On 30 September 2011 02:22, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having each
> website use a different user to run the hosting service. So
> example1.comhas it's own Apache instance running as apache1 and then
> example2.com has its own instance
From: Silvio Tadeu
> root@server [/tmp]# ldconfig -p | grep libmysqlclient.so.15
> libmysqlclient.so.15 (libc6,x86-64) => /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.15
> libmysqlclient.so.15 (libc6,x86-64) =>
> /usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.so.15
How come an x86_64 lib appears in your /lib/ ?
$ /
On 29/09/11 22:19, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> When I build, our PXEboot ks partitions and labels the partitions. When I
> add or replace, I make the partition, the fs, and e2label them. I've
> gotten to really appreciate labeling. I hate the UUIDs - they're
> ludicrously too long, and bear no relati
Hi Les,
On 29/09/11 22:25, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, wrote:
>> When I build, our PXEboot ks partitions and labels the partitions. When I
>> add or replace, I make the partition, the fs, and e2label them. I've
>> gotten to really appreciate labeling. I hate the UUIDs -
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 10:47 +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 02:22, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> > I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having each
> > website use a different user to run the hosting service. So
> > example1.comhas it's own Apache instanc
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:22:59PM -0500, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having each
> website use a different user to run the hosting service. So
> example1.comhas it's own Apache instance running as apache1 and then
> example2.com has it
On 9/27/2011 8:31 AM, John Hinton wrote:
> For those of you running mailservers on CentOS 6, what are the
> suggestions for programs to expunge old email? For instance, deleting
> email from a Spam folder that is 2 weeks old or older.
>
> I see that Dovecot does have a solution, but was wondering a
Jerry McAllister wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:22:59PM -0500, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
>
>> I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having
>> each website use a different user to run the hosting service. So
>> example1.comhas it's own Apache instance running as apache1
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:01 AM, John Hinton wrote:
> As a side note... Since Outlook has chosen to pretty much hide and only
> use the term Expunge to empty trash on IMAP accounts (and average email
> users don't find it and don't know what expunge means) We're seeing
> a lot of trash left be
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having
>>> each website use a different user to run the hosting service. So
>>> example1.comhas it's own Apache instance running as apache1 and then
>>> example2.com has its own instan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>
>> What happens when you move the disks around among machines? Or don't
>> you ever do that after they contain data?
> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
> after a failure?
Because I can. Why wouldn't
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu
> wrote:
>>
>>> What happens when you move the disks around among machines? Or don't
>>> you ever do that after they contain data?
>
>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>> after a failure?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Michael Crilly wrote:
> Not sure if someone has asked this previously, but have you got the 8021q
> kernel module installed and loaded?
That seems to have happened by itself - and I now see that if the
NetworkManager service is not running the 5.x style ifcfg- fil
> I think Trey needs to push back - *IF* I understand him correctly, it
> sounds like duplicate websites, but running as different users. That, to
> me, literally makes no sense..., unless a) the source of the request
> doesn't understand what he wants, or b) there's something illegal going
>
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ..
On Friday, September 30, 2011 11:41:02 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Because I can. Why wouldn't you?
...
> That doesn't any more sense than having to label all your shipping
> containers descriptively before you know what you are going to put in
> them. And besides, most of the labels are applied
On 9/30/2011 8:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>> after a failure?
> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
> carriers and it is a lot faster
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> While finding the corner cases seems to be your specialty, Les, recognize
> that there will always be a corner case not covered by any filesystem
> labeling/naming scheme, no matter what scheme is used.
>
I've found that it is a good idea
On Sep 30, 2011 10:58 AM, "Drew" wrote:
>
> > I think Trey needs to push back - *IF* I understand him correctly, it
> > sounds like duplicate websites, but running as different users. That,
to
> > me, literally makes no sense..., unless a) the source of the request
> > doesn't understand what
I'm seeing a strange issue on my C-5.7 system.
running Firefox 7 with the very latest flash plugin.
browse to CNN, I can view any of the videos directly linked on the main
page, or directly linked on sub-pages.
but if I click on the video link at the top of the page (in the red bar)
Firefox disp
On 09/30/11 9:26 AM, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> However they also
> want to have the CMS write to the .htaccess files to dynamically control
> which users can access the dowloads portion of the sites. That Im strongly
> against.
CMS systems almost always use their own authentication and downloading
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>
>>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>>> after a failure?
>>
>> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
>> carriers and it is a lot faster to move them than to ship data any
On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:26:28 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> For example when mounting by label was
> first implemented, having a duplicate label (very likely if you move
> disks around at all since the installer always used the same l
Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 8:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Hakan Koseoglu
>> wrote:
>>> Why would you move disks around machines unless you're recovering them
>>> after a failure?
