Hi David!
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
> > removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
> > the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemon
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
> meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
> new_network_daemon I want it to look at /etc/security/netw
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
> removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
> the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons enabled when installed
> etc. leaves something to be desired
Hi David!
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
> > removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
> > the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemo
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
> meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
> new_network_daemon I want it to look at /etc/security/net
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
> removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
> the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons enabled when installed
> etc. leaves something to be desire
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
> distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed.
Yes.
There was talk on this list before about being able to neatly disable
network services.
What would
Yep, you can simply romove it or 'chmod 000' on it.This is the first thing I do
when configuring Linux box.
Artur
"Mo Zhen Guang (SLDT)" wrote:
> I read of an article about redhat linux security, here is excerption about
> atd
>
> This scheduling daemon schedules "j
doesn't redhat use a different version of cron than debian?
because like, we have all of these different crons with funny name prefixes
and i think there would be a difference in security, if you know what i
mean by what i'm getting at. heh
the same could hold true for atd, but without the prefix
That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed. Leaving the defaults
running regardless of whether you use them is not the safest course of
action on a machine that matters. I can't say for sure that at isn't needed
by any
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
> distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed.
Yes.
There was talk on this list before about being able to neatly disable
network services.
What would
Yep, you can simply romove it or 'chmod 000' on it.This is the first thing I do
when configuring Linux box.
Artur
"Mo Zhen Guang (SLDT)" wrote:
> I read of an article about redhat linux security, here is excerption about
> atd
>
> This scheduling daemon schedules "
doesn't redhat use a different version of cron than debian?
because like, we have all of these different crons with funny name prefixes
and i think there would be a difference in security, if you know what i
mean by what i'm getting at. heh
the same could hold true for atd, but without the prefix
recently there was a format string bug found in klogd, this was fixed
in sysklogd 1.3-33.1, however this package was not released for
powerpc, AFAICT this still has not happened.
when the advisory came out i downloaded the source to sysklogd from
security.debian.org (the updated package source)
Hi Alexander!
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Mo,
>
> Red Hat security is always lousy ;)
>
> Unlike Red Hat, Debian gets security bugs and such fixed in a timely
> manner, especially if you are using the current `unstable' distribution
> (which is presently `woody'); `at' shoul
That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed. Leaving the defaults
running regardless of whether you use them is not the safest course of
action on a machine that matters. I can't say for sure that at isn't needed
by an
recently there was a format string bug found in klogd, this was fixed
in sysklogd 1.3-33.1, however this package was not released for
powerpc, AFAICT this still has not happened.
when the advisory came out i downloaded the source to sysklogd from
security.debian.org (the updated package source
17 matches
Mail list logo
