609128 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:48AM (#7687110)
    Can we get an edit for the groklaw link on the mainpage? Anyone who just skims the headlines is going to get a very skewed impression of todays events.
  • RMS never claims the be the self-appointed leader of anyone

    Wha...? Are you joking? Would this be the same RMS who insists on Gnu/Linux? I'll grant you that RMS does it in a different way than ESR, but RMS self appoints himself all the time into things. It's his way or the highway.

  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1000StonedMonkeys ( 593519 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:57AM (#7687152)

    It certainly was effectively used by the spammers to crush their enemies. I forget the name, but one of the major anti-spam websites was forcibly closed because of DDoS, and nobody was prosecuted.

    And this improved the public's perception of spammers how?

  • by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @01:17AM (#7687263) Homepage Journal
    Seeing as it's mostlikely SCO doing it themselves you were probably right the first time.

  • by sisukapalli1 ( 471175 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @01:29AM (#7687323)
    Something is suspicious about the announcement of a DDOS on a bad day for SCO stock (note that SCOX stock fell quite a bit today). Most likely, it is to divert attention from the real problems (investors speaking up, etc.)

    Some of the wall street lemmings will fall for this, just like many /. lemmings went on a limb claiming "oh, c'mon guys, don't let *us all* get into distepute."

  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TyrranzzX ( 617713 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @01:39AM (#7687364) Journal
    At this point with all the lies and marketspeak you're believing anything that comes out of SCO's corperate orifice? I wouldn't be the least suprised if the net admin running the show at the SCO building needed to unplug the net connection for a few hours for routine maintainance, or if the "ddos" attack a few months ago was really a switch blowing and them having to overnight ship a new one pronto while everything was jurry rigged to barely work. You're talking about people who have such a distorted view of reality that they'll say open source software is illegal because it's too free without offering a clear, concise explination and then expect reality to revolve around them.
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <> on Thursday December 11, 2003 @01:48AM (#7687411)
    The law is never helpful from the perspective of someone who has lost a case. If MS/SCO/whoever wins and the opposition exhausts appeals, then I'm willing to let a particular case drop.

    Except that, in the MS antitrust case, MS lost and yet we, the people, got screwed because the "justice" system refused to treat MS the same way it treats normal citizens, and MS as a result wasn't penalized in any meaningful way for its crime. And that's despite the callous disregard for the law and the "justice" system MS showed in the courtroom. No ordinary citizen would have survived that, much less be let off scott-free.

    No, there is now far too much evidence, going all the way to the Supreme Court (there's no other reasonable explanation for their decision on the Copyright Term Extension Act) that the "justice" system has absolutely nothing to do with justice and everything to do with money and power to believe that it will ever yield a reasonable outcome except through sheer luck.

    And in the case of SCO, we're in luck. If there's any computer company that has what it takes to take on MS (even if MS is using SCO as a proxy), it's IBM. If SCO had picked a smaller target we'd much more likely be screwed, given that SCO has backing from MS.

  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zurab ( 188064 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @02:00AM (#7687463)
    They use Unixware, duh.

    Actually, they are using Linux. Most likely, they are using UnitedLinux based on SUSE. All SUSE distros have syn flood protection enabled by default. Plus, many people report their FTP server was fine all this time on the same subnet. SCO's story doesn't add up. It looks like they shut off their webserver to have another excuse at a press release to try to drive their stock price back up in order to dump more shares to buy shiny Christmas presents.

    That's my guess anyway.
  • DDOT (Score:3, Insightful)

    by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @02:08AM (#7687488)
    SCO has launched a denial of truth attack against the linux community.
  • by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @02:27AM (#7687570)
    Early in the morning, someone was exploiting a rooted SCO corporate web server. But they tripped over an intrusion detection alarm. System/network administrators were notified.

    Per their company policy, they shut SCO's entire network off from the entire world. "Internal mail servers and other support servers were unavailable." After a few hours, they determined that the intrustion was limited to the main corporate web server. The web server was broken off from the network. Network connectivity was restored (but no longer having a web server). "The web server is under a denial of service attack."

    SCO employees begin the process of either restoring the existing web server from backup, or preserving the existing server, and bringing online a new server from bare metal. The process is expected to take at least twelve hours. An SCO executive informs at least one media outlet that they expect the problem to be resolved in some time after twelve hours. They're still working on it.

    This also fits what happened in August, when their corporate web server was unavailable for THREE DAYS. When it was brought back online, the content was reportedly changed in some areas. It sounds like an inexperienced bare-metal restore or an untested solution. Perhaps part of the web site was not retreivable via backup, and they had to recreate some sections from scratch.