>> Because I can. Why wouldn't you? Mine are nearly all in swappable
>> c
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, wrote:
>
> Most of our servers have all drives in hot swap bays (and the older ones
> that don't are being surplussed as fast as we can)... *ALL* of which have
> sleds they have to fit in. The only drives I swap on a regular basis are
> our offline backups (of th
On Sep 30, 2011 11:43 AM, "John R Pierce" wrote:
>
> On 09/30/11 9:26 AM, Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> > However they also
> > want to have the CMS write to the .htaccess files to dynamically control
> > which users can access the dowloads portion of the sites. That Im
strongly
> > against.
>
> CMS s
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Most of our servers have all drives in hot swap bays (and the older ones
>> that don't are being surplussed as fast as we can)... *ALL* of which
>> have sleds they have to fit in. The only drives I swap on a regular
>> basis are
I'm not sure why you would want each website on its own Apache process (as
that just isn't needed), but some of the ideas here are a bit...
over-the-top.
There are a few options of improving the security of your Apache setup. You
can use something like FastCGI based PHP applications or suPHP; both
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, wrote:
>
> And no, I do not toss my backups at work in my shirt:
Figuratively speaking, of course - the 2.5" drives are just easier for
any use where the capacity makes sense.
> the offline backups,
> fully encrypted disks, go in the fire safe in the locked ser
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, wrote:
>>
>> And no, I do not toss my backups at work in my shirt:
>
> Figuratively speaking, of course - the 2.5" drives are just easier for
> any use where the capacity makes sense.
>
Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I
Well, first thing is I got lucky and not bought all the same drives. If
I had all the same I would never have known I put my OS on the two
drives added with the new sata card, something I DID NOT want to do.
If they were all 1 tb drives, it would have been a disaster to me.
Luckily I set up P0-
I am having no luck getting NIS to work on a clean install of CentOS 6. It
seems to be an issue with ypbind.
I have simple /etc/yp.conf which explicitly sets the server
domain myDomain server myServer
The service seems to start okay
#service ypbind start
Starting NIS service: [OK]
Binding NIS
On Thu, September 29, 2011 15:13, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:54 AM, James B. Byrne
> wrote:
>> Is there anything special in the way of configuration
>> that
>> is required to enable a CentOS box to act as the point
>> of
>> origin for an http request routed to it via a SOCKS s
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 14:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
> > | Are there any new tools in CentOS 6 to configure VLAN interfaces
> > | (where
> > | the switch passes multiple tagged VLANs over one physical link to the
> > | host) or is it
On Friday, September 30, 2011 03:36:50 PM Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Below is the issue I am talking about. The system ignores the sda/sdb
> etc labeling to use UUID and things like hd0, hd1...
> Yet mdstat shows you the drives in the useless labeling way...sda sdab
...
Useless? Those names are what th
On 09/30/11 12:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I only need four.
>
yes, but 12 2.5" 1TB drives take the same amount of space (1U), and are
capable of higher IO throughput due to being more spindles.
--
john r pierce
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/30/11 12:27 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Um, we just went from the 1TB drives to 3TB drives, so I only need four.
>>
> yes, but 12 2.5" 1TB drives take the same amount of space (1U), and are
> capable of higher IO throughput due to being more spindles.
You missed wha
On Sep 30, 2011 1:49 PM, "Michael Crilly" wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why you would want each website on its own Apache process (as
> that just isn't needed), but some of the ideas here are a bit...
> over-the-top.
>
> There are a few options of improving the security of your Apache setup.
You
> can u
With a bit more digging it seems that the rpc registration is somehow failing.
#rpcinfo -p | grep ypbind
Returns nothing, but it should return something like
172 udp620 ypbind
171 udp620 ypbind
172 tcp623 ypbind
171 tcp62
Martyn Klassen wrote:
> With a bit more digging it seems that the rpc registration is somehow
> failing.
>
> #rpcinfo -p | grep ypbind
>
> Returns nothing, but it should return something like
>
> 172 udp620 ypbind
> 171 udp620 ypbind
> 172 tcp
- Original Message -
| On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Michael Crilly
| wrote:
| > Not sure if someone has asked this previously, but have you got the
| > 8021q
| > kernel module installed and loaded?
|
| That seems to have happened by itself - and I now see that if the
| NetworkManager
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> But 'breakage' and 'bugginess' are not synonyms; something can be broken for
> a corner case but not be a bug in the general sense. Is the current
> filesystem mounting standard broken? In certain use cases most certainly.
> Is the curr
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> UUID is, IMHO at least, the worst of all worlds due to the length
> and the user-unfriendliness of it all (it's been the Ubuntu default
> for a while, though!). It is guaranteed unique (until you use
> complete clones), but is the most difficu
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-with-microsoft-security.html
It was just an accident, or not, mr. micro$oft? ...f*ck you..
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Saturday, October 01, 2011 02:22 PM, lancebaynes87 wrote:
> http://chrome.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-with-microsoft-security.html
>
> It was just an accident, or not, mr. micro$oft? ...f*ck you..
>
I don't think this chap will fit in here...
___
Ce
45 matches
Mail list logo
