There is a CentOS 5.2 machine that is sometimes found to be offline.
It runs a few websites but nothing very high traffic. I happened to
notice a few days ago that before it went down, one of the sites
written in PHP was throwing errors that it could not connect to the
MySQL backend. Two hours late
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> -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 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
> w
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
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 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
Hi,
I do have a domain and a couple of different ip networks.
E.g. domainname.de and 172.17.0.0/16 and 192.168.200.0/24
In our old dns files I only have a reverse master zone for the
172.17.-lans, but also 192.168.200.x addresses in the forward zone config.
My question: dose maybe someone forgo
Hi Götz,
> My question: dose maybe someone forgot the 192.168.200.x reverse zone
> files and config
probably.
> and can I just create a file like that for the 172.17
> hosts and adding the config for the reverse zone to my named.conf?
Yes, *if* you either have the only DNS in your network (no
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
___
I've been running dovecot on a CentOS-5.7 server.
Now I'm moving over to another server running CentOS-6.2.
I thought I was running dovecot on the new server,
but in fact there was an error during the setup,
with the result that incoming mail finished up in /var/spool/mail/
rather than in ~/Maildir
On 01/23/2012 05:25 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> I've been running dovecot on a CentOS-5.7 server.
> Now I'm moving over to another server running CentOS-6.2.
> I thought I was running dovecot on the new server,
> but in fact there was an error during the setup,
> with the result that incoming mail
Folks
Is there a way in CENTOS6 to define and turn on wireless from the
command line. My environment is as follows:
I'm trying to build a laptop for travel, and have KVM-guests for both
Linux Gui and Windows, using internal NAT networking. The underlying
host machine doesn't really need to
This thread has been beat to death, so perhaps my $0.02 isn't so
meaningful, but I wrote a set of rsync scripts in php
that I've used for years to manage terabytes of backups going back years
of time. It's called TINBackupBuddy and you can get it at
http://www.effortlessis.com/thisisnotbackupbud
19 matches
Mail list logo
