Hi,
I'm planing to setup a new samba fileserver as a member to an existing
samba 3.x SMB.
The old server is still nss-pam-ldapd configured (historic left overs).
As I dont have any pressure to have the new server up and running within
the next few hours, I liked to set up sssd with our existing
On 21/02/2013 10:20 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planing to setup a new samba fileserver as a member to an
> existing
> samba 3.x SMB.
>
> The old server is still nss-pam-ldapd configured (historic left
> overs).
>
> As I dont have any pressure to have the new server up
On 21 February 2013 01:28, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the DNS on my
> new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and TCP. Firewall was OK.
> In fact a local system on the same subnet, thus NOT going through my
> firewall was denied acce
Hi there.
I'm currently configuring a brand new email server(IMAP) which will run
CentOS 6.3 x64.
So lots of files on the data volume.
I'm confused about stripe size for my data volume.
I'm using 2x500GB for OS in RAID1 and 2x2TB SAS for DATA in RAID1 which is
hosted on a HP Smart Array P420 Co
On 2/21/2013 3:09 AM, Svavar Örn Eysteinsson wrote:
> I'm currently configuring a brand new email server(IMAP) which will run
> CentOS 6.3 x64.
>
> So lots of files on the data volume.
>
> I'm confused about stripe size for my data volume.
> I'm using 2x500GB for OS in RAID1 and 2x2TB SAS for DATA
On 02/21/2013 04:30 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 21 February 2013 01:28, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the DNS on my
>> new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and TCP. Firewall was OK.
>> In fact a local system on the same subnet,
Oks. thanks allot.
I'l go with the defaults.
Best R,
Svavar
On 21.2.2013, at 11:21, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 2/21/2013 3:09 AM, Svavar Örn Eysteinsson wrote:
>> I'm currently configuring a brand new email server(IMAP) which will run
>> CentOS 6.3 x64.
>>
>> So lots of files on the data vol
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..
> Great. I have to make notes on how to test about selinux reporting.
>
>
>
audit2allow is useful to generate custom modules etc too - just don't be to
blind in using them ;)
other useful things are semange boolean and so on - centos has a good wiki
page on selinux
> I assume that 'getenforce p
On Thursday 21 February 2013 11:25:44 Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 04:30 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> > On 21 February 2013 01:28, Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
> >> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the
> >> DNS on my new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and
On 02/20/2013 08:28 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the DNS on my
> new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and TCP. Firewall was OK.
> In fact a local system on the same subnet, thus NOT going through my
> firewall was denied access t
On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Wes Modes wrote:
> I am trying to configure NIS, PAM, & LDAP on a CentOS 6.2 host. I've
> previously installed a similar configuration on RHEL4, but CentOS now
> uses nss-pam-ldapd and nslcd instead of nss_ldap, so the configurations
> are a little different.
>
> Cu
Robert Moskowitz writes:
>
> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the DNS on my
> new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and TCP. Firewall was OK.
> In fact a local system on the same subnet, thus NOT going through my
> firewall was denied access to the internal
On 02/21/2013 10:16 AM, David G. Miller wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz writes:
>
>> It looks like no system, internal or external could access the DNS on my
>> new server. IPTABLES was set for 53 both UDP and TCP. Firewall was OK.
>> In fact a local system on the same subnet, thus NOT going through m
Can anyone tell me if the current libtiff-3.9.4-9.el6_3.x86_64 RPM has
bigtiff support built into it? I need this for tiling rather large
images for the Virtual Microscope project I am working on, and I am
having issues building the 4x versions that only seem to be available
for F18.
Thank you
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Götz Reinicke - IT Koordinator wrote:
Dose anybody has a working example file to share with me?
Sure.
- %< -
[sssd]
config_file_version = 2
reconnection_retries = 3
sbus_timeout = 30
services = nss, pam
domains = blah.com
[nss]
filter_groups = root
filter_users =
On 21/02/13 16:39, Weiner, Michael wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if the current libtiff-3.9.4-9.el6_3.x86_64 RPM has
> bigtiff support built into it? I need this for tiling rather large
> images for the Virtual Microscope project I am working on, and I am
> having issues building the 4x versions that
I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
(no I won't be dumb enough to ask when C6.4 we ship), what version of
Fedora does it match up with?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listin
On 02/21/2013 03:27 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
> (no I won't be dumb enough to ask when C6.4 we ship), what version of
> Fedora does it match up with?
