On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:55:00PM -0700, Mike Fisk wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
> packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
> have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
> yourself or do a fu
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:28:29PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > > hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
> > > 0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
> >
> > apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> > to cause a ker
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:55:00PM -0700, Mike Fisk wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
> packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
> have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
> yourself or do a f
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:28:29PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > > hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
> > > 0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
> >
> > apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> > to cause a ke
Ethan Benson wrote:
> > hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
> > 0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
>
> apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> to cause a kernel panic, that seems to be a bug in the framebuffer
> driver in my kernel.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:21:10AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > > It would be very helpful if there was a pseudo-package that conflicted
> > > with packages that have known security problems that have been fixed in a
> > > later version. That way one could do a regular 'apt-get install
> > > ta
Ethan Benson wrote:
> > hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
> > 0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
>
> apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> to cause a kernel panic, that seems to be a bug in the framebuffer
> driver in my kernel.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:21:10AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > > It would be very helpful if there was a pseudo-package that conflicted
> > > with packages that have known security problems that have been fixed in a
> > > later version. That way one could do a regular 'apt-get install
> > > t
> apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> to cause a kernel panic, that seems to be a bug in the framebuffer
That's just MHO. I've not tried to reproduce this with atyfb, and I'd
probably need an objdump -d --start-address=
output from you if I cannot reproduce it h
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 06:07:55AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
> >
> > I don't :)
> > Especially when I don't use esound...
>
> do you have it installed? gnome programs love to start all kinds of
> little daemons and such all on their
unsubscribe
Previously Christian Hammers wrote:
> Shouldn't such a cookie be in /var/state, /var/run or at least /tmp?
> I really wouldn't like such a think in my *root*!
It's a user thing, not a system-wide thing. It's much like the
.Xauthority file, except less sane.
Wichert.
--
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:05:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc V. Liotier
wrote:
> > > Shouldn't such a cookie be in /var/state, /var/run or at
> > > least /tmp?
> > > I really wouldn't like such a think in my *root*!
> >
> > I think it's normally in the user
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
>
> I don't :)
> Especially when I don't use esound...
do you have it installed? gnome programs love to start all kinds of
little daemons and such all on their own, esd is one of them. even if
you don't use gnome as your desktop envir
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:00:10PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:54:19PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> > > I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> > > It looks like an esound thing but its content is very stran
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:21:40AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > Those who choose to run unstable choose to take upon themselves
> > more responsibility/inconvenience, if they are unwilling to bear that
> > burden they should not run unstable.
>
> To me this sounds like:
>
> Every single unst
> Those who choose to run unstable choose to take upon themselves
> more responsibility/inconvenience, if they are unwilling to bear that
> burden they should not run unstable.
To me this sounds like:
Every single unstable user must track debian-security-announce.
versus:
One unstable user
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:54:12AM -0200, Philipe Gaspar wrote:
> this is some strange
>
> hour:/home/kr0n# cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
> bash: /dev/fb0: No such device
not really, it just means you don't have a framebuffer configured in
your kernel. intel machines usually do not use a framebuff
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:21:10AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > The answer is just to watch one single list - debian-security-announce.
> > That's what it's for :)
>
> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. If the answer is to
> watch the debian-security-announce list, then what preven
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:54:19PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> > I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> > It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> > I don't like the _auth in its name...
> It's a cookie us
this is some strange
hour:/home/kr0n# cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
bash: /dev/fb0: No such device
hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
Ethan Benson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:09:23AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
So 0620 m
> apparently writing random garbage into the fb devices is not supposed
> to cause a kernel panic, that seems to be a bug in the framebuffer
That's just MHO. I've not tried to reproduce this with atyfb, and I'd
probably need an objdump -d --start-address=
output from you if I cannot reproduce it
Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> I don't like the _auth in its name...
It's a cookie used by esound to authorize clients to connect to a
running esd process. Espe
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 06:07:55AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
> >
> > I don't :)
> > Especially when I don't use esound...
>
> do you have it installed? gnome programs love to start all kinds of
> little daemons and such all on thei
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Previously Christian Hammers wrote:
> Shouldn't such a cookie be in /var/state, /var/run or at least /tmp?
> I really wouldn't like such a think in my *root*!
It's a user thing, not a system-wide thing. It's much like the
.Xauthority file, except less sane.
Wichert.
--
_
> > It would be very helpful if there was a pseudo-package that conflicted
> > with packages that have known security problems that have been fixed in a
> > later version. That way one could do a regular 'apt-get install
> > task-unstable-security-updates' and cause the upgrade of all the
> > conf
On 00-11-19 Mike Fisk wrote:
[big snip]
> Is that possible? Would the security team be willing to maintain such a
> pseudo-package?
Something very close to this kind of task package has been discussed
recently on debian-devel and we come to the conclusion that it won't be
helpful or easy to maint
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:05:24PM +0100, Jean-Marc V. Liotier
wrote:
> > > Shouldn't such a cookie be in /var/state, /var/run or at
> > > least /tmp?
> > > I really wouldn't like such a think in my *root*!
