Hi,
I have a slink->potato->woody server, and I am a little concerned about the
permissions some of the log files in /var/log have.
There are too many to list, but here are some:
-rw-r--r--1 root root 8232348 Nov 3 06:43 tripwire
-rw-r--r--1 root root10152 Nov 3 14
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't there a provision in American (or Canadian) law that allows
> reverse engineering (not disassembling code) for interoperability
> purposes?
Tell that to the DMCA, DeCSS, and the EFF.
--
J C Lawrence
Hi,
I have a slink->potato->woody server, and I am a little concerned about the
permissions some of the log files in /var/log have.
There are too many to list, but here are some:
-rw-r--r--1 root root 8232348 Nov 3 06:43 tripwire
-rw-r--r--1 root root10152 Nov 3 1
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't there a provision in American (or Canadian) law that allows
> reverse engineering (not disassembling code) for interoperability
> purposes?
Tell that to the DMCA, DeCSS, and the EFF.
--
J C Lawrence
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:44:20PM +1100, Paul Haesler wrote:
> Microsoft has never sued Tridge and co. over samba which
> would seem to be a closer analogy - A reverse engineered
> network protocol, as opposed to a cracked encryption
> algorithm.
The protocol wasn't patented. It is supposedly d
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
>
> it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
> my tests it refused to relay each and every attempt from them.
This migh
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman typed:
} Try this :)
}
} telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
} HELO my.hostname
} MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
} RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
} DATA
} Testing testing
} .
} QUIT
Hostnames have been changed to protect the innocent (al
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:44:20PM +1100, Paul Haesler wrote:
> Microsoft has never sued Tridge and co. over samba which
> would seem to be a closer analogy - A reverse engineered
> network protocol, as opposed to a cracked encryption
> algorithm.
The protocol wasn't patented. It is supposedly
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
> Yes, but it is in every aspect similar to what the person who wrote the
> first letter in this thread wants to do or is advised to do, namely to
> reverse-engineer the operation of a working system which is developed only
> for win* and based on proprie
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
>
> it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
> my tests it refused to relay each and every attempt from them.
This mig
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman typed:
} Try this :)
}
} telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
} HELO my.hostname
} MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
} RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
} DATA
} Testing testing
} .
} QUIT
Hostnames have been changed to protect the innocent (a
Hi Ethan!
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > If you do not set mynetworks postfix guesses it from the interfaces and
> > allows
> > all hosts on the classful subnets of those interfaces to relay through you.
>
> ah! i see didn't think of that one... so you need to specify
> mynetworks
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:17:21PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Borut Mrak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > > so my question now is postfix a open relay by default or not?
> >
> > No.
>
> It is. For a (not so) smal
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
> Yes, but it is in every aspect similar to what the person who wrote the
> first letter in this thread wants to do or is advised to do, namely to
> reverse-engineer the operation of a working system which is developed only
> for win* and based on propri
Hi!
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Borut Mrak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > so my question now is postfix a open relay by default or not?
>
> No.
It is. For a (not so) small set of hosts. Assuming your box is 62.1.2.3 you
will be an open relay for the entir
> So, Postfix appears to be an open relay to the stupid mail-abuse.org
> test, because the test does not confirm the relay when it receives its
> message back, but right after it gives it away.
This is also the case for Exim, I believe, with a standard
configuration (percent_hack_domains commented
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
>
> it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
> my tests it refused to relay each and every attempt from them.
The default (
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:05:00PM +0100, Borut Mrak wrote:
>
> Hmm...wise decision ;-]
indeed...
> mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
my tests it refused to relay each and every att
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:58:52AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> well i don't know anyone running postfix who i can ask to test this
> with... im certainly not going to go try it without asking ! bad karma
> ;-)
Hmm...wise decisio
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:43:11AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> did you run a test to see if this was really the case? such as telnet
> mail-abuse.org
>
I didn't find this test very accurate.
Look this log :
=
$ telnet mail-abuse.org
Trying 2
Hi Ethan!
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > If you do not set mynetworks postfix guesses it from the interfaces and allows
> > all hosts on the classful subnets of those interfaces to relay through you.
>
> ah! i see didn't think of that one... so you need to specify
> mynetworks wit
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Try this :)
>
> telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
> HELO my.hostname
> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> DATA
> Testing testing
> .