It's not changed. Think of y-stream releases as "service packs" of a
typ
Minor packaging bug: with the new xulrunner (at least for 32-bit):
When running the /usr/bin/xulrunner script, it looks for the binary in
/usr/lib/xulrunner-17.0.3, but all of the files are actually installed
in /usr/lib/xulrunner. Creating a symlink:
cd /usr/lib
ln -s xulrunner xulrunner-17.0.3
I am getting the following on my 'new box' for my DNS server:
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:58:04 -0500
From:
To:
Subject: [abrt] full crash report
User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08
abrt_version: 2.0.8
cmdline:ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_onlo3-root_01 rd_NO_LUKS
rd_LVM_LV=vg_onlo3/root_01
On 02/21/2013 03:30 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 03:27 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
>> (no I won't be dumb enough to ask when C6.4 we ship), what version of
>> Fedora does it match up with?
>
> It's not changed. Think o
On 02/21/2013 03:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> On 02/21/2013 03:30 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 03:27 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>> I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
>>> (no I won't be dumb enough to ask when C6.4 we ship), what version of
>>> Fedo
On 02/21/2013 02:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 03:30 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 03:27 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>> I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
>>> (no I won't be dumb enough to ask when C6.4 we ship), what version of
>>> Fedora
On 02/21/2013 04:46 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 03:30 PM, Digimer wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2013 03:27 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have read that v 6.3 is about Fedora 12. Now that v 6.4 has shipped
(no I won't be dumb enough t
On 2/21/2013 2:31 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I only use the GUI when setting up a new environment, then change
> inittab to 3 before launch, so this is not so much an issue for me
> anymore. Just curious.
I never even install the GUI on a server. minimal install, then add
required packages
2013/2/21 Robert Moskowitz :
> I am getting the following on my 'new box' for my DNS server:
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:58:04 -0500
> From:
> To:
> Subject: [abrt] full crash report
> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08
>
> abrt_version: 2.0.8
> cmdline:ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_onlo3
On 02/21/2013 06:13 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> 2013/2/21 Robert Moskowitz :
>> I am getting the following on my 'new box' for my DNS server:
>>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:58:04 -0500
>> From:
>> To:
>> Subject: [abrt] full crash report
>> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08
>>
>> abrt_versi
Hello everyone,
I hope you are having a good day. However, I am concerned by this:
https://isc.sans.edu/diary/SSHD+rootkit+in+the+wild/15229
Has anyone heard yet what the attack vector is, if 5.9 and 6.4 are
affected, and if a patch is coming out?
Thanks!
Gilbert
On 2/21/2013 3:20 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> :Hardware name: HP Compaq dc7800 Small Form Factor
>> ...
>> >>Should I worry?
> >yes.
> >
> >You should update bios .
hmmm, thats a 2007 vintage economy business desktop ?
looks to be a December 2011 rev 1.32A BIOS, here
http://h2.www2.hp.com/
On 02/21/2013 05:32 PM, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I hope you are having a good day. However, I am concerned by this:
>
> https://isc.sans.edu/diary/SSHD+rootkit+in+the+wild/15229
>
> Has anyone heard yet what the attack vector is, if 5.9 and 6.4 are
> affected, and if a patch i
On 02/21/2013 06:55 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 2/21/2013 3:20 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>> :Hardware name: HP Compaq dc7800 Small Form Factor
>>> ...
> Should I worry?
>>> yes.
>>>
>>> You should update bios .
> hmmm, thats a 2007 vintage economy business desktop ?
>
> looks to be a Dece
Thank you, Johnny, for that clarification, I appreciate it! I can relax a
little now. :-)
Gilbert
***
Gilbert Sebenste
(My opinions only!)
any experiences with centos 5/rhel 5 install? machine is rhel 6.1
certified laptop?
--
Eero
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
34 matches
Mail list logo
