I have an iso file which creates a boot-able disk.  The file is now on
the desktop of my computer but Ubuntu doesn't seem to know how to burn
the disk.  (I have no problems burning a regular disk.)  It can open the
archive but that is not what I want. obviously, the archive is complete.

PS The iso file might have to create a boot-able DVD because I'm not
sure that a CD will be big enough.  I can burn DVD's but is there
anything extra that must be done if it has to be on a dvd disk.

Bill Stanley

I guess you just have to run:

Applications / Sound & Video / Brasero Disk Burner // Burn Image

--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Ubuntu AMD64
GNU-Linux Regist. User #481505 -  http://counter.li.org/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

If it supposed to be for a CD then it will probably fit.  An image
file may be too big to be put on the CD as a file, but ok as an image.

If you open your favourite CD/DVD burning s/w it should have a Burn
Image option somewhere.  If you cannot find it tell us which s/w you
are using (look in the help for it first, obviously).

Colin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Have you checked the boot sequence by going into the BIOS on startup
and checking the the CD/DVD drive is checked before the hard disk?

Where did you get the image from?

Colin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

"Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies."  Actually it is for
Windows XP which I downloaded from the Pirate Bay.  I really don't feel
badly about this because  Win XP is no longer being sold.  The iso file
was originally known as ???.iso.part  When I eliminated the .part
extension, brasero accepted it and made a disk that should have been
bootable but wasn't.  I need it to create a virtual machine under
Virtual Box and not to install it on a physical machine.

PS.  I only pirate stuff which I can't buy or get through normal means.
  As such, I don't feel that my actions cause a lost sale.

Bill Stanley

No need for details... :-)

But then the .iso.part sufix suggests an incomplete download, thus a
broken system.

If you need such an .iso for installing a virtual machine, there's no
need to burn a CD, you can simply choose the iso image as the bootable
device at startup when you configure the guest settings,

(And by the way, beware possible embedded bugs, virus or malware)

L.

--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Ubuntu AMD64
GNU-Linux Regist. User #481505 -  http://counter.li.org/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Yes, check the bios. I have a similar laptop (1505) and it definitely
_will_
boot from a CD or a DVD.  I just tried the Zorin DVD, and it works.

--doug

--
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley

Very good news!  Now some further questions.  On the download page of
the Ubuntu website I see that there is a separate web-page for netbooks.
  What's the difference (if any) between a laptop and a netbook.   I
suspect that I do not want the netbook version.  Should I go to the
desktop download page and select 64-bit desktop?  I have, up to now,
used only a traditional desktop.  Are there special procedures to use
when installing Ubuntu to a laptop?

Bill Stanley

Bill,

I guess you hijacked your own thread, wasn't the subject "create a
boot-able disk from an iso file"?

I also suppose you want the desktop edition for your notebook. But I
could be wrong.

Simple rule:

More than 3.5 GB RAM memory -> 64 bit system

(Although I have a 2 GB station that runs happily on 64, installed by mistake)

As for special instructions regarding laptops installs, better put
them on the table because they tend to warm your lap and people say it
isn't good for your... sorry, too much OT...

L.

--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Ubuntu AMD64
GNU-Linux Regist. User #481505 -  http://counter.li.org/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

After my previous reply, it occurred to me: if you actually burned a
DVD, does your laptop have a DVD drive, or only a CD?
The Ubuntu 10.10 download fits on a CD, so if you burned a DVD, you may
need to go back and burn a CD.
You do _not_ want a 64 bit version--your laptop only has a 32 bit
processor, and the 64 bit will not work at all.

The difference you asked about is in the GUI--the standard version
(basically for desktops) uses Gnome.  The netbook and
(maybe) the laptop version uses something else, of which the general
consensus is--DON'T!  Just use the standard version.
I have standard versions of 4 Linuxes (including Ubuntu 10.10) on my
Dell laptop, plus XP Professional.  (I put in a larger hard
  drive.)  There is no special procedure.  Just follow the directions on
the disk.

--
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley

--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Ubuntu AMD64
GNU-Linux Regist. User #481505 -  http://counter.li.org/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Since some messages were inadvertently sent directly to the OP instead
of the list, I'm re-posting then for easier understanding.

--
L M Nicolosi, Eng.
Ubuntu AMD64
GNU-Linux Regist. User #481505 -  http://counter.li.org/

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

The install isn't what makes it illegal -- the lack of a unique license
is. These are probably recoverable from the registry, unfortunately, MS
started encrypting them, so the only way I know to get them is by
running one of several tools (Google is your friend) on the machine in
question. If you can still boot into it, you should try and recover
those licenses.

