> On Thursday, 2002-12-12 at 13:02:41 -0600, Jeffrey Taylor wrote:
>> Sorry for the multiple sends. Some of the original addresses had
>> typos that I corrected and resent. Bad dog!
>
> Still no cookie, bad dog :-P
>
> http://ipsec.wit.antd.nist.gov/ Host does not resolve
> http://i
On Thursday, 2002-12-12 at 13:02:41 -0600, Jeffrey Taylor wrote:
> Sorry for the multiple sends. Some of the original addresses had
> typos that I corrected and resent. Bad dog!
Still no cookie, bad dog :-P
http://ipsec.wit.antd.nist.gov/ Host does not resolve
http://isakmp.test.ssh.fi/
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 15:07, Jeremy A. Puhlman wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: init.d startup sequence for shorewall
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
>
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 15:07, Jeremy A. Puhlman wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: init.d startup sequence for shorewall
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yog
Package: shorewall
Severity: normal
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:18:17PM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:55:56PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman remarked:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my interne
> > > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> > > is no firewall running so far.
> >
> > runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brought up in
> > this runlevel. :-)
> >
>
> Actually that seems to be a highly secure firewall...Firewalls with
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 12:55, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
>
> > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> > is no firewall running so far.
>
> runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brou
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:55:56PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman remarked:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is
> > up and there is no firewall running so far.
> runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: init.d startup sequence for shorewall
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
>
> > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my inter
Package: shorewall
Severity: normal
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:18:17PM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:55:56PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman remarked:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my interne
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> is no firewall running so far.
runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brought up in
this runlevel. :-)
--
- mdz
> > > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> > > is no firewall running so far.
> >
> > runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brought up in
> > this runlevel. :-)
> >
>
> Actually that seems to be a highly secure firewall...Firewalls with
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 12:55, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
>
> > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> > is no firewall running so far.
>
> runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brou
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:55:56PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman remarked:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> > networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is
> > up and there is no firewall running so far.
> runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: init.d startup sequence for shorewall
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
>
> > networking comes up at S35 in run
Sorry for the multiple sends. Some of the original addresses had
typos that I corrected and resent. Bad dog!
Apologies,
Jeff
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:39:37PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
> networking comes up at S35 in runlevel 0 so my internet is up and there
> is no firewall running so far.
runlevel 0 is system shutdown and halt. The network is not brought up in
this runlevel. :-)
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Sorry for the multiple sends. Some of the original addresses had
typos that I corrected and resent. Bad dog!
Apologies,
Jeff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.12.1656 +0100]:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> > that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
>
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.12.1656 +0100]:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> > that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
>
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.12.1656 +0100]:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> > that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
>
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
>From "Building Linux VPNs", FreeS/WAN has some basic interoperability
with:
KAME: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi
PGPnet
Windows 2000
F-Secure VPN
IRE Safenet/SoftPK
SSH IPSec Express
Gauntlet GVPN
Xedia's AccessPoint QVPN
Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN-1/Firewall-2
Raptor Firewall, Raptor MobileNT T
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.12.1656 +0100]:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> > that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
> host.
I don't really agree with that. I have used several different IPsec
imple
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:39:27AM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> If you implement IPSec, my experience (as of 6 months ago) with IPSec is
> that it works great, as long as you use the same implementation on all
> host.
I don't really agree with that. I have used several different IPsec
imple
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 at 07:41:55PM -0700, Aaron Anderson wrote:
> I'm planning to setup a VPN to bridge 2 networks over DSL as well as have
> the ability to have people connect to the network from home. I wanted to
> get an idea of what experiences that people had had and what packages
> they've us
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> fakeroot (or any other dynamic linker tricks) will not work on set[ug]id
>> programs. libc can be trusted here.
>
> Is this Linux specific? (There can be a Hurd port in the sarge
> release).
Of course the same protection is present in GNU/Hurd.
Btw
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 at 07:41:55PM -0700, Aaron Anderson wrote:
> I'm planning to setup a VPN to bridge 2 networks over DSL as well as have
> the ability to have people connect to the network from home. I wanted to
> get an idea of what experiences that people had had and what packages
> they've us
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> fakeroot (or any other dynamic linker tricks) will not work on set[ug]id
>> programs. libc can be trusted here.
>
> Is this Linux specific? (There can be a Hurd port in the sarge
> release).
Of course the same protection is present in GNU/Hurd.
Btw
34 matches
Mail list logo