    My theory, which I believe totally fits the facts, is that SCO has been rooted and does not want to admit this publicly. So the DDoS/SYN is their cover story, which is close, but doesn't fit the facts well enough to avoid suspicion.

    I would appreciate a read on this theory with some feedback postive/negative.
  • by boots@work ( 17305 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @02:31AM (#7687589)
    No, RMS claims to speak for the Free Software Foundation, an organization he started and still leads. That sounds pretty fair to me.

    ESR persistently claims to speak for all hackers or "our tribe" or "our community". Such a thing has such fuzzy boundaries that it has no single opinion, and even if it did ESR wouldn't represent it.

    Being pedantic about terminology may or may not be a good tactic, but I think it's understandable for RMS to resist the FSF being written out of history by clueless journalists.
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _KiTA_ ( 241027 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @02:58AM (#7687677) Homepage
    IT didn't affect it at all.

    1. The public can't even spell DDoS, yet alone know what it is.
    2. The public has no idea what a email blacklist is, or why they're important for fighting spammers. To them, telling people that one of these sites would elicit a "huh?" response, not a "oh, damn!".
    3. The public most likely didn't hear about the spammers pulling this crap, because CNN was too busy showing happy puppies and ignoring real news (like this, the war crimes in Iraq, etc).

    So yeah. The spammer's reputations, which are tarnished beyond repair already, are, er, "safe", such as it is.
  • Re:Come on guys... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11, 2003 @03:17AM (#7687725)
    actually it was *2* of the biggest anti spam websites, but who's counting. It was covered by slashdot roughly 1-2 months ago, but our attention span is now down to 27 seconds, so we've all forgotten the names.
  • by Feztaa ( 633745 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @03:53AM (#7687842) Homepage
    it could be a Mac user. Right?

    It's most likely to be a horde of Zombie windows boxes, which were taken over by a Linux sympathizer. It absolutely makes no difference what platform they used to make the attack, only that the attacker likes Linux more than SCO.

    At any rate, the attacks are not necessary and harm our image more than they harm SCO's servers. To whoever is doing the attacks: Please stop, we don't need your "help". SCO is about to be smacked down in court big time, they are doing just fine destroying themselves on their own.
  • Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scot W. Stevenson ( 716113 ) <scot@possum.inWE ... .de minus author> on Thursday December 11, 2003 @04:30AM (#7687953) Homepage
    Even if this is a true DOS attack, why is this news? Imagine if Microsoft or Google or IBM put out a press release everytime somebody attacked their servers. If you are a big or a loud company, these things will happen. Don't whine, fix it and get on with life.
  • by ocelotbob ( 173602 ) <> on Thursday December 11, 2003 @06:19AM (#7688326) Homepage
    The problem with this theory is that it hinges on a corporation as large as SCO being fairly incompetent. SCO knows they're an enemy, and probably have hundreds of attacks on their webserver daily. Thus, it stands to reason that they should have a backup webserver waiting. Maybe last year's server that they've outgrown, maybe a spare server, regardless, a server that they can throw in while they do a postmortem on the current server. Yes, there would be downtime, but at most a few hours while they make sure everything is functioning at least well enough to serve up a static version of the site.

    Additionally, it's improbable that SCO would lose a lot of data in the event of a webserver crash. Most likely, SCO has a development webserver that they do all their testing beforehand -- any developer, programming or web, will tell you it's stupid to do development work on a live server.

    I'll agree with you that this is a coverup, but from the reports from elsewhere, this looks more like Darl et al covering up the fact that they have no evidence, and in fact, are probably going to be spending some time behind bars before all this is done.

  • by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @06:45AM (#7688398)
    I hear what you're saying, but I'm going to defend my view so far.

    > The problem with this theory is that it hinges on a corporation
    > as large as SCO being fairly incompetent.

    I assumed that was a given, actually. If you take them at their word, as an operating system manufacturer/distributor, and a web solutions provider, they'd have to be totally incompetent. I mean, if you believe SCO's story, they are outright admitting that they're a failure in their own core competency. Where was their improved firewall solution after the last hacker attack?

    Regarding the backups, my *feel* is that certain trees probably weren't being backed up, which can be a problem with backup solutions where you have (or you incorrectly believe you have to) name every subdirectory or filesystem to save. Or it could be outright data loss, which ended up hitting certain trees. Incompetent? You bet.

    That's the same reason why they may not be putting content changes through a development server. Only structural changes, for example.