Also, if you have got the system de-loused, there are tools out there
that will create a VM from the system directly. (I'm guilty, but you
really should make a copy or clone of a system before running anti-virus
just in case it goes badly.) If you can get the license information (it
should also be on a sticker on the laptop somewhere), you might be able
to get some trial XP ISOs from Microsoft or from other places, and just
register the license with the existing code.

I know all this already...  Luckily, I was able to download a version of
Win XP where the DRM stuff was disabled.  I have to observe the VM
carefully since I know that is is a cracked version.  On the plus side,
a lot of the MS bloat-ware has been removed and it is ideal for use in a
VM.  (the footprint is very small)  Updates are out of the question, the
MS firewall and virus checker ??? has been also disabled.  This makes it
really dangerous as a stand alone OS but for a VM (particularly for home
use) it seems OK.  Only time will tell.

Bill Stanley

[pruned]

I suspect that you *really* mean WPA and not DRM, right?

(BTW, some Virtual Boxes and even Virtual Machines will not install the
original XP but at the least only XP with Service Pack 2.)

Oh boy, I think that you are playing with fire ol' boy.

You don't seem to know the difference between VB and VM.

Do you mean VM as in what you stated in one of your first posts to mean
*Virtual* *Box* (VB), which comes with Ubuntu and for which there is no
need for a "crack",  or VM as in IBM's VM or VMWare's VM cracked version
which may be found if one looks?

You sound like the posts from a person my wife came across a while back:
that person quite openly posted in a public forum that she copies DVDs
and sends them out to her friends so that they can discuss the fillums
during their "fillum nights".

Oh boy, oh boy.....

Sheesh.....You can disable both in a normal installation of Windows XP
any way.....

Hrumph.

Good luck.

(You're really kinda 'stumbling in the dark' about this whole thing
aren't you? :-( )

BC

--
"I would rather deal with a correct asshole than a polite dipshit ANY AND EVERYDAY"
              Brian K. White

Hi!

Newbie confusion on his side, most likely... Doesn't really know what he
is talking about...

I suspect he is running a cracked virtual machine inside virtual box. In
which case the term "cracked version" for the "VM" is somewhat correct.
Though I would say that the virtual machine is running a cracked guest
operating system image... But he gets the point across. What he is doing
isn't legitimate. :)
Yep. And he is posting all this on a somewhat public mailing list that
is archived. Convenient for lots of copyright enforcement people out
there. :DSheesh.....You can disable both in a normal installation of
Windows XP any way.....

Stumbling in the dark, yes... next to a very steep and high cliff...
kind of fun to read here. Definitely made my morning smile. :)

Gilles.

WS=> I think you mean WGA, Windows genuine advantage (a misnomer if
there ever was one), to be a form of DRM.  Technically you are correct.

WS=> This is a cracked version of Windows XP Professional (Service Pack 3)

Your assumption would be wrong!  I do know the risks and I use the VM
for experiments only.  Nothing important.  I also plan to tell the
person who will use it of the risks associated with it.  I do not plan
to use this VM (the cracked version of Win XP) for any networking.  In
fact, I have disabled the network adapter of this VM.  It would be hard
to use the network to get in or out.  Of course, the network functions
of the Linux host are fully functional.  Yes this hobbles the VM but I
am doing that because I know of the risks of allowing it to reach my
network.

VB means Virtual Box (it also could mean Visual Basic which is an
abomination).  VirtualBox does not come installed with Ubuntu.  You have
to download it from their repository as VirtualBox OSE.  I actually
downloaded the most recent version by visiting the Virtual Box website.

I checked if they were only disabled, These functions were actually removed.

Actually I'm not.  I am aware of the risks.

Bill Stanley

This thread might seem confusing but I am a newbie only to VirtualBox.
I have been using computers since the early 1980's.  I have been using
Linux on and off since the late 1990's.  I have never gotten a virus
because I am aware of the risks, that is why I use Linux to access the
Internet.   By the way, although my area of study is very narrow
(software debugging, testing and verification) I have an advanced degree
in that area.  Granted, I might be a VirtualBox newbie but I am far from
being a newbie to computers.

