On Thursday 17 April 2008 19:45:26 Jim Perrin wrote:
> Well, just stunnel by itself doesn't mean there's a breach, unless you
> never configured anything to use stunnel. You might want to do a
> little more digging on the system to confirm or disprove your
> suspicions. Have a look in places like /
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, CentOS List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I had notice that my logwatch has a heap of stunneling like the one below.
> Is there a security breech?
Well, just stunnel by itself doesn't mean there's a breach, unless you
never configured anything to u
Dear all,
I had notice that my logwatch has a heap of stunneling like the one below.
Is there a security breech?
**Unmatched Entries**
(1) LOG5[6504:3086657232]: Connection closed: 29433 bytes sent to SSL, 62
bytes sent to socket
(1) LOG5[9516:3086649040]: stunnel 4.15 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu
3 matches
Mail list logo
