On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 03:56:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> lsof +L1 is handy for verifying that you have restarted everything.
I did a init u (which the post inst did anyhow...) and then I walked through ps
ax and restarted everything listed...
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://www.zionlth.org/
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 08:28:47PM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:
> > As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
> > be sure? Or is switching to runlevel 1 then back enough?
> >
> Reloading init and res
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Johann Beretta wrote:
> > I suggest you first read:
> > http://home.rica.net/alphae/419coal/
> >
> > Which clearly describes the working of this scam... Just ignore it, or
> > send it on to the relevant government agency...
>
> He was being sarcastic... Everyone knows it's
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 08:28:47PM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:
> As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
> be sure? Or is switching to runlevel 1 then back enough?
>
Reloading init and restarting all services is usually sufficient...
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://ww
> Wolfram Gloger discovered that the bugfix from DSA 149-1 unintentially
> replaced potential integer overflows in connection with malloc() with
> more likely divisions by zero. This called for an update.
As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
be sure? Or is switch
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 03:56:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> lsof +L1 is handy for verifying that you have restarted everything.
I did a init u (which the post inst did anyhow...) and then I walked through ps ax and
restarted everything listed...
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://www.zionlth.org
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 08:28:47PM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:
> > As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
> > be sure? Or is switching to runlevel 1 then back enough?
> >
> Reloading init and re
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Johann Beretta wrote:
> > I suggest you first read:
> > http://home.rica.net/alphae/419coal/
> >
> > Which clearly describes the working of this scam... Just ignore it, or
> > send it on to the relevant government agency...
>
> He was being sarcastic... Everyone knows it'
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 06:14:23PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:45:56AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > Sounds nice. I tried tiger for a short time, but received far too many
> > notifications about things which were not wrong, for Debian or for
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 08:28:47PM +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote:
> As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
> be sure? Or is switching to runlevel 1 then back enough?
>
Reloading init and restarting all services is usually sufficient...
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://w
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:45:56AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Sounds nice. I tried tiger for a short time, but received far too many
> notifications about things which were not wrong, for Debian or for many
> other systems.
>
Yes, it needs some improvement yet. Did you try the "no
> Wolfram Gloger discovered that the bugfix from DSA 149-1 unintentially
> replaced potential integer overflows in connection with malloc() with
> more likely divisions by zero. This called for an update.
As nearly everything is linked to glibc, does this require a reboot to
be sure? Or is switc
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 06:14:23PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:45:56AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > Sounds nice. I tried tiger for a short time, but received far too many
> > notifications about things which were not wrong, for Debian or for
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:45:56AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Sounds nice. I tried tiger for a short time, but received far too many
> notifications about things which were not wrong, for Debian or for many
> other systems.
>
Yes, it needs some improvement yet. Did you try the "n
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:54:28AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:59:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > The same applies for any intrusion detection tool, including the ones you
> > mention below.
> (...)
> Not quite exact.
You took this se
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:54:28AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:59:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > The same applies for any intrusion detection tool, including the ones you
> > mention below.
> (...)
> Not quite exact.
You took this s
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:59:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> The same applies for any intrusion detection tool, including the ones you
> mention below.
(...)
Not quite exact.
> debsums attempts to detect files which are different from the versions which
> were originally installed f
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:59:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> The same applies for any intrusion detection tool, including the ones you
> mention below.
(...)
Not quite exact.
> debsums attempts to detect files which are different from the versions which
> were originally installed
18 matches
Mail list logo