Bill Stanley

<Remainder elided.>

I don't understand why you would want to run a lobotomized version when
you have a legal license. I don't really want to know more details, but
if you change your mind, you can get the install disks here:

http://www.tipandtrick.net/2008/download-unmodified-original[..]
with-sp3-integrated-full-retail-and-vl-install-cd-iso-image-from-msdntec
hnet-plus-via-http-or-torrent/

If you're your schizophrenic friend, that's fine; but if you're really
turning this loose on someone else, I hope they're a friend you plan to
visit often. You know they'll save the image when they shut it down.
Within fifteen minutes of connecting the VM to the network, the saved
image will include viruses. Then you'll have to provide a new, clean VM
(sans all their saved documents).

Anyway, I really don't want to know, but if you only used the pirated
version because it's all you could find, you might change your mind and
have another go with these install images, and use the license number on
the sticker attached to the laptop. I'm pretty sure you can still
(legally) run this inside of a VM, but DRM will block many games because
they're running in a VM (even if it's legal).

(I've been running WinDirStat lately looking for my lost disk space, so
I know what you mean by bloat. The XP patches consume as much space as
the Original XP Pro SP3 install. It has doubled in size. This means, in

<Remainder elided.>

I think they're more concerned with your schooling in copyright law.
Posting admission of copyright infringement in a public, archived forum
is certainly a good way to get schooled. ;-)

By the way is that a single ULR?  My email program (Thunderbird) made it
into several lines.

I would tell to save any important documents to a shared folder.  (one
that is actually a Linux folder.  Would a virus be able to do any harm
to documents stored there?  As for me, I almost exclusively use Linux
for personal work.  Unfortunately, I also have to work on a program and
compile it as a Windows program so I must be able to run Windows. The
compiler and IDE are the only thing I run on the VM.  As such a OS that
doesn't have many features is acceptable.

Thanks for the tip about other places where I might get a legal version.
  I would always prefer to use legal stuff.  Of course, this is a
Windows issue and this is an Ubuntu Linux forum.  But since it also a
VirtualBox matter running under Ubuntu I guess the subject is germaine.

Bill Stanley

Looks like one to me.

If you're running Windows, then yes, of course.  The virus doesn't
(necessarily) know or care what file system is underneath the files it
modifies.  If you're running in Windows and a virus goes after a file,
it will be modified (as long as the permissions so allow).  If it
happens to be a Linux executable, then chances are that the changes
will corrupt the file and it won't run (on Linux), but there are
UNIX/Linux viruses out there, too,  They're just considerably rarer
than Win viruses (millions).

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listino/ubuntu-users

ZenWiz,
Please, show me one!
There are so many claims of viruses for Linux but I never saw one  and
I'm working with Unix since 1978 and with Linux since 1992. Of course
there are methods to enter Unix/Linux systems but gain access to root -
which is a necessity for doing serious damage - is IMO only possible due
to neglect by the owner (e.g. using root as his main user).
Even planting malware like key-grabbers can only be achieved when Linux
users are careless or help from the inside is given. But correct me if
I'm wrong.
Joep

Joep

I presume from your prior postings that you have heard of Google.
Last time I looked there were a whopping 42 viruses for UNIX/Linux
machines, but feel free to look and prove me wrong.  :-)

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users*******
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listino/ubuntu-users

I think root access isn't necessary at all for doing serious damage. For
a "normal user" like me, the most valuable data are stored in my home
directory and malware running with my privileges can delete all those
files. That would probably be the greatest damage that could be done to
my system.  Furthermore, as a normal user the malware can start
applications e.g. to join a botnet and send spam mails. That would also
be a major damage, this time for the network, not for my machine. And
again root access isn't necessary.

Nils

well, likewise.
Read this blog> http://cristalinux.blogspot.com/2010/03/understanding-viruse[..]

Joep

Nis,
I tend to disagree. Malware has to enter. This of course can occur via
port 80. However, to run a program an execute command must be given and
the executable bit must be set. You can install as many programs as you
want but a program that is not installed by you can not run as you and
therefore cannot damage your home directory. Of course as soon as you
grant somebody permission to enter your system (or your trusted program
provider is not as honest as you think) than you have a problem. For
that special case I have a special user with restricted permissions.
Another thing is to always have a firewall not so much for fending off
intruders (OK is handy) but to prevent unknown malware to contact the
outside world which means in practice that all outgoing ports are closed
except when specific programs (listed on the firewall) request access.
  I agree that you must take some precautions even when using a Linux
system, but hey, you have also locks on your house and you don't give
away the key to everybody (which you do when you use windows, even
worse, your trusted (OS) builder has made several secret doors in your
house which you don't know but which aren't locked).
Joep

I stand corrected.  Nice article.

