I was just reading about daemon banners and how
they show exactly what service is runing on what port... Version etc... like WU
FTP ... blha lbha I was told that I can use TCPWRAPPERS to change this
information?
Can someone help me out with this or let me know of
a good tutorial if the
I was just reading about daemon banners and how
they show exactly what service is runing on what port... Version etc... like WU
FTP ... blha lbha I was told that I can use TCPWRAPPERS to change this
information?
Can someone help me out with this or let me know of
a good tutorial if the
> > The whole inet must be overhauled: secure by default!
>
> Unfortunately, this will not happen in the near future. The Internet was
> designed as a) a headless entity that could survive having multiple areas
> of it turned to air pollution by nuclear weapons and still survive, and b)
This is a
I just wanted to bring this to that attention of those who care...
Because there were quite a few insecure temp file creation reports a while
ago, perhaps some of us should use this tool to find more ASAP.
It was in the fresh meat mailing list:
---
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:26:24AM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> Who is the list maintainer ?
>
> GBY
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^
Who is the list maintainer ?
GBY
"Matthew H. Ray" wrote:
> According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> Software in the Public Interest $1999.
>
Just noticed something, that "One donation per advertisement, please." really
should read "One advertisement per donation, please."
I don't think SPI would co
Siggi Langauf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Matthew H. Ray wrote:
>
> > According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> > Software in the Public Interest $1999.
>
> In theory, that's right. But judging from the amount of spam I get via
> debian mailing lists, I'm quite sure
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Matthew H. Ray wrote:
> According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> Software in the Public Interest $1999.
In theory, that's right. But judging from the amount of spam I get via
debian mailing lists, I'm quite sure that nobody actually has pays those
$1
> > The whole inet must be overhauled: secure by default!
>
> Unfortunately, this will not happen in the near future. The Internet was
> designed as a) a headless entity that could survive having multiple areas
> of it turned to air pollution by nuclear weapons and still survive, and b)
This is
According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
Software in the Public Interest $1999.
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
--
Matt Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
STOP SENDING SPAM YOU ARE AN ASHOLE
THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR THAT STUFF IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEN *NEVER
EVER* WRITE OVER HERE
siaraX
I just wanted to bring this to that attention of those who care...
Because there were quite a few insecure temp file creation reports a while
ago, perhaps some of us should use this tool to find more ASAP.
It was in the fresh meat mailing list:
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tuesday 06 February 2001 19:27, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Bradley M Alexander
>
> | I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
> | crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
> | stability. They have been co
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:26:24AM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
> Who is the list maintainer ?
>
> GBY
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^
Who is the list maintainer ?
GBY
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Matthew H. Ray" wrote:
> According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> Software in the Public Interest $1999.
>
Just noticed something, that "One donation per advertisement, please." really
should read "One advertisement per donation, please."
I don't think SPI would c
Siggi Langauf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Matthew H. Ray wrote:
>
> > According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> > Software in the Public Interest $1999.
>
> In theory, that's right. But judging from the amount of spam I get via
> debian mailing lists, I'm quite sure
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Matthew H. Ray wrote:
> According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
> Software in the Public Interest $1999.
In theory, that's right. But judging from the amount of spam I get via
debian mailing lists, I'm quite sure that nobody actually has pays those
$
According to the Debian mailing list the sender of this spam owes
Software in the Public Interest $1999.
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
--
Matt Ray
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 21:02 6.2.2001, Steve Robbins wrote:
What you say is true of today, but of course cars have had a much
longer history than computers. I've often wondered how the state of
computer technology of today compares with the state of automobile
technology of, say, the 1920s. (I don't know myself,
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>
> > No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> > security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> > have to do al
STOP SENDING SPAM YOU ARE AN ASHOLE
THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR THAT STUFF IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEN *NEVER
EVER* WRITE OVER HERE
siaraX
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
* Bradley M Alexander
| I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
| crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
| stability. They have been conditioned this way. Because they think that
| this is the way that its supposed to happen and there's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tuesday 06 February 2001 19:27, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Bradley M Alexander
>
> | I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
> | crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
> | stability. They have been c
Robert Ramiega wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:26:56PM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
> > files,
> > then download the version from testing and install it.
> >
> > Then you can be sure that all files are o
Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >the important files are
> >
> >
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.paranoid
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.server
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.workstation
>
> I miss those above. Are they anyway essential?
No, they are just different pr
> > I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
> neither do I. I have the list of logfiles in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
> maybe check there for the file names.
/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles has been introduced in logcheck version
1.1.1-7.3 (the version in unstable). Older versions do not have this
confi
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tol
At 21:02 6.2.2001, Steve Robbins wrote:
>What you say is true of today, but of course cars have had a much
>longer history than computers. I've often wondered how the state of
>computer technology of today compares with the state of automobile
>technology of, say, the 1920s. (I don't know myse
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>
> > No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> > security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> > have to do a
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:11:24AM +0100, IC&S - Eelco van Beek wrote:
>
> Where is a moderator when you need one?
>
I forwarded this to SpamCop, and the Southwestern Bell, where the message
originated, is very good about cancelling accounts about spam.
--
--Brad
==
* Bradley M Alexander
| I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users tolerate
| crappy M$ operating systems that have swiss cheese security and no
| stability. They have been conditioned this way. Because they think that
| this is the way that its supposed to happen and there's
I'm not sure if this is security related but this line
shows up in my log file every so often:
Feb 6 09:43:01 prophit named[30447]: bad referral (NET !< APNIC.net)
The NET and domain name part is changing.
Can somebody tell me what does it mean?
Thanks everyone
David
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:26:56PM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Hi
>
> Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
> files,
> then download the version from testing and install it.