> >
> > I think it's normally in the use
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:50:29PM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
>
> I don't :)
> Especially when I don't use esound...
do you have it installed? gnome programs love to start all kinds of
little daemons and such all on their own, esd is one of them. even if
you don't use gnome as your desktop envi
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:00:10PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:54:19PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> > > I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> > > It looks like an esound thing but its content is very stra
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:21:40AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > Those who choose to run unstable choose to take upon themselves
> > more responsibility/inconvenience, if they are unwilling to bear that
> > burden they should not run unstable.
>
> To me this sounds like:
>
> Every single uns
> Those who choose to run unstable choose to take upon themselves
> more responsibility/inconvenience, if they are unwilling to bear that
> burden they should not run unstable.
To me this sounds like:
Every single unstable user must track debian-security-announce.
versus:
One unstable user
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:54:12AM -0200, Philipe Gaspar wrote:
> this is some strange
>
> hour:/home/kr0n# cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
> bash: /dev/fb0: No such device
not really, it just means you don't have a framebuffer configured in
your kernel. intel machines usually do not use a framebuf
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:21:10AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> > The answer is just to watch one single list - debian-security-announce.
> > That's what it's for :)
>
> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. If the answer is to
> watch the debian-security-announce list, then what preve
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 02:54:19PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> > I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> > It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> > I don't like the _auth in its name...
> It's a cookie u
this is some strange
hour:/home/kr0n# cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
bash: /dev/fb0: No such device
hour:/home/kr0n# ls -ls /dev/fb0
0 crw--w--w-1 root tty 29, 0 Jul 5 14:44 /dev/fb0
Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:09:23AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
>> So
Previously Virginie-ML wrote:
> I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> I don't like the _auth in its name...
It's a cookie used by esound to authorize clients to connect to a
running esd process. Esp
> > It would be very helpful if there was a pseudo-package that conflicted
> > with packages that have known security problems that have been fixed in a
> > later version. That way one could do a regular 'apt-get install
> > task-unstable-security-updates' and cause the upgrade of all the
> > con
On 00-11-19 Mike Fisk wrote:
[big snip]
> Is that possible? Would the security team be willing to maintain such a
> pseudo-package?
Something very close to this kind of task package has been discussed
recently on debian-devel and we come to the conclusion that it won't be
helpful or easy to main
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:09:23AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> So 0620 might be better, with /dev/fb in group video or a dedicated group.
that seems more reasonable.
> This is on a SuSE 6.4 system BTW:
>
> crw-rw 1 root video 29, 0 Mar 11 2000 /dev/fb0
this is broken IMO,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:33:32AM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > > # cat /.esd_auth
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\x9e^@@
> > >
> > > There is only this line in ...
> > >
> > > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
> >
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Virginie-ML wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > > # cat /.esd_auth
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\x9e^@@
> > >
> > > There is only this line in ...
> > >
> > > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
> >
> > I belive its pa
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > # cat /.esd_auth
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\x9e^@@
> >
> > There is only this line in ...
> >
> > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
>
> I belive its part of the Enlightenment Sound Daemon. Some sort of X magic
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Virginie-ML wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> I don't like the _auth in its name...
>
> # cat /.esd_auth
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\x9e^
Hi all,
I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
I don't like the _auth in its name...
# cat /.esd_auth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@\x9e^@@
There is only this line in ...
Could anybody reassure
Samu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 06:04:01AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
this, try the following:
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
on my system i get a instant ker
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:09:23AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> So 0620 might be better, with /dev/fb in group video or a dedicated group.
that seems more reasonable.
> This is on a SuSE 6.4 system BTW:
>
> crw-rw 1 root video 29, 0 Mar 11 2000 /dev/fb0
this is broken IMO,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:33:32AM +0100, Virginie-ML wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > > # cat /.esd_auth
> > > ^M?^C@à:^C@^\óÿ¿^@\x9e^@@
> > >
> > > There is only this line in ...
> > >
> > > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
> >
> > I belive its
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Virginie-ML wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > > # cat /.esd_auth
> > > ^M?^C@à:^C@^\óÿ¿^@\x9e^@@
> > >
> > > There is only this line in ...
> > >
> > > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
> >
> > I belive its part of the Enlight
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Johan Bergström wrote:
> > # cat /.esd_auth
> > ^M?^C@à:^C@^\óÿ¿^@\x9e^@@
> >
> > There is only this line in ...
> >
> > Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
>
> I belive its part of the Enlightenment Sound Daemon. Some sort of X magic
> cookie or somet
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Virginie-ML wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
> It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
> I don't like the _auth in its name...
>
> # cat /.esd_auth
> ^M?^C@à:^C@^\óÿ¿^@\x9e^@@
>
> There is
Hi all,
I've found a curious hidden file at the root of my system:
It looks like an esound thing but its content is very strange for me and
I don't like the _auth in its name...
# cat /.esd_auth
^M?^C@à:^C@^\óÿ¿^@\x9e^@@
There is only this line in ...
Could anybody reassure me please ?:)
Samu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 06:04:01AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
>> does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
>>
>> the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
>> this, try the following:
>>
>> cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
>>
>> on my
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > a) take a look at /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh. Around "Cleaning: /tmp", that is.
>
> So you're editing a file in /tmp and you're worried about the DEADJOE
> file lying around after a reboot? What about the file itself?
cd /tmp
joe ~
55 matches
Mail list logo