I would note, however, that this article does not discuss worms, which
are yet a fourth kind of malware that have infected the UNIXverse
before - one rather infamous one in particular.

There are also other kinds of security exploits, for which we
frequently see updates.

But strictly speaking, Joep is quite right - there are no UNIX or
Linux viruses per se.

Thanks!
And of course I agree that with disregard of simple precautionary
measures any system is vulnerable, just as your house. Especially with
respect to worms this is true and don't forget > 70 % of all computer
fraud is internal, one of the most famous is the case of the programmer
of a banking program who transferred all figures < 0.00 to a secret
account when rounding off (that was in the eighties). Due to
carelessness he was caught not due to intelligent "sleuthing".
Joep

I tend to disagree as well. How does malware get into a Windows system?
Usually there is a vulnerability of the browser or email client or
whatever. The same is possible with Linux / Unix programs. Granted,
clicking on an email attachment under Linux usually isn't as dangerous
as it is under Windows because it isn't automatically executable.

But we all know that programs like Adobe reader and flash player are a
major target of malware and the security holes found in those two alone
often are exploitable for Linux as well. If I stumble upon a malicious
website with a flash exploit targeted at Linux systems, the malicious
code runs with my privileges and I don't see why it can't install
something permanently which is executable and which is run at every
startup of my KDE or Gnome session. Something like "tar xfz malware.tgz"
inside the exploit code should suffice.

That's certainly good practice but unfortunately it is not the default
setup and as a "normal user" I wouldn't even think about the possibility
to lock down outgoing traffic.

Nils

How? U agree java-beans and other java snippets have the possibility to
execute but in their own memory-segment but can contain malwar.
Therefore it is good practice to block it (an add-on for Firefox) and
only allow it if you are sure it contains no malware.
Again, block flash and only allow films you're reasonably sure they are
safe or use only Adobe for reading .PDF-files.
It is as with your house, of course somebody can knock on your door with
malicious intent, but you can keep him out (e.g. a chain or something)
and ascertain that he is no threat. The same with programs. And of
course I'm somewhat paranoid but I have some experience with computer
security.
If a company build houses with doors that cannot be locked, that company
will be sued for criminal neglect. Microsoft does it for over 20 years
as that is the time they know of their neglect but everybody think
that's normal.

I don't lock it, the firewall only is open for programs known to it
(i.e. the known ports).
If you have a separate system as firewall, that is very easy (look at
LEAF firewall).
Joep

You can achieve the same effect with rm. Which is why users who value
their data take every precaution to safeguard it. The system has limited
responsibilty to protect you from yourself.

There is no damage to the system, only to the data which are in your
home directory and which you are responsible for.

I can envisage how malware in $HOME could send email but how does it get
the machine to join a botnet? Anyway, as you imply, it's not a good idea
to download and install malware in your own space.

Hi Joep,

Maybe we should be more precise. I've seen various flavours of trojans on linux (as well as on other unices). I have seen viruses on Linux as well.

Isn't this the case with all OSs?

Sorry, the problem simply is that most users do not at all know what they're doing. Not using a firewall ist just one of the things you're going to see when having to debug "friend's" computers.

Sure, with a top-notch up-to-date system you're relatively unlikely to run into problems... and yes, open-source has a clear advantage here over closed-source (IMHO).

But, honestly: Who is using Linux / Unix? Those aren't the users who have no clue about nothing. Windows is - almost likely - preinstalled on any box you buy. Installing Linux means that at least you had to make a choice...

Tobias

--
E = M * C^2 +/- 3db

Right, with rm I can do the same damage, but then it is my own
stupidity. However if some malware exploits a vulnerability of my
system, I'm not so sure I can easily prevent major damage. After all, I
wouldn't intentionally install malware on my system.

Well, my definition of "system" would include my own data. Of course
your definition as "the OS with installed applications" sure makes sense
as well. But I wouldn't care too much about damage to that type of
system because it can be easily restored from the install CD.

I think there is an IRC client installed on a default Ubuntu system.
OTOH, malware used to join botnets and send spam might as well use its
own binary to achieve that goal.

Nils

automatically executable with Linux.

Granted, it may be good practice to lock down a system, but a) that can
be done with Windows systems as well and b) that has nothing to do with
the initial point I tried to make: You don't need root access to do
major damage.