    I know that we're having to assume a lot of incompetence, but again, at their own word, hasn't it already been demonstrated? You've got an OS manufacturer/distributor and web solutions provider who can't protect their server from the very old SYN attack.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @07:59AM (#7688589)
    First I realy hate to bring this up but Running DDoS for this reason is a terrorist mentality. If you create in your mind an enemy then you completely villainize them enough to justify some sort of attack. Now I like Linux and I dont like what SCO is doing but DDoSing doesn't help anything.
    Judge: IBM do you have any evidence.
    IBM: Well we SCO got DDoS by a people who don't like them.
    Everyone: GASP!
    Judge: Well I see that SCO case is completely fraudulent and the judgment goes to the defendant.
    SCO: But...
    Judge: Slaps down his gavel.
    If this did have sway in any way it would be for SCO legal advantage because they can use it to show how common the Open Source Community uses illegal means to try to get what they want.
    At best all the DDoS will do is wast some of SCO's money. but not enough to put a dent into it. Heck they probably find a Tax loophole to get the money back. Or sue the guy in the previous posts that gives out all the information to DDoS them on Slashdot.
    Come on guy think a little. This is the same way terrorist think. "Yea if I blow up this building that will get the US out of the surrounding areas." All it did was make it worse for them in their Point of View.
  • by bl8n8r ( 649187 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @08:30AM (#7688692)
    Are we to rule out the possibility that this is not another attempt by $CO to make the "hacker" community look childish and unprincipled? My dad could beat up Darrells dad anyday, anyway.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @08:55AM (#7688787) Journal
    If we assume that they really are under attack, then perhaps we should look at the possible motives of the attack.
    Further assume that it is a Linux person(s) even though the community as a whole came out against the first attack. Why not likely?
    • Currently SCO is losing their war. Badly. They have been ordered by the judge to produce real evidence by jan. They almost certainly can not (or will produce code that will be immeadiatly shown to have originated from a 3'rd and legal source; read as BSD ).
    • Likewise, Linux is growing leaps and bounds perhaps due to this tactic (FUD that is killed seems to help marketing).
    • If somebody wanted to really hurt SCO, they would not attack SCO's web server. They would go after each and ever remeaning SCO based server that is on-line. Find every company that is still running them and take them out until they drop SCO. Pretty soon, nobody would buy another SCO product due to fear of being able to use it.

    Ok, so, maybe it is not a Linux person.
    Instead assume it is somebody trying to make Linux ppl look bad. huummmmm.
    • Major Linux sites under some pretty crafety attacks these days. Almost certainly not by one person but by a group (it could be spammers, but more likely it is not; they have 10's of millions of easy targets).
    • SCO being massively funded by MS and Sun.
    • FUD has been turned up again like never before
    • Comparision in the press of a real OS vs. an OS that will not appear for another 2-3 years (and ppl say that the press is not beholden to a very large corporate entity
    • SCO (Boies, MS, and Sun as well) have been lying about what is happening with SCO while doing everything to make SCO look sympathtic. Witness their press release about the outcome from the recent court case, or just what daryl has said.

    Finally, assume that it is some SK that is trying to showoff. Normal situation with a site that is easy to take out and would get lots of press play.

    I can safely assume the later 2 are more probable, while the first is not likely.

    To be honest, I would also assume that SCO can be lying about being under attack.
  • by ValentineMSmith ( 670074 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @09:11AM (#7688852)
    I'm only a simple programmer, folks. I realize that this story has been covered very well both here and on Groklaw. The next question: how do we get our side of the story (there was no DDoS attack, Darl needed to get the incriminating evidence off of the web server) out to the mainstream press? I'd like to think that, with some of the reporters out there starting to wake up, that SOME REPORTER would follow this up and print the story as it actually happened, not just a verbatim copy/paste of SCO's press release.

    It would be very amusing to see the reaction of SCO's upper management to having their bluff called.

  • by frkiii ( 691845 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @11:05AM (#7689684)

    Call me paranoid, but if their intranet was affected by this "attack", I suspect that "some things" are going to be "lost" as a result.

    IMHO, the SEC and other appropriate authorities might want to get some search warrants quick, surround SCO Headquarters and start saving some of the things that might otherwise get "lost" or "destroyed" due to this "attack".



  • by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Thursday December 11, 2003 @12:17PM (#7690377) Journal
    Hey FreeLinux: Learn some basics here:

    "...apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system."

    WHY is this apparent? The only thing that the 'unhappy hackers' have going is motive. IBM could have done it too. SCO could have done it to themselves, or just faked it entirely, as an excuse to go offline to recover from being rooted.

    Motive != guilt, especially when there are many groups with equal motives.

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller