> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Hass
> Sent: den 29 januari 2014 08:47
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] NIS or not?
>
> Hi friend -
>
> what is your end goal with this effort to obtain security
On 1/28/2014 4:45 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> Use IPA. It combines LDAP with Kerberos, a server-client environment is
>> >easily setup and the documentation (RHEL deployment) is very helpful.
> Thank you. I'll look it up.
>
> LDAP and Kerberos though. That does sound a lot like Microsoft Active
> Dire
Hello Sorin,
Good call - not sure how far your coding goes and with what/how
languages and scripts...
Make sure to have as much as possible on VM's related to your security
'servers' -- so
that you also get a virtual built in Disaster recovery as well.
KERBEROS is a very secure, albeit cumberso
On 01/29/2014 09:44 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 1/28/2014 4:45 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
Use IPA. It combines LDAP with Kerberos, a server-client environment is
easily setup and the documentation (RHEL deployment) is very helpful.
Thank you. I'll look it up.
LDAP and Kerberos though. That does so
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Hass
> Sent: den 29 januari 2014 09:49
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] NIS or not?
>
> Good call - not sure how far your coding goes and with what/how
> languag
Hey Sorin,
I'm getting ready to catch a plane to Dubai but wanted to answer you
real quick and short:
SSL for smaller networks in terms of authentication is fine and secure -
as long as your infrastructure is secure.
I'm glad to hear your using VM's more and more. It give you a lot more
contro
Almost forgot, //Sorin:
SSL uses public key cryptography:
1. You (or your browser) has a public/private keypair
2. The server has a public/private key as well
3. You generate a symmetric session key
4. You encrypt with the server's public key and send this encrypted
session key to the ser
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Hass
> Sent: den 29 januari 2014 11:11
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] NIS or not?
>
> Almost forgot, //Sorin:
>
> SSL uses public key cryptography:
>
> 1. You
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 Wed, January 29, 2014 01:44, James A. Peltier wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | Does anyone here use a Samba4 setup for single sign-on for MS_Win
> | workstations
> | and CentOS-6 boxes? Does anyone here use it for imap and/or smtp
> | authentication? We are experimenting with repla
>>> Based on input from everyone here I am thinking of an alternate setup.
>>> Single small inexpensive 64GB SSD used as /boot, / and swap. Putting
>>> /vz on software RAID1 array on the two 4TB drives. I can likely just
>>> zip tie the SSD in the 1u case somewhere since I have no more drive
>>
On 01/29/2014 06:51 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> I would have to ask why you're doing such a thing in the first place? You
>> have a perfectly good working Active Directory setup, that people are already
>> familiar with, I suspect with existing MS clients which integrate fully (and
>> "properly")
I'm doing exactly this on a trial basis with production servers. So far,
it's working great. Some tips:
1) Flash drives are less reliable than HDDs. Software RAID1 is the way
to go.
A) Use two different makes of USB drives so that you have
different failure characteristics. If either fai
On 01/29/2014 08:15 AM, Matt wrote:
> If I am putting both 4TB drives in a single RAID1 array for /vz would
> there be any advantage to using LVM on it?
My (sometimes unpopular) advice is to set up the partitions on servers
into two categories:
1) OS
2) Data
OS partitions don't really grow much
- Original Message -
|
| On Wed, January 29, 2014 01:44, James A. Peltier wrote:
| > - Original Message -
| > | Does anyone here use a Samba4 setup for single sign-on for MS_Win
| > | workstations
| > | and CentOS-6 boxes? Does anyone here use it for imap and/or
| > | smtp
| > |
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:57 -0800, Lists wrote:
> My (sometimes unpopular) advice is to set up the partitions on servers
> into two categories:
>
> 1) OS
> 2) Data
Absolutely. I have been doing this, without problems, for 5 years.
Keeping the two distinct is best, in my opinion.
/data/...
On 01/24/2014 11:09 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> However, note that there might be an issue with anaconda and big USB
> storage. The boot partition anaconda creates will not boot past grub.
> I needed to manually create the partition to start on sector 63 for
> grub to see it. Happens on my 16GB
That's great advice.. I've *across the universe* also sectioned off
/home directory and /opt
Not to counter anything here, no sir eee, to add.. to the sane request
from the previous mention...
It can make the difference sometimes with fast restores and there is a
slight performance increase de
Paul,
I forgot to mention with the 'unconventional' slicing of the Partitions,
it does become unpopular
in terms of 'vendor' support (if it applies.. ) and also expentencies on
Code installs, etc. where
environments are set based on 'known knowns' with Linux/UNIX layouts ..
and the likes..
Maj
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Jeffrey Hass wrote:
> >
> Here's something: I've done before and /after performance testing with
> real time data and User requests
> with just the 'basic' file partioning and then Partioning the partition
> -- really does wonders..
How so, unless you are adding d
On 01/29/2014 01:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> How so, unless you are adding disk heads to the mix or localizing
> activity during your test?
Just ran into this: did a grep on what seemed to be a lightly loaded
server, load average suddenly spiked unexpectedly. Turns out that it was
performing ov
How not so...say something important next time. People are worl I no here..
On Jan 29, 2014 1:11 PM, "Les Mikesell" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Jeffrey Hass wrote:
> > >
> > Here's something: I've done before and /after performance testing with
> > real time data and User requests
--On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:45:09 PM + Sorin Srbu
wrote:
> LDAP and Kerberos though. That does sound a lot like Microsoft Active
> Directory. 8-)
No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory sounds a lot
like LDAP and Kerberos. Credit where credit is due ...
;)
Devin
__
> No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory sounds a lot
> like LDAP and Kerberos. Credit where credit is due ...
No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory implements an
LDAP like directory accessible interface for its own directory.
Calling Active Directory "LDAP" is lik
brilliant.
exactly.
On 1/29/2014 2:24 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory sounds a lot
>> like LDAP and Kerberos. Credit where credit is due ...
> No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory implements an
> LDAP like directory access
On 1/29/2014 2:24 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> No, the other way around. Microsoft Active Directory implements an
> LDAP like directory accessible interface for its own directory.
>
> Calling Active Directory "LDAP" is like calling vim `echo "xx" > yy`. If you
> are unaware of all the moving part
> AD *is* a modified/extended LDAP+Kerberos based system, it just adds a
> ton more proprietary stuff around it to manage Windows workstations, the
> whole Group Policy Object stuff etc etc. Thats all implemented via
> LDAP extensions.
I'm sorry, with all due respect I disagree. There is an unfa
On 1/29/2014 3:17 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> I'm sorry, with all due respect I disagree. There is an unfathomable quantity
> of
> functionality not accessible via LDAP.
>
> You can query some aspects made available through the LDAP interface, you
> cannot set nor modify plenty.
indeed, as I sa
Pretty much rightand is not truly X.500 compliant...This AD.
It makes me nervous when one refers to it as LDAP...heh.
Do a low level trace when running: ldapsearch ..
Problem is AD has to be dealt with until Microsoft dies! Becomes Novell.
And it will someday
Anyway The LDAP with C
Hi,
I am pretty new to Openmeeting, and tried to follow the documentation for
Openmeeting, and looks quite a challenge with bit and pieces of software to
be compiled to make it work, I do not mind to sweat it out, but in the
interim, just wanted to check if there is any YUM packages for it,
Later
We have a load balancer/session server that manages sessions in small
files. I did a grep on the directory of session files and the server
load went from 0.50 to 10.x, for all intents and purposes we were down
until I canceled the grep.
According to this article on
http://www.thattommyhall.com
31 matches
Mail list logo
