On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 08/26/10 3:25 PM, Mark Pryor wrote:
>> It's part of
>> mozilla-devel-1.4.3-0.9.1.legacy.i386.rpm
>>
>> might be in FC9 if not elsewhere.
>
> seems a little odd that rpmforge would have a package with dependencies
> that aren't in either the base dist
> >> Yesterday I installed pam_shield and followed the testing suggested and
> >> thought all was well.
> >> today I find that I cannot get to my email account, I can login via ssh
> >> okay
> >> (uses keys) but su and sudo give
> >> segmentation faults. I am guessing due to the pam module causi
Hi, Robert!
(2010/08/24 10:06), Robert wrote:
> So, my question is, must/should I rebuild the driver each time I install
> an updated kernel or is it sufficient to "yum remove
> fglrx_6_9_0-8.741-1", update the kernel and (maybe) glibc, then "yum
> localinstall $(locate i386/fglrx_6_9_0-8.741-1.i38
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, A. Kirillov wrote:
Yesterday I installed pam_shield and followed the testing suggested and
thought all was well.
today I find that I cannot get to my email account, I can login via ssh
okay
(uses keys) but su and sudo give
segmentation faults. I
> Yesterday I installed pam_shield and followed the testing suggested and
> thought all was well.
> today I find that I cannot get to my email account, I can login via ssh
> okay
> (uses keys) but su and sudo give
> segmentation faults. I am guessing due to the pam mo
2010/8/27 Ski Dawg :
> After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
> across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts about either of these tools? Is there
> definite advantage to using one over the other from your experience?
>
Stefano Sasso wrote:
> 2010/8/27 Ski Dawg :
>> After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
>> across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
>>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts about either of these tools? Is there
>> definite advantage to using one over the o
I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished with non-fatal errors.
Check the log for more information" It never gets to the interactive menu.
Now that I
On 27/08/2010 15:19, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
> 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
> starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished with non-fatal errors.
> Check the log for more informat
Hi,
> On 27/08/2010 15:19, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
>> 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
>> starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished with non-fatal errors.
>> Check the log for mo
On Friday 27 August 2010, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
> On 27/08/2010 15:19, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
> > 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
> > starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished wi
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
> 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
> starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished with non-fatal errors.
> Check the log for more information" It never gets to t
On 27 August 2010 14:41, wrote:
> Stefano Sasso wrote:
>> 2010/8/27 Ski Dawg :
>>> After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
>>> across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts about either of these tools? Is there
>>>
On 8/27/2010 9:57 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 14:41, wrote:
>> Stefano Sasso wrote:
>>> 2010/8/27 Ski Dawg:
After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
Does anyone have any th
>> [r...@ns1 log]# rpm -qa |grep kern |sort
>> kernel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
>> kernel-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5
>> kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
> These are stock kernel.
On CentOS 5.x 'yum update' seems to purge all but the latest 3
kernels. Is there anyway to also do that on CentOS 4.x? On my CentOS
4.x se
On 08/27/2010 08:25 AM, Todd Denniston wrote:
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote, On 08/27/2010 10:57 AM:
>
>> Oh, and I *do* have to do at DOD full sanitization: I work at a US gov't
>> agency, and the machine's being surplused
>>
> Suggestion, check with your local DRMO (or whatever they are
Hey
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just wondering if you also experience gnome terminals freezing after a
> while...?
> It mainly happens over the week-end.
> I would leave a terminal open (with an ssh session to a remote site), come
> back
> on monday and type a few
Hi,
just wondering if you also experience gnome terminals freezing after a while...?
It mainly happens over the week-end.
I would leave a terminal open (with an ssh session to a remote site), come back
on monday and type a few commands and it jwould just freeze.
But it also happen from time to ti
short answer... you dont really need it in this case. only if you want
to use more then 3gb ram in a 32bit environment
On 08/27/2010 05:26 PM, Matt wrote:
> I have a box running CentOS 5.x 32 bit. I noticed these kernels are
> installed.