No, reading PDF files with Adobe isn't safe either. The Adobe reader has
been vulnerable on Linux / Unix more than once [1,2].

Anyway, even though it may be quite interesting, I think we are getting
more and more off topic here. Therefore I'll refrain from further
comments. Feel free to contact me off-list if you want to continue this
discussion.

Nils

[1] < http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Adobe-warns-of-ze[..]
Acrobat-1075787.html>
[2] < http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Adobe-hole-closed[..] >

Nils,
With respect to OT: I agree.
Joep

Using rm in $HOME or installing malware there (which is the only place a
user can do serious damage) would both be intentional actions, but what
was intended may be hazy and the consequences may be unforseen.

This is the 'my data are more important than the system' argument. The
integrity of your data depends on the integrity of the system and
without the system you have no data. Being able to rebuild the system is
neither here nor there.

I just wanted to point out one false statement I saw here: the execute
bit does NOT need to be set to run a program anymore modern GUI-enabled
(GNOME and KDE) Linux Desktops. These new launcher programs will ignore
that bit if they're set to launch a specific program.

That's not what I'm seeing.  I have a panel launcher for libreoffice
(writer), but if I chmod 644 /usr/bin/libreoffice, I get a pop-up
window that says it can't execute the file.

Or am I not understanding what you mean by "these new launcher programs?"

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but there are files called
something like *.desktop? They behave similar to old windows PIF
(Program Information Files) that allow GNOME (or KDE) to associate a
file with an application. Here's where I read about it (though it hardly
seems alarming):  http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229  

If you follow the "follow up" link, there's a (slightly) more
informative discussion on these. It's been pointed out repeatedly and by
many that I'm not a normal person; however, I can't imagine any normal
person saving a file on their desktop and clicking it for no good
reason. But then, I've gotten several email attachments from friends
written in broken, warez English and they can't understand why I haven't
opened the attachment. (This is when I point out that Simpson was my
Mother's maiden name, not mine.) Doh!

As alarming as that article is, and it's a very good read - thank you,
that hole appears to have been plugged at least as of Maverick and
Gnome 2.32.

I tested this by copying bluetooth-applet.desktop from my
.config/autostart directory into a temporary that I planned to run as
a test and modified the shell line to do a simple echo command, then
deleted the "X-GNOME-Autostart-enabled=false" line and copied it to my
desktop, then double-clicked on it.  I get a pop-up window that says
this:

Untrusted application launcher
The application launcher "test.desktop" has not been marked as
trusted. If you do not know the source of this file, launching it may
be unsafe.

Just for fun, I also did this with the bluetooth-applet.desktop, and
it got the same warning.  To be on the thorough side, I also added
"X-GNOME-Autostart-enabled=true" to the end of my test file and it
still refuses to launch.  Finally, I copied a launcher that I know
does get executed when I log in to a test launcher, modified it to do
something harmless, copied it to my desktop and blam - same error.

Still, I confess that I'm not at all clear how Gnome knows that these
launchers should not be trusted - there doesn't appear to be anything
in the file itself, nor in its (nautilus) properties, that so
indicates.

Conclusion: Keep your wits about and trust nothing when it comes to
possible exploits, but be aware of what does and does not work, too.

Yea, I read that soon after I sent the article.
( http://www.algorithm-forge.com/techblog/2009/07/executable-a[..]
launcher/) It appears that the X-bit is being hijacked as a trust bit,
and it's not set by default. The first time you say to trust it, it
marks that bit and never asks again. Here's more discussion on the
topic:

http://lwn.net/Articles/320707/

I found it interesting that the first article suggests that /home be
mounted noexec.  Wouldn't that completely cripple desktop icons?  (Not
that this is a bad idea, but hmm....)

I routinely write and maintain a fair number of custom binaries and
shell scripts that I have, until now, kept in my ~/bin directory.  If
I made /home noexec, I'd have to create another directory somewhere
for my customizations.  It's not a big issue and the "security"
trade-off might make it worthwhile, but it strikes me as a pain.

For one thing, I have a semi-universal .bashrc (and corresponding
alias and function files) that I can transport to just about any Linux
or UNIX system (most recently even a MAC) and they just work, but one
of the tiny little dependencies is that I can use my $HOME/bin for all
the shell scripts or programs that I want to being along as well.

Oh, well, just one more tripping block in the whole security with
customizations area.  Guess I'll need to create a custom "installer"
for my custom non-/home bin directory, not to mention a source
directory for the programs with a make file that puts them in the
right place, too, yada, yada, yada.