>
> Then you can be sure that all files are ok.
I don't think that --purge is neede
Hi
Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
files,
then download the version from testing and install it.
Then you can be sure that all files are ok.
/I
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 17:06 6.2.2001, you wrote:
>
> >Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >d where)
> > >
> > > I don'
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.paranoid
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.server
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.workstation
>
> I miss those above. Are they anyway essential?
No. Not in deb version
Robert Ramiega wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:26:56PM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
> > files,
> > then download the version from testing and install it.
> >
> > Then you can be sure that all files are
At 17:06 6.2.2001, you wrote:
Antti Tolamo wrote:
d where)
>
> I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
neither do I. I have the list of logfiles in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
maybe check there for the file names.
>
> What files there should be anyway? I have
> no real way of knowing what should co
Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >the important files are
> >
> >
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.paranoid
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.server
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.workstation
>
> I miss those above. Are they anyway essential?
No, they are just different p
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
You might be using older package (i personally use unstable branch)
You version might not use it at all.. In this case I think that list of
scanned logfiles is in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
>
>
> > I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
> neither do I. I have the list of logfiles in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
> maybe check there for the file names.
/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles has been introduced in logcheck version
1.1.1-7.3 (the version in unstable). Older versions do not have this
conf
Hi
logcheck.logfile is only in testing and unstable, the stable
version of logcheck does not have that file.
/I
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed that my logcheck doe
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> > > entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> > > then it is insterted a
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:32:16PM +0100, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> No babble at all. Why don't we millions of e-mail users insist on
> security? Why aren't ISPs offering number 3 default? Why do the users
> have to do all the work?
I'll tell you why this happens. For the same reason that users to
At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
>
> I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> then it is insterted again.
>
> What could cause this?
Bad configur
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:11:24AM +0100, IC&S - Eelco van Beek wrote:
>
> Where is a moderator when you need one?
>
I forwarded this to SpamCop, and the Southwestern Bell, where the message
originated, is very good about cancelling accounts about spam.
--
--Brad
=
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
>
> I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> then it is insterted again.
>
> What could cause this?
Bad configuration ;o)
On a serious side... Logc
I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
then it is insterted again.
What could cause this?
Antti
I'm not sure if this is security related but this line
shows up in my log file every so often:
Feb 6 09:43:01 prophit named[30447]: bad referral (NET !< APNIC.net)
The NET and domain name part is changing.
Can somebody tell me what does it mean?
Thanks everyone
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:26:56PM +0100, Ingemar Fällman wrote:
> Hi
>
> Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
> files,
> then download the version from testing and install it.
>
> Then you can be sure that all files are ok.
I don't think that --purge is need
Hi
Purge the package with dpkg --purge logcheck this will remove all config
files,
then download the version from testing and install it.
Then you can be sure that all files are ok.
/I
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 17:06 6.2.2001, you wrote:
>
> >Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >d where)
> > >
> > > I don
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.logfiles
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.paranoid
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.server
> >/etc/logcheck/logcheck.ignore.workstation
>
> I miss those above. Are they anyway essential?
No. Not in deb versio
At 17:06 6.2.2001, you wrote:
>Antti Tolamo wrote:
>d where)
> >
> > I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
>
>neither do I. I have the list of logfiles in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
>maybe check there for the file names.
>
>
> >
> > What files there should be anyway? I have
> > no real way of knowin
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> I don't have logcheck.logfile at all???
You might be using older package (i personally use unstable branch)
You version might not use it at all.. In this case I think that list of
scanned logfiles is in /usr/sbin/logcheck.sh
>
Hi
logcheck.logfile is only in testing and unstable, the stable
version of logcheck does not have that file.
/I
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed that my logcheck do
Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
> At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> > > entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> > > then it is insterted
At 16:23 6.2.2001, Robert Ramiega wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
> >
> >
> > I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> > entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> > then it is insterted again.
> >
> > What could cause this?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Antti Tolamo wrote:
>
>
> I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
> entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
> then it is insterted again.
>
> What could cause this?
Bad configuration ;o)
On a serious side... Log
I just noticed that my logcheck does double entries(same
entry is inserted twice). First comes one hour of entries,
then it is insterted again.
What could cause this?
Antti
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:19:35AM +, Artur wrote:
> Well, @excite.com is a very well known spam site... Should We (!)
> > > *
> > > Hi, debian-security
[cut app. 45 lines spam]
are you kidding? we got this spam 3rd times. thank you.
--
CZW
Well, @excite.com is a very well known spam site... Should We (!)
configure Debian maillist server ?
Artur
IC&S - Eelco van Beek wrote:
>
> Where is a moderator when you need one?
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > *
> > Hi, d
Where is a moderator when you need one?
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *
> Hi, debian-security
>
> What if Yahoo Paid You ? Now a reality !!!
>
> World's first completely commissionable Portal just released.
>
> Get paid as thous
*
Hi, debian-security
What if Yahoo Paid You ? Now a reality !!!
World's first completely commissionable Portal just released.
Get paid as thousands search, email, or use any of our services.
14 months and 1.5 million dollars invested in the techno
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:19:35AM +, Artur wrote:
> Well, @excite.com is a very well known spam site... Should We (!)
> > > *
> > > Hi, debian-security
[cut app. 45 lines spam]
are you kidding? we got this spam 3rd times. thank you.
--
CZW
Well, @excite.com is a very well known spam site... Should We (!)
configure Debian maillist server ?
Artur
IC&S - Eelco van Beek wrote:
>
> Where is a moderator when you need one?
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > *
> > Hi,
66 matches
Mail list logo