>
> [r...@ns1 log]# rpm -qa |grep kern |sort
> kernel-2.6
Maintenance)
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/
"Matt" wrote:
> I have a box running CentOS 5.x 32 bit. I noticed these kernels are
> installed.
>
> [r...@ns1 log]# rpm -qa |grep kern |sort
> kernel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
> kernel-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5
> kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
> kernel-PAE-devel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
> kernel-PAE-devel-2.6
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote, On 08/27/2010 10:57 AM:
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good dban
>> 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
>> starting, then dies, saying "dban has finished with non-fatal errors.
>>
I have a box running CentOS 5.x 32 bit. I noticed these kernels are installed.
[r...@ns1 log]# rpm -qa |grep kern |sort
kernel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
kernel-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5
kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
kernel-PAE-devel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
kernel-PAE-devel-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5
kernel-PAE-devel-2.6.18-1
Todd Denniston wrote:
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote, On 08/27/2010 10:57 AM:
>> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> I'm trying to nuke a Dell Optiplex GX620. I've got a perfectly good
>>> dban
>>> 1.0.4 that I've used a bunch of times... but on this machine, it says
>>> starting, then dies, saying "dban has fin
James Hogarth wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 14:41, wrote:
>> Stefano Sasso wrote:
>>> 2010/8/27 Ski Dawg :
After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
Does anyone have any thoughts about either
Matt,
On 27 August 2010 16:26, Matt wrote:
> I have a box running CentOS 5.x 32 bit. I noticed these kernels are
> installed.
>
> [r...@ns1 log]# rpm -qa |grep kern |sort
> kernel-2.6.18-194.11.1.el5
> kernel-2.6.18-194.3.1.el5
> kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5
These are stock kernel.
If you had the
Hi All,
I have had a thread about this going on the phpMyAdmin list for a little while.
Nobody there has been able to shed any light on my problem. It seems that with
phpMyAdmin I can not connect to remote servers. Though it also seems that
apache, php and mysqli all work fine outside of phpMyA
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:17 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> Given that modern hard drives can remap damaged sectors automatically,
> it is quite possible for an 'erased' drive to still have data on it that
> can't be removed by any software based erasure because it can't be
> accessed by the OS
On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Brian Marshall wrote:
> If anyone else has any insight or questions please let me know. I'm happy to
> experiment.
is SELinux enabled? any relevant messages in the audit log?
-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable
fi
JohnS wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 09:17 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>
>> Given that modern hard drives can remap damaged sectors automatically,
>> it is quite possible for an 'erased' drive to still have data on it that
>> can't be removed by any software based erasure because it can't be
>>
>>> Stefano Sasso wrote:
2010/8/27 Ski Dawg :
> After spending a little bit of time searching around today, I have run
> across 2 that seem like good options, cfengine and puppet.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts about either of these tools? Is there
>
>>> Here's another two
> Why? The current CentOS kernel isn't anywhere near the latest, nor is a
> fair bit of other stuff in CentOS 5.5. And there are lots of folks running
> yr-old releases.
I... I... I don't really know how to answer this one...
Anyone who is running *CentOS* from a year ago is strongly urged to
upg
On 08/27/2010 10:27 AM, JohnS wrote:
*GRIN* take a Sledge Hammer to it.
Dban at once did not support HPA nor DCO it still may not.
It still doesn't.
There are just a *lot* of ways for a theoretically 'wiped' drive to not
actually be fully wiped.
As you said: Take a sledge hammer to it.
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for the replies, and the links to articles for
> further research. I will definitely continue reading those.
>
> At this time, we are not interested in Spacewalk because of the Oracle
> db requirement, but I will investigate the other options as well.
> --
> Doug
Given yo
On 8/27/2010 1:14 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
> Please only comment on stuff you have genuine *current* knowledge of
> and not something you dabbled in a year ago... technology changes
> quickly especially in a product under heavy and active development.