> QUIT
well i don't know anyone running postfix who i can ask
Try this :)
telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
HELO my.hostname
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DATA
Testing testing
.
QUIT
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:38AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > When i was looking trough my logs t
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:38AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Hi
>
> When i was looking trough my logs tody i found that my host had been
> used
> as a relay host... I changed from sendmail to postfix because everyone
> told
> me that postfix was more secure.
>
> When looking at the default
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:17:21PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Borut Mrak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > > so my question now is postfix a open relay by default or not?
> >
> > No.
>
> It is. For a (not so) sma
Hi!
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Borut Mrak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > so my question now is postfix a open relay by default or not?
>
> No.
It is. For a (not so) small set of hosts. Assuming your box is 62.1.2.3 you
will be an open relay for the enti
> So, Postfix appears to be an open relay to the stupid mail-abuse.org
> test, because the test does not confirm the relay when it receives its
> message back, but right after it gives it away.
This is also the case for Exim, I believe, with a standard
configuration (percent_hack_domains commente
Hi
When i was looking trough my logs tody i found that my host had been
used
as a relay host... I changed from sendmail to postfix because everyone
told
me that postfix was more secure.
When looking at the default configurationfiles installed by debian there
was
nothing that prevents unauthorized
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:24:36AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
>
> it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
> my tests it refused to relay each and every attempt from them.
The default
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:05:00PM +0100, Borut Mrak wrote:
>
> Hmm...wise decision ;-]
indeed...
> mail-abuse.org just test relaying...and postfix fails the test, but doesn't
it fails? since when? or rather what are you defining as failure? in
my tests it refused to relay each and every at
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:58:52AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> well i don't know anyone running postfix who i can ask to test this
> with... im certainly not going to go try it without asking ! bad karma
> ;-)
Hmm...wise decisi
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:43:11AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> did you run a test to see if this was really the case? such as telnet mail-abuse.org
>
I didn't find this test very accurate.
Look this log :
=
$ telnet mail-abuse.org
Trying 204
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Try this :)
>
> telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
> HELO my.hostname
> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> DATA
> Testing testing
> .
> QUIT
well i don't know anyone running postfix who i can ask
Microsoft has never sued Tridge and co. over samba which
would seem to be a closer analogy - A reverse engineered
network protocol, as opposed to a cracked encryption
algorithm.
Mind you, I'm not a lawyer. (Mind you, I don't think anybody else
who has contributed to date is either)
> Yes, but it
Try this :)
telnet some.other.host.running.postfix 25
HELO my.hostname
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DATA
Testing testing
.
QUIT
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:38AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > When i was looking trough my logs
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:38AM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Hi
>
> When i was looking trough my logs tody i found that my host had been
> used
> as a relay host... I changed from sendmail to postfix because everyone
> told
> me that postfix was more secure.
>
> When looking at the default
Yes, but it is in every aspect similar to what the person who wrote the
first letter in this thread wants to do or is advised to do, namely to
reverse-engineer the operation of a working system which is developed only
for win* and based on proprietary algorithms. That's exactly the same what
the p
Robert,
Keep in mind that case is in appeal, and is quite likely to wind up in the
Supreme Court. It is, in every way I can imagine, a Constitutional case,
and has every reason to be heard by the Supreme Court. I hope the Supreme
Court Justices agree...
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Patrick Maheral wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> > Penguin,
> >
> > Because the patents and IP on your radio expired a long time ago. The ones
> > on the algorithms haven't. :)
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Isn't there a provision in American (or Canadian) la
Hi
When i was looking trough my logs tody i found that my host had been
used
as a relay host... I changed from sendmail to postfix because everyone
told
me that postfix was more secure.
When looking at the default configurationfiles installed by debian there
was
nothing that prevents unauthorize
Microsoft has never sued Tridge and co. over samba which
would seem to be a closer analogy - A reverse engineered
network protocol, as opposed to a cracked encryption
algorithm.
Mind you, I'm not a lawyer. (Mind you, I don't think anybody else
who has contributed to date is either)
> Yes, but i
Yes, but it is in every aspect similar to what the person who wrote the
first letter in this thread wants to do or is advised to do, namely to
reverse-engineer the operation of a working system which is developed only
for win* and based on proprietary algorithms. That's exactly the same what
the
42 matches
Mail list logo
