Hi Dotan,
Le 23/01/2012 17:49, Dotan Cohen a écrit :
> Thanks, all. I suppose that you all are right, considering that 5.2 is
> no longer supported. I was under the impression that this is an older
> but up-to-date install. This server sits in a datacenter hundreds or
> thousands of kilometers fro
On 01/23/12 7:13 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I believe that 5.2 still is seeing
> security updates, no?
5.7 (plus anything released since 5.7) *is* the current security update
to 5.2
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
___
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 18:57, wrote:
> a) You should NOT, under any circumstances, be backing it up to your home
> systems. You should be backing it up to a work server - there are very
> serious legal implications involved here.
>
Thanks, but there are no customer data or other sensitive data
Thanks, all. I suppose that you all are right, considering that 5.2 is
no longer supported. I was under the impression that this is an older
but up-to-date install. This server sits in a datacenter hundreds or
thousands of kilometers from anyone related to it, so I will back it
all up via rsync. Do
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> It's not my box, but I may have opportunity to look at it. After going
> through dmesg and messages, if I don't find anything obvious, what
> should I start looking for?
Forwarding on behalf of Mark whose emails are being rejected:
Patrick
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Dotan Cohen
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:14
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Machine becoming irresponsive
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
> wrote:
>> I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
>> releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
>> release level; and what resultant vulnerab
On 23-01-12 16:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> Thanks. There are a lot of very specific software on that server that
> precludes it from being updated. I believe that 5.2 still is seeing
> security updates, no?
5.2 does not get security updates. My guess is your box has been
compromised. Boot the box wi
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
> wrote:
>
>> I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
>> releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
>> release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been explo
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
> wrote:
>> I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
>> releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
>> release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been exploited
On 2012-01-23 15:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
> wrote:
>> I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5
>> point
>> releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
>> release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities m
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
wrote:
> I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
> releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
> release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been exploited.
>
Thanks. There are a lo
Dotan Cohen wrote on 01/23/2012 08:39 AM:
> There is a CentOS 5.2 machine ...
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been exploited.
Phi
13 matches
Mail list logo
