why not ssmtp (small smtp) ?
does it fullfill the requierements?
-Original Message-
From: Corey Halpin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 5, 2002 17:56 PM
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject:Re: Unidentified subject! [MTA for Firewall System]
> B Beck, 2002-Mar
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
> that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
> think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
> now) a howto I wa
as always, security update may be troublesome with testing distribution.
stable is much easier
Mo
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Xeno Campanoli
Cc: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
Hi All,
I'm experiencing delays of around 1 - 1.5 minutes during/right after the
authentication stage of ipop3d on a debian stable system. Everything works
fine if i check mail locally (through the eth0 interface, or localhost).
However if any external machines go to check their mail, they connec
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
> that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
> think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
> now) a howto I wa
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was reading. Whats' the deal? It's been around for some
time now, and yet
why not ssmtp (small smtp) ?
does it fullfill the requierements?
-Original Message-
From: Corey Halpin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: March 5, 2002 17:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Unidentified subject! [MTA for Firewall System]
> B Beck, 2002-Mar-05 13:18 -06
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
> that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
> think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
> now) a howto I w
as always, security update may be troublesome with testing distribution.
stable is much easier
Mo
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Xeno Campanoli
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
On Wed, Mar
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
> Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
> that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
> think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
> now) a howto I w
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was reading. Whats' the deal? It's been around for some
time now, and ye
Josh Frick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>>Something to be aware of is that having two firewalls of the same flavour
>>will not buy you any more security. If a crack/exploit works on one then
>>it will work on the other. Try replacing one of them with another OS and
>>firewall solution.
>
> E
Simon Murcott wrote:
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
con
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
connections to my clien
Josh Frick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>>Something to be aware of is that having two firewalls of the same flavour
>>will not buy you any more security. If a crack/exploit works on one then
>>it will work on the other. Try replacing one of them with another OS and
>>firewall solution.
>
>
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
masqu
Simon Murcott wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
>
>Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
>trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
>(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
connections to my clie
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
>
>>I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
>>if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
>>
>
>You can view the separate services as:
>
>packet filtering = IP layer filteri
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:26:16PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> glibc has been patched for glob problems too.
> There is a not too old thread about the same subject...
I am very well aware of that, however the fixes are clearly not
effective as proftpd is still vulnerable. I have con
[ The quoted email is dated last December... I hope nobody minds me ]
[ reviving the conversation. I'm catching up on a few mail groups. ]
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:17, Jor-el wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Coke
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
> > months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
> >
>
> No, it is still vul
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:26:16PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> glibc has been patched for glob problems too.
> There is a not too old thread about the same subject...
I am very well aware of that, however the fixes are clearly not
effective as proftpd is still vulnerable. I have co
[ The quoted email is dated last December... I hope nobody minds me ]
[ reviving the conversation. I'm catching up on a few mail groups. ]
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:17, Jor-el wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Cok
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >
> > potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
> > months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
> >
>
> No, it is still vu
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
> I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
> if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
masquerading = IP layer NAT. (oka
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
> months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
>
No, it is still vulnerable. I have confirmed for myself that the fix
applied in the DSA did not eli
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering. I can't
seem to get a straight answer from online documentation for Socks, and
I know Squid is not inherently secure, but I have a fairly
straight-forward ques
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:06:07PM -0800, Dale Southard wrote:
> "Eduardo J. Gargiulo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
> > a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
> >
> > ssh server script
> >
> > but
unsubscribe
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
> I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
> if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
masquerading = IP layer NAT. (ok
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
> months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
>
No, it is still vulnerable. I have confirmed for myself that the fix
applied in the DSA did not el
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering. I can't
seem to get a straight answer from online documentation for Socks, and
I know Squid is not inherently secure, but I have a fairly
straight-forward que
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:06:07PM -0800, Dale Southard wrote:
> "Eduardo J. Gargiulo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
> > a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
> >
> > ssh server script
> >
> > bu
unsubscribe
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 matches
Mail list logo
