>Agreed. I don't even label as idiots the idiots who post here, asking us
>to tell them how to do the job they were hired for, without any indication
>that they've read man pages, or googled for an answer.
Last time I checked you *were* in this list therefore you are calling yourself
an idiot.
J
On 12/31/2011 02:24 PM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> consider using fpm instead ? it kind of address's the same problem in a
>> different way.
>
> Although I'm not the OP I'm interested in that topic too.
https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/wiki and
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0Aa9liCTsAy
On 12/31/2011 11:45 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm more worried about attacks through port 80.
> Can anyone point me to documentation on protecting a web-server?
>
You should check http://www.snort.org, IDS system. ClearOS has them
integrated.
I can not remember if
(Tried sending this before but it doesn't look like it went through;
apologies if you're seeing it twice.)
OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also apparently
been hacked. Since 2 of out of 3 machines hosted at that company have now
been hacked, but this hasn't happened to
(Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also apparently
been hacked. Since 2 of out of 3 machines hosted at that company have now
been hacked, but this hasn't happened to any of the other 37 dedicated
ser
On 01/01/2012 09:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> On 12/31/2011 11:45 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I'm more worried about attacks through port 80.
>> Can anyone point me to documentation on protecting a web-server?
>>
>
> You should check http://www.snort.org, IDS
2012/1/2 Bennett Haselton :
> (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
>
> OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also apparently
> been hacked. Since 2 of out of 3 machines hosted at that company have now
> been hacked, but this hasn't happened
On 12/30/2011 09:02 PM, Alex Milojkovic wrote:
> Scenario of botnet with 1000 PCs making attempts to crack are password ain't
> gonna happen.
>
On one system that I run, for a fairly popular domain, I see botnet
attacks trying to break in to the pop and ftp ports as well as botnet
spam and SASL a
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> 2012/1/2 Bennett Haselton :
> > (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
> >
> > OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also
> apparently
> > been hacked. Since 2 of out of 3 machines host
On 29 December 2011 19:15, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> They can't very well (at least not with a straight face) tell Red Hat
> that RHEL6 is not certified while saying that OEL6 is certified can
> they? If they do that for very long, they will be breaching their
> support agreements.
Really? In what
On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
> (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
>
> OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also apparently
> been hacked. Since 2 of out of 3 machines hosted at that company have now
> been hac
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
>
> So, following people's suggestions, the machine is disconnected and hooked
> up to a KVM so I can still examine the files. I've found this file:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1358 Oct 21 17:40 /home/file.pl
> which appears to be a copy of thi
On 01/02/2012 12:27 AM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Eero Volotinenwrote:
>
>> 2012/1/2 Bennett Haselton:
>>> (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
>>>
>>> OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also
>> apparently
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rilindo Foster wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Bennett Haselton
> wrote:
>
> > (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
> >
> > OK, a second machine hosted at the same hosting company has also
> apparently
> > been hacked.
≈On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rilindo Foster wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Bennett Haselton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise, just giving it a subject line!)
>>>
>>> OK, a second machine hosted
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM, RILINDO FOSTER wrote:
> ≈On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rilindo Foster wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Bennett Haselton
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> (Sorry, third time -- last one, promise
On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM, RILINDO FOSTER wrote:
>
>> ≈On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rilindo Foster wrote:
>>>
On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Bennett Haselton
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Bennett Haselton
> wrote:
> >
> > So, following people's suggestions, the machine is disconnected and
> hooked
> > up to a KVM so I can still examine the files. I've found this file:
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM, RILINDO FOSTER wrote:
> The script in question is an exploit from a web board which is apparently
> designed to pull outside traffic. If you had SELinux, it would put httpd in
> its own context and by default, it will NOT allow connections from that
> context to
On 01/02/2012 02:50 AM, Bennett Haselton wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "an exploit from a web board which is
> apparently designed to pull outside traffic". Like Ljubomir said, it looks
> like a script that is used from machine X to DOS attack machine Y, if
> machine Y has the VBulletin b
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM, RILINDO FOSTER wrote:
> > The script in question is an exploit from a web board which is
> apparently designed to pull outside traffic. If you had SELinux, it would
> put httpd in its own context and by defau
> Does ipset work with the existing kernel under CentOS 5 and if so is there an
> RPM available?
> I've goggled around a bit, but haven't found anything. From
> http://ipset.netfilter.org/ I'm led
> to believe that the current kernel should support it.
Well, you have modules on your system, an
I actually found a link on Apnic's web site to their IPv4 netblocks which
helped me eliminate their traffic.
http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/ip-address-trends/ap
nic-resource-range
This solved most of my problems.
There are not as many lines as one would expect.
Just go to
I just installed CentOS 6.2 32 bit today. When I try to start the
Virtual Machine Manager I get a error:
Packages required for KVM usage
The following packages are not installed:
qemu-kvm
These are required to create KVM guests locally.
Would you like to install them now?
If I click on the [
On 01/02/2012 01:49 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> I just installed CentOS 6.2 32 bit today. When I try to start the
> Virtual Machine Manager I get a error:
>
> Packages required for KVM usage
>
> The following packages are not installed:
>
> qemu-kvm
>
> These are required to create KVM guests
25 matches
Mail list logo
