Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Christopher,
> If you have access to WinNT source, you must be of some importance to
> Micro$oft (or perhaps they are to you), so why are you on this mailing
> list?
I am, I think, the only person at work who is not a PhD. One of my
coworkers (http://www.aet-usa.com/aa
Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
>
> Yeah, but a lot of our users like to use these machines remotely
> because they can rely on them not to be in Windows (unlike our other
> dual boot clients). We try to keep only stable releases running on
> our production net machines so that we don't have to
Hi:
You make a living with MS platform, that is fine for you and all of us. We
couldn't care less about that, only are somewhat curious about why you waste time
with Linux. I guess you smell Linux money.
"Christopher W. Curtis" wrote:
> Martin Bogomolni wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I think the s/n ra
Christopher,
If you have access to WinNT source, you must be of some importance to
Micro$oft (or perhaps they are to you), so why are you on this mailing
list?
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version:
Martin Bogomolni wrote:
>
> Okay, I think the s/n ratio is just getting to be a bit low. :|
>
> The consensus seems to be "Not a security issue we want to deal
> with."
If true, then as any responsible Linux user, it shall be that the use of
Debian is actively discouraged for not only not fixing
Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Christopher,
> If you have access to WinNT source, you must be of some importance to
> Micro$oft (or perhaps they are to you), so why are you on this mailing
> list?
I am, I think, the only person at work who is not a PhD. One of my
coworkers (http://www.aet-usa.com/a
Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
>
> Yeah, but a lot of our users like to use these machines remotely
> because they can rely on them not to be in Windows (unlike our other
> dual boot clients). We try to keep only stable releases running on
> our production net machines so that we don't have t
Christopher,
If you have access to WinNT source, you must be of some importance to
Micro$oft (or perhaps they are to you), so why are you on this mailing
list?
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version:
Martin Bogomolni wrote:
>
> Okay, I think the s/n ratio is just getting to be a bit low. :|
>
> The consensus seems to be "Not a security issue we want to deal
> with."
If true, then as any responsible Linux user, it shall be that the use of
Debian is actively discouraged for not only not fixin
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> I thought about unplugging the reset button and power switches, but it's
> tough to hit them accidentally and if someone wanted the system down,
> they'd pull the plug out of the back. I like having the ability to
> reset bec
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> I thought about unplugging the reset button and power switches, but it's
> tough to hit them accidentally and if someone wanted the system down,
> they'd pull the plug out of the back. I like having the ability to
> reset be
I don't know how many people read about HavenCo on slashdot, but it seems
that they want to use an audited version of Debian for their servers.
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/02/160253.shtml look for the question
by BoLean
It looks as if they want audited packages signed by the auditors a
Okay, I think the s/n ratio is just getting to be a bit low. :|
The consensus seems to be "Not a security issue we want to deal
with."
Martin
Previously Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> So is root's password. ;)
Yes, but if it is enabled all users can use sysrq to kill a lock.
Also please realize using a root password to unlock a lock is dangerous,
since you never know if you are dealing with the real lock program
or a fake.
Wichert.
--
I don't know how many people read about HavenCo on slashdot, but it seems
that they want to use an audited version of Debian for their servers.
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/02/160253.shtml look for the question
by BoLean
It looks as if they want audited packages signed by the auditors
Okay, I think the s/n ratio is just getting to be a bit low. :|
The consensus seems to be "Not a security issue we want to deal
with."
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
Wichert,
So is root's password. ;)
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P---() L+++>+ E+>+ W+(-) N o? K?
w--()
!O M- !V PS+>+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ !5 X-
Previously Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> So is root's password. ;)
Yes, but if it is enabled all users can use sysrq to kill a lock.
Also please realize using a root password to unlock a lock is dangerous,
since you never know if you are dealing with the real lock program
or a fake.
Wichert.
--
Previously Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> Is the reason for disabling SysRq sinply the same (ability to reboot,
> etc) or do you think there could be an exploitable condition with the
> information given?
SysRq is very good for killing a console lock such as vlock..
Wichert.
--
_
Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> On top of that, we have our Linux-only machines set up so
> that ctl-alt-del spits up a message saying "This is a Linux-only
> machine", and the power and reset buttons are disabled, as well
> as the magic sys request keys.
I thought about unplugging the reset
Alvin Oga wrote:
> anytime someone has physical access to the machine...
> you already have a security problem ( my definition )
Fine definition. Not all computers are locked up, however, and if there
is a huge room with only remote access allowed, there are often trust
relationships setup t
Wichert,
So is root's password. ;)
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++()>$ UL>$ P---() L+++>+ E+>+ W+(-) N o? K? w--()
!O M- !V PS+>+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ !5 X-
Previously Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> Is the reason for disabling SysRq sinply the same (ability to reboot,
> etc) or do you think there could be an exploitable condition with the
> information given?
SysRq is very good for killing a console lock such as vlock..
Wichert.
--
Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> On top of that, we have our Linux-only machines set up so
> that ctl-alt-del spits up a message saying "This is a Linux-only
> machine", and the power and reset buttons are disabled, as well
> as the magic sys request keys.
I thought about unplugging the reset
Alvin Oga wrote:
> anytime someone has physical access to the machine...
> you already have a security problem ( my definition )
Fine definition. Not all computers are locked up, however, and if there
is a huge room with only remote access allowed, there are often trust
relationships setup
25 matches
Mail list logo
