Someone told me that if you have a CentOS or Fedora server, you can pay a
Red Hat yearly fee and get them to support it (because the environments are
so similar).
Can anyone here substantiate this claim?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://l
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 08:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Wasn't the last bug found and fixed 5 or 6 years ago?
>>
>
> No. Earlier this year there was a heap overflow found that may allow
> arbitrary code execution:
> http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1490
On 11/23/2009 08:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Wasn't the last bug found and fixed 5 or 6 years ago?
>
No. Earlier this year there was a heap overflow found that may allow
arbitrary code execution:
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1490
__
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:50 PM, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell me,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>
>
> This depends on how you have the guest network setup. If it's in
> bridged mode, then the firewall on the host does nothing to protect
> the guest. If you're running NAT mode, then that's sort of like a
> (consumer) firewall already, so
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell me,
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:50 -0800, MHR wrote:
> I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
> I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
> don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
> stupid (if they do, please tell m
I realize I'm not getting a lot of questions answered here lately, and
I'm going to presume that this is for legitimate reasons (i.e., people
don't know or are too busy to think about it), not because they seem
stupid (if they do, please tell me, on the list or privately).
I run Windows as a VMWar
In case this is useful to anyone else:
http://www.melvilletheatre.com/articles/el5/index.html
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/cento
Now can you go fix the Ubuntu version so it won't hang my desktop?
:-P
--
“Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV”
- Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.o
Well, I was about to burn a blank dvd. I put it in, and was setting it up
in kb3... and my boss calls me, to tell me that my system's putting out
error messages like crazy. I looked, and I assume it was autofs trying to
mount the blank disk.
How do I keep it from doing that in the future?
ma
Thanks Steve for the heads up on the proper place to post this and that
you've already submitted a fix. I just responded back to the list because
this was the original posting place and wanted to make sure anyone else
performing this fix until your patch goes through doesn't fall into the trap
of
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote:
> Centos 5.x, ext3, md raid1
>
> As I do not have UPS for all machines, and I most often use md raid
> (level 1), I would like to turn the write cache off for all of my server
> discs. But how?
>
> Below is what I have already found out:
>
> On t
Tom Laramee wrote:
Greetings:
i have an x86_64 Centos5.3 box and i'm trying to run auditd. it fails on
startup and this is the O/P at the end:
config_manager init complete
Error setting audit daemon pid (Connection refused)
type=DAEMON_ABORT msg=audit(1260554376.697:567
nate wrote:
> Ryan Pugatch wrote:
>
>> Wondering if anyone has an idea..
>
> Run hardware diagnostics?
>
> Check power management settings in the bios?
>
> nate
>
>
Was able to track it down to a problem with a stick of memory.
Ryan
___
CentOS mail
Greetings:
i have an x86_64 Centos5.3 box and i'm trying to run auditd. it fails on
startup and this is the O/P at the end:
config_manager init complete
Error setting audit daemon pid (Connection refused)
type=DAEMON_ABORT msg=audit(1260554376.697:5674): auditd error hal
Do you have "AlloOverride All" in httpd.conf?
---
El vie, 11-12-2009 a las 08:25 -0500, Ray Leventhal escribió:
> cen...@911networks.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to write .htaccess Rewrite rules and it doesn't seem to
> > work for
Centos 5.x, ext3, md raid1
As I do not have UPS for all machines, and I most often use md raid
(level 1), I would like to turn the write cache off for all of my server
discs. But how?
Below is what I have already found out:
On the page
http://lwn.net/Articles/350072/
I read that I co
cen...@911networks.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to write .htaccess Rewrite rules and it doesn't seem to
> work for me:
>
> Match the string between the domain and the question mark: ?
>
> http://www.abc.com/blog:long-name-of-page?action=diff and I want to
> redirect it to: http://www.abc.com/blo
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to write .htaccess Rewrite rules and it doesn't seem to
> work for me:
>
> Match the string between the domain and the question mark: ?
>
> http://www.abc.com/blog:long-name-of-page?action=diff and I want to
> redirect it to: http://www
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> The bug has to be fixed upstream, thus the above links. Something that
>> was done in the latest update broke the use of credential file which
>> was previously working fine.
>
> Using the patch offered in the upstream bugzilla, I have rebuilt
Best advisory link I've found:
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3468
2009/12/11 James Hogarth
> On that today perhaps those thinking of ext4 for production systems -
> especially shared multiuser systems - should check out CVE-2009-4131 ...
>
> CVE-2009-4131: Arbitrary file overwrit
On that today perhaps those thinking of ext4 for production systems -
especially shared multiuser systems - should check out CVE-2009-4131 ...
CVE-2009-4131: Arbitrary file overwrite in ext4
Insufficient permission checking in the ext4 filesytem could be
exploited by local users to overwrite arbi
23 matches
Mail list logo
