On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:54:41AM +, Quietman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:56:12PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> > ipchains -L -n
> Excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what will this show other than
> any rules you already have in place?
And obviously, how many packets have been i
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:56:12PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> ipchains -L -n
Excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what will this show other than
any rules you already have in place?
Cheers,
Tom
--
Your CHEEKS sit like twin NECTARINES above a MOUTH that knows no BOUNDS --
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:54:41AM +, Quietman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:56:12PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> > ipchains -L -n
> Excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what will this show other than
> any rules you already have in place?
And obviously, how many packets have been
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 04:56:12PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> ipchains -L -n
Excuse me if I'm missing the point, but what will this show other than
any rules you already have in place?
Cheers,
Tom
--
Your CHEEKS sit like twin NECTARINES above a MOUTH that knows no BOUNDS --
--
To UNSUB
G'day,
I'm writing this to express my frustration at the slowness Debian
seems to be afflicted with when it comes to letting people know about
our security vulnerabilities and fixes.
We seem to be able to find, fix and upload fixed packages quite
quickly, however we are usually the last to let o
I am the maintainer of the LPRng package for the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution. I have noticed in your advisory that Debian does not have
an entry in the Vendor Inofrmation appendix and would like to correct
that. I apologise for the very late notice.
In our stable distribution, LPRng versions bel
Ethan Benson wrote:
> is potato vulnerable to the LD_PRELOAD file overwriting vulnerability
> discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?vid=2223
>
> there was an unexplained libc6 update on Jan 10 for i386 (but not
> powerpc, not sure about other archs) to security.debian.org, all
G'day,
I'm writing this to express my frustration at the slowness Debian
seems to be afflicted with when it comes to letting people know about
our security vulnerabilities and fixes.
We seem to be able to find, fix and upload fixed packages quite
quickly, however we are usually the last to let
I am the maintainer of the LPRng package for the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution. I have noticed in your advisory that Debian does not have
an entry in the Vendor Inofrmation appendix and would like to correct
that. I apologise for the very late notice.
In our stable distribution, LPRng versions be
Ethan Benson wrote:
> is potato vulnerable to the LD_PRELOAD file overwriting vulnerability
> discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?vid=2223
>
> there was an unexplained libc6 update on Jan 10 for i386 (but not
> powerpc, not sure about other archs) to security.debian.org, al
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> leaving aside the above...
... for obvious reasons.
> > > > They will, as demonstrated above.
> > >
> > > Unlikely; at least, it hasn't happened in the last 3 or so years.
> >
> > There's no way for you to tell
On 30 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> Was that too complicated for you or are have you simply been
> lobotomized in the past?
>
leaving aside the above...
> > > They will, as demonstrated above.
> >
> > Unlikely; at least, it hasn't happened in the last 3 or so years.
>
> There's no way f
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> leaving aside the above...
... for obvious reasons.
> > > > They will, as demonstrated above.
> > >
> > > Unlikely; at least, it hasn't happened in the last 3 or so years.
> >
> > There's no way for you to tel
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:37:03 Mike Moran wrote:
| Berend De Schouwer wrote:
| >
| > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
| [ ... ]
| >
| > | However, SAINT still seems to pick this up as a vulnerability. Is
| this
| > | just because the SAINT detection routines get fooled by the
| > | al
On 30 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> Was that too complicated for you or are have you simply been
> lobotomized in the past?
>
leaving aside the above...
> > > They will, as demonstrated above.
> >
> > Unlikely; at least, it hasn't happened in the last 3 or so years.
>
> There's no way
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> | However, SAINT still seems to pick this up as a vulnerability. Is this
> | just because the SAINT detection routines get fooled by the
> | almost-successful login, or is there actually a real vulnerability?
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
|
| Hi. I ran SAINT over my system today, and it highlighted a possible
| vulnerability in the "ftpd" package[1]. I believe this relates to
| "anonymous" access.
There was a security bug recently, which was fixed in the woody
release. As far as I kn
Hi. I ran SAINT over my system today, and it highlighted a possible
vulnerability in the "ftpd" package[1]. I believe this relates to
"anonymous" access.
Now, access to the "anonymous" account is disabled in the /etc/ftpusers
file, which I understand leads to this:
...
Name (ftp.houseofmoran.com
is potato vulnerable to the LD_PRELOAD file overwriting vulnerability
discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?vid=2223
there was an unexplained libc6 update on Jan 10 for i386 (but not
powerpc, not sure about other archs) to security.debian.org, all the
changelog mentions is `Ad
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:37:03 Mike Moran wrote:
| Berend De Schouwer wrote:
| >
| > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
| [ ... ]
| >
| > | However, SAINT still seems to pick this up as a vulnerability. Is
| this
| > | just because the SAINT detection routines get fooled by the
| > | a
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> | However, SAINT still seems to pick this up as a vulnerability. Is this
> | just because the SAINT detection routines get fooled by the
> | almost-successful login, or is there actually a real vulnerability
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:45:50 Mike Moran wrote:
|
| Hi. I ran SAINT over my system today, and it highlighted a possible
| vulnerability in the "ftpd" package[1]. I believe this relates to
| "anonymous" access.
There was a security bug recently, which was fixed in the woody
release. As far as I k
Hi. I ran SAINT over my system today, and it highlighted a possible
vulnerability in the "ftpd" package[1]. I believe this relates to
"anonymous" access.
Now, access to the "anonymous" account is disabled in the /etc/ftpusers
file, which I understand leads to this:
...
Name (ftp.houseofmoran.co
is potato vulnerable to the LD_PRELOAD file overwriting vulnerability
discussed at http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?vid=2223
there was an unexplained libc6 update on Jan 10 for i386 (but not
powerpc, not sure about other archs) to security.debian.org, all the
changelog mentions is `A
IC&S - Eelco van Beek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Portsentry is just wonderfull for blocking people running subnet
> scans for certain ports that you're machine isn't providing any services
> for
All ports I don't provide services on _are blocked_. Would you please
dig that?
>
--
SIGSTOP
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > Random garbage traveling across the 'net is exactly this: Random
> > garbage.
>
> ok, and?
Why bother?
> > If I suffer from dynamic IP allocations, you would be blocking
> > hundreds of IPs within a compara
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:10:34PM +0100, NDSoftware wrote:
> I have ipchains under Debian 2.2.
> This firewall is compatible IPv6 ?
no, you must use netfilter
bastian
--
Each kiss is as the first.
-- Miramanee, Kirk's wife, "The Paradise Syndrome",
stardate 4
IC&S - Eelco van Beek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Portsentry is just wonderfull for blocking people running subnet
> scans for certain ports that you're machine isn't providing any services
> for
All ports I don't provide services on _are blocked_. Would you please
dig that?
>
--
SIGSTOP
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Jan 2001, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > Random garbage traveling across the 'net is exactly this: Random
> > garbage.
>
> ok, and?
Why bother?
> > If I suffer from dynamic IP allocations, you would be blocking
> > hundreds of IPs within a compar
29 matches
Mail list logo
