Hi
I am using a two node cluster to achieve high availability.
I am basically testing a scenario where in if i shutdown my node
(node-1) then the other node (node-2) should start functioning like
node-1. Currently what i am observing is that the entire cluster gets
into "Stopped" state.
Her
Hi,
I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan on
my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
Can you help me on how to get security upgrades on top of my existing
CentOS?
# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)
Thanks for the help.
--
T
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would
explode if the link was changed to something els
2015-04-24 12:21 GMT+03:00 Venkateswara Rao Dokku :
> Hi,
>
> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan on
> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
>
> Can you help me on how to get security upgrades on top of my existing
> CentOS?
>
> # cat /etc/redhat-relea
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would
explode if the l
On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Cento
On 04/24/2015 04:21 AM, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan on
> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
>
> Can you help me on how to get security upgrades on top of my existing
> CentOS?
The short answer: 'yu
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
> On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> >
> >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
> >>I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
> >>been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
> >>for use with heavily
It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default
shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
> > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
2015-04-24 15:31 GMT+03:00 Jim Perrin :
>
>
> On 04/24/2015 04:21 AM, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan
> on
> > my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
> >
> > Can you help me on how to get security upgrad
Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
see other interpreters being used.
Even though Solaris started using ksh as the defaul
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mark wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
>>> been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
>>> for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
>>>
>>> With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
> Unix, using ksh by default?
Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh8
On 04/24/2015 04:21 AM, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan on
> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
>
> Can you help me on how to get security upgrades on top of my existing
> CentOS?
>
> # cat /etc/redhat-r
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:54:48AM -0400, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment,
> almost all of the start scrips were either bourne or bash scripts. With
> Bash having more functionality the scripts typically used the
> environment that
Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
> because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
> When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
> see other interpreters being used.
When dynamic linkin
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
> > Unix, using ksh by default?
>
> Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
> Solaris included /bin/ksh as
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
> give people copies of the shell to take home.
AFAI
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
If you like to create portable scripts, you can do this by downloading:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
and using "osh" as a reference implementation. Osh is the old SunOS Bour
Stephen Harris wrote:
> > AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997.
> > Since
>
> In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
> to other people.
>
>Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: David Korn
>
>If you are go
TCP timestamps on some (but not all?) of our CentOs hosts are being
reported as a vulnerability by OSSIM. I have looked into the matter
briefly and cannot say that I consider this a serious security issue.
The vulnerability seems limited to determining the uptime of the
target host. The question
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Stephen Harris wrote:
>>
>> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of
>> > ksh88 licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh
scripting
>> > course to my local LUG,
What does your /etc/idmapd.conf look like on the server side?
I fought with this quite a bit a while ago, but my use case was a bit
different, and I was working with CentOS 5 and 6.
Still, the kicker for me was updating the [Translation] section of
/etc/idmapd.conf. Mine looks like this:
[Trans
wrote:
> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
Everything other than ksh93 is closed source. The POSIX shell used by vari
Matt Garman wrote:
> What does your /etc/idmapd.conf look like on the server side?
>
> I fought with this quite a bit a while ago, but my use case was a bit
> different, and I was working with CentOS 5 and 6.
>
> Still, the kicker for me was updating the [Translation] section of
> /etc/idmapd.conf.
On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
perl or python are much better choices for complex scripts that need
decent
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:12 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
>> been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
>> for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
>
>
>
> per
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
and enters the path to
On 4/24/2015 10:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that i
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that i
On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
>>> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
>>> currently is in.
>>
>> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no sheba
I believe if you re-read a little more closely, the whole point of the
exercise was not to have the #! at the top of the script.
On 04/24/2015 01:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2015 03
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
>>>
>>> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
>>> currently is in.
>>
>>
>> I'm reasonably certain that a script wi
Am 24.04.2015 um 11:21 schrieb Venkateswara Rao Dokku:
I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security scan on
my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
That's why those scans are wasted money. From a security management
point of view they neither help you nor your man
On 4/24/2015 12:14 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am 24.04.2015 um 11:21 schrieb Venkateswara Rao Dokku:
I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security
scan on
my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
That's why those scans are wasted money. From a security management
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
>>> import os
>>> os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, i
On 4/24/2015 12:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
>>> import os
>>> os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
In 1990, when I s
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> >if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
> >currently is in.
>
> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
> /bin/sh. I interpret
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 12:14 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> Am 24.04.2015 um 11:21 schrieb Venkateswara Rao Dokku:
>>> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security
>>> scan on
>>> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
>>
>> That's why those scans are was
On 04/24/15 05:59, Les Mikesell wrote:
The original ksh wasn't open source and might even have been an
extra-cost item in AT&T unix. And the early emulations weren't
always complete so you couldn't count on script portability. I
generally thought it was safer to use perl for anything that took
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
>> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license
>> agreement include payment, or was it just restrictive on distr
Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: -->
On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
> Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow process creation.
This gets at what I was thinking. For s
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, wrote:
> >
> My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
> installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
> installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
>
You mean you missed all the fun with Xenix on Radio Shack Mod
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM, E.B. wrote:
> Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: -->
>
> On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
>> Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow proc
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
>> installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
>> installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
>>
>
> You mean you missed all the fun
--On Friday, April 24, 2015 10:03:09 AM -0500 Matt Garman
wrote:
[...]
Still, the kicker for me was updating the [Translation] section of
/etc/idmapd.conf. Mine looks like this:
[Translation]
Method = nsswitch
GSS-Methods = nsswitch,static
[...]
Again, since you're not using GSS, I'm not
I thought I'd post to the mail list because I know there are some that
only respond this way.
I have a new SuperMicro X10-DRI host with a 3Ware controller that hangs
when I try to install CentOS 7 on it. I've documented everything here:
https://www.centos.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=52231
Hey all,
With google-earth-stable.x86_64 0:7.1.2.2041-0
[mlapier@peach /]$ /usr/bin/google-earth
[0425/000212:ERROR:net_util.cc(2195)] Not implemented reached in bool
net::HaveOnlyLoopbackAddresses()
Failed to load "/opt/google/earth/free/libinput_plugin.so" because
"/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: ve
On 04/25/15 00:50, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> With google-earth-stable.x86_64 0:7.1.2.2041-0
>
> [mlapier@peach /]$ /usr/bin/google-earth
> [0425/000212:ERROR:net_util.cc(2195)] Not implemented reached in bool
> net::HaveOnlyLoopbackAddresses()
> Failed to load "/opt/google/earth/free/li
51 matches
Mail list logo