Are wild changes in the span of a year reall
On Friday, August 27, 2010 02:14:52 pm Benjamin Franz wrote:
> There are just a *lot* of ways for a theoretically 'wiped' drive to not
> actually be fully wiped.
>
> As you said: Take a sledge hammer to it.
obFridayHumor
www.harddrivedestruction.com
The videos are worth the look, especially
h
On Aug 27, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Steve Huff wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Brian Marshall wrote:
>
>> If anyone else has any insight or questions please let me know. I'm happy to
>> experiment.
>
>
> is SELinux enabled? any relevant messages in the audit log?
>
> -steve
Hi Steve,
N
On 27 August 2010 19:30, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 8/27/2010 1:14 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>
>> Please only comment on stuff you have genuine *current* knowledge of
>> and not something you dabbled in a year ago... technology changes
>> quickly especially in a product under heavy and active develo
James Hogarth wrote:
>> Why? The current CentOS kernel isn't anywhere near the latest, nor is a
>> fair bit of other stuff in CentOS 5.5. And there are lots of folks
>> running yr-old releases.
>
> I... I... I don't really know how to answer this one...
>
> Anyone who is running *CentOS* from a yea
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> cfengine has a bit more cross-platform capability, but note that CentOS
> supplies a 2.x release where the project has moved on to 3.x with wildly
> different syntax, and a native windows build is only available in the
> commercial version.
c
Fair enough - it didn't meet your requirements and you found something
better that did :)
My experience is that when managers/VPs start specifying a tech to use
as opposed to a problem to solve things tend to get irritating
quickly.
I feel very fortunate to be in a company that looks to the futur
On 8/27/2010 2:17 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
> Fair enough - it didn't meet your requirements and you found something
> better that did :)
>
> My experience is that when managers/VPs start specifying a tech to use
> as opposed to a problem to solve things tend to get irritating
> quickly.
>
> I feel
>
> Keep in mind that next year the work you are doing now will be in the
> past and they may want to toss it (and the people who did it) for the
> next new thing. Let us know how that works out for everyone. My
> experience has been that the companies that hang on to the past do so
> because the
On 8/27/2010 1:51 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
> At any rate I stand by my position that in tech if you are going to
> put an opinion piece out on a mailing list, a blog or another medium
> it should be relevant to the current situation and not something you
> tried a year ago and didn't work out gre
>> At any rate I stand by my position that in tech if you are going to
>> put an opinion piece out on a mailing list, a blog or another medium
>> it should be relevant to the current situation and not something you
>> tried a year ago and didn't work out great so you advise others to
>> steer clear
I haven't seen much mentioned about puppet and though I am not a puppet
master (yet) and am really just now getting into using it, I will
provide my reason for selecting puppet.
Not having much experience with configuration management tools and after
seeing a relatively new service it made sens
On 08/27/10 7:33 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
>
> Assuming the drive to kill is /dev/sda:
> dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/sda
>
/dev/random is WAY to slow for this. byte at a time, gads, that would
take *days* (hint, use bs=65536 next time you use dd to bulk wipe something)
with modern drives, just w
On 08/26/2010 03:29 AM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> register_globals is supposed to be off by default - so that
> should stop any global variables being injected.
Doesn't matter. The vulnerability discussed is one where a PHP
application actually takes the name of a file as input from the client.
On 08/28/2010 01:40 AM, didi wrote:
> Hey
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:38 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just wondering if you also experience gnome terminals freezing after a
>> while...?
>> It mainly happens over the week-end.
>> I would leave a terminal open (with an ssh session to a remot
On 8/24/10, Keith Roberts wrote:
> So bolting down PHP really tight should address these hacks?
As others have mentioned, this is trying to take advantage of a poorly
written PHP script that doesn't sanitize/check the input before using.
However, you could possibly lock down PHP further to reduce
Just to add on, if your server is hosting multiple domains for clients
so you can't just do a blanket function disable, you should look into
suhosin to do per domain function blacklist.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mai
51 matches
Mail list logo
