an issue with recent security advisories
Hi All have packages for these updates: [DSA 1308-1] New iceweasel packages [DSA 1309-1] New PostgreSQL 8.1 [DSA 1310-1] New libexif packages been uploaded to the repositories and added to Releases and Packages files? The reason I ask is that for the past 72 hours my apt tells me there is nothign to be updated, but I am running older version of postgresql and an older version of iceweasel... Whats the point of making a security advisory if the packages are NOT AVAILABLE in mirrors and repositories here is my sources.list... maybe I have some misconfiguraion ? deb ftp://ftp.au.debian.org/debian/ etch main contrib non-free deb ftp://ftp.au.debian.org/debian-security/ etch/updates main contrib non-free deb http://volatile.debian.net/debian-volatile/ etch/volatile main contrib non-free -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: an issue with recent security advisories
may thanks to all who replied. It all works happy now. regards Tomasz Ciolek On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:59:05AM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote: > On Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 19:49:28 +1000, Tomasz Ciolek wrote: > > > been uploaded to the repositories and added to Releases and Packages > > files? > > Yes. > > > Whats the point of making a security advisory if the packages are NOT > > AVAILABLE in mirrors and repositories > > > > here is my sources.list... maybe I have some misconfiguraion ? > > You're missing: > > deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free > > We suggest people never mirror the security archive, to avoid > problems, and this is the place where security updates will be > uploaded to. > > The sources lists you have would only receive new updates for > point releases of Etch. > > Steve > -- -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 3292-1] cinder security update
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 07:35:14PM -0400, Bryan L. Gay wrote: > Your email for CVE-2015-1851 does not verify against your GPG signature: > > Wrong signature of Sebastien Delafond > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Sebastien Delafond wrote: no issue here... maybe your GPG did not pull the public key from the servers? Tomasz -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: how do You protect an email relay service?
Two ways: for clients who have thier own mail servers and need to relay and for people with Linux laptops who can run posfix or exim we permi relaying based on TLS certificate presented by the MTA. For those who use Windows based dekstops: pop-before-smtp daemon. All others get greylisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting Cheers Tomasz Ciolek On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:54:16PM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote: > Good day. > > > If You use an email relay service, how do You protect it: VMs, iptables > connections rate limit, ... ? > > Personally, I have a problem with email sending authorization - how I can > separate the users that have not their boxes on our service and therefore I > can > ban their trials to pick up a password - I can not reduce it even to the local > net IPs bt iptables - as port 25 is used for not only for sending our own > users > but for receiving it for the local users - as I understand. > > > Thank You for Your time. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 2403-2] php5 security update
Danny, I believe this is a re-issue to vocer lenny and sid/wheezy, as the original php5 advisory for this issue was lenny only. Tomasz On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:30:19PM +0100, Danny van der Meulen wrote: > *sigh* > > And here we go once again... > > D > > On 02/06/2012 08:21 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >- - > >Debian Security Advisory DSA-2403-2 secur...@debian.org > >http://www.debian.org/security/ Thijs Kinkhorst > >February 06, 2012 http://www.debian.org/security/faq > >- - > > > >Package: php5 > >Vulnerability : code injection > >Problem type : remote > >Debian-specific: no > >CVE ID : CVE-2012-0830 > > > >Stefan Esser discovered that the implementation of the max_input_vars > >configuration variable in a recent PHP security update was flawed such > >that it allows remote attackers to crash PHP or potentially execute > >code. > > > >This update adds packages for the oldstable distribution, which were > >missing from the original advisory. The problem has been fixed in > >version 5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny16, installed into the security archive > >on 3 Feb 2012. > > > >For the stable distribution (squeeze), this problem has been fixed in > >version 5.3.3-7+squeeze7. > > > >For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in > >version 5.3.10-1. > > > >We recommend that you upgrade your php5 packages. > > > >Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply > >these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be > >found at: http://www.debian.org/security/ > > > >Mailing list: debian-security-annou...@lists.debian.org > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > >Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPMCgcAAoJEOxfUAG2iX57D2UH/1ObFjP57TX0K+iH2n4+1dkN > >73ZMXEEudfZdRmKY2fHl4BcNb7hVGruKPSSnHVWHjgaoIoPPHST5dncSqi1946Km > >oXyOB/eyiYLvhRYKjExRt99GIoC89p8VUsPE8uR3IT5cUsp4nPIQDnhLLnQd4VCk > >Da9m5CzrAGU1RiCilb7IqKVedqQ3ewroDbgVHoRpzvpIkvKNXR3jhZSEvYHB4BQ7 > >qvnmOMNwJ+Dx6ZoS+sZpCBvucubo1nldyFCqqznc9OZMHXIgn7//YQAYcYGDkC8U > >WL35ZubBP5+Vbnoh4Gjm1q5thizvMTZJD13dqY//0swqwEigLT1DodB1WL2Z2Bs= > >=222m > >-END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f302a4b.90...@ebay.com -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120206210742.ge1...@vandradlabs.com.au
Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 2698-1] tiff security update
Hi All On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:39:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:44:02AM +0200, Roland Karch wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have noticed that my wheezy install has this package installed which was > > not updated by the packages in this advisory: > > ii libtiff4:armel3.9.6-11 > > armelTag Image File Format (TIFF) library (old version) > > > > Seeing how there was also an update for squeeze's 3.9.4 version, I am now > > wondering if this version in wheezy was forgotten in the update? > > I'm not sure where you get that 3.9.6 from, but the advisory says: > - squeeze: 3.9.4-5+squeeze9 > - wheezy: 4.0.2-6+deb7u1 > > And you seem to be running a version somewhere in between those 2. > I appear to have the same on my system which has both libtiff4 and libtiff5 installed. ii libtiff4:amd643.9.6-11 ii libtiff4:i386 3.9.6-11 ii libtiff5:amd644.0.2-6+nmu1 So I suspect that there is a version/build that has been missed/skipped somehow Cheers Tomasz -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pc is compromised
all 3 links arew empty? On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:10:35PM +0100, yb...@hushmail.com wrote: > here is the log of wireshark, I removed some packages that reported > the mac andress, attach the files that are pcapng > > this and 'the newly connected PC (here I'm using google dns) > https://filetea.me/t1s9VaxuNRWQAWOftoZ1foOUg > > and this' when I start firefox and go to google.com > https://filetea.me/t1sV3uEy37JRU2y9ofZqvRhXA > > this (the interesting and not too long) is the log before installing > fresh, I had nothing open (services, browsers, etc.) > https://filetea.me/t1sEexcOWJvSnK1HLE9CLlSxw -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: fail2ban wheezy security update
Hi guys Perhaps the best way is to sumbmit these patches to the Debian fail2ban maintainer? On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 04:41:04PM -0600, Jason Fergus wrote: > I run a postfix at home, and I just installed your new package. It does > look pretty good so far. Also reminds me I should pay more attention to > my logs. There are a lot of attempts to connect from unauthorized > people. Of course I'm sure that happens everywhere, which is why we use > fail2ban in the first place! > > On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 17:55 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > Dear Security Enthusiasts, > > > > Would someone be kind to verify correct operation of a perspective security > > update for the Fail2Ban package in wheezy. Especially if you are using > > postfix, cyrus imap, courier smtp, exim, or lighttpd. Unfortunately amount > > of > > changes to those filters definitions was quite large, and I have tried to > > do my > > best to verify their correct operation on sample log lines we have in recent > > Fail2Ban, but I could have missed something obvious since I have no working > > deployments of postfix etc. Cheers Tomasz -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: fail2ban wheezy security update
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:51:09AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 2014-07-08 8:13, Tomasz Ciolek wrote: > >Perhaps the best way is to sumbmit these patches to the Debian > >fail2ban maintainer? > > You mean the person who started this thread? :) > Duh. having a fail. :) Tomasz -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is this a hacking attempt?
Hi there On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:40:07PM +0100, Marko Randjelovic wrote: > I was running Wheezy Iceweasel with vanilla 3.14 kernel with grsec. I > tried to play video on YouTube with gnash plugin but Iceweasel crashed > with alike messages > > execution attempt in ... > Terminating task /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel > > Full log can be found on http://paste.lisp.org/+343V I could not find DNS entries for the pastebin... But do you get similar issues withthe flashplugin-nonfree pakage? Cheers Tomasz Ciolek -- Tomasz M. Ciolek *** tmc at vandradlabs dot com dot au *** GPG Key ID: 0x41C4C2F0 GPG Key Fingerprint: 3883 B308 8256 2246 D3ED A1FF 3A1D 0EAD 41C4 C2F0 Key available on good key-servers *** signature.asc Description: Digital signature
