- Original Message -
From: "Eric D Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:48 PM
Subject: Upgrading Kernels...
> I'm a little confused as to how/when I should upgrade my kernel. I'm not
> subscribed to this list a present, so please incl
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> OTOH, I've been wrestling with a build error for 2.4.23 for the past
> couple of days of intermittent, half-hearted efforts, for an undefined
> reference in drivers/char/drm/drm.o.
That's why God gave us LKML ;-)
--
-
El jue, 04-12-2003 a las 22:05, Kevin escribió:
> > I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> > characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> > following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
>
> If you are not using md5 pas
El jue, 04-12-2003 a las 22:08, Greg Folkert escribió:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 15:12, Ruben Porras wrote:
> > I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> > characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> > following example (I've created a new use
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:47:07PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> OTOH, I've been wrestling with a build error for 2.4.23 for the past
> couple of days of intermittent, half-hearted efforts, for an undefined
> reference in drivers/char/drm/drm.o.
That's why God gave us LKML ;-)
--
-
El jue, 04-12-2003 a las 22:05, Kevin escribiÃ:
> > I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> > characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> > following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
>
> If you are not using md5 pas
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd.
this is the default unix behaviour. What settings do you have in pam?
Especially do you use md5 passwords?
Dont know why and for which debian versions it is
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:12:22PM +0100, Ruben Porras wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
This is how the "standar
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 15:12, Ruben Porras wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
>
> $$ adduser test
> Adding user tes
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
If you are not using md5 passwords will have a max length of 8
characters. If you're
El jue, 04-12-2003 a las 22:08, Greg Folkert escribiÃ:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 15:12, Ruben Porras wrote:
> > I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> > characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> > following example (I've created a new use
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:40:12PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:46:51AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > Having a team that shares experience and combines talents in
> > patching a kernel and tuning it to secure configurations is a
> > preferable approa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd.
this is the default unix behaviour. What settings do you have in pam?
Especially do you use md5 passwords?
Dont know why and for which debian versions it is
I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
$$ adduser test
Adding user test...
Adding new group test (1006).
Adding new user test (1006
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:12:22PM +0100, Ruben Porras wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
This is how the "standar
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 15:12, Ruben Porras wrote:
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
>
> $$ adduser test
> Adding user tes
> I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
> characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
> following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
If you are not using md5 passwords will have a max length of 8
characters. If you're
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:40:12PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:46:51AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > Having a team that shares experience and combines talents in
> > patching a kernel and tuning it to secure configurations is a
> > preferable approa
I've discovered that login, sudo, gdm only take care of the first 8
characters of the passwd. The following characters don't count. See the
following example (I've created a new user just to make the test)
$$ adduser test
Adding user test...
Adding new group test (1006).
Adding new user test (1006
I'm a little confused as to how/when I should upgrade my kernel. I'm not
subscribed to this list a present, so please include me in the cc.
I've seen several of the security annoucements concerning new/patched
versions of several of the Linux kernels, but I'm seldom sure if it
applies to me. apt
I'm a little confused as to how/when I should upgrade my kernel. I'm not
subscribed to this list a present, so please include me in the cc.
I've seen several of the security annoucements concerning new/patched
versions of several of the Linux kernels, but I'm seldom sure if it
applies to me. apt
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:28:08 -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> ... but on a second thought: how do I find this information out ion my own
> and what does "SMP" stand for?
>
The kernel image will install the .config file it was compiled with in
/boot as config-. This file will tell you what was
Le 12390ième jour après Epoch,
Bradley Alexander écrivait:
> I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank everyone in the Debian
> community for their hard work on the cleanup and forensic analysis of the
> recent system compromise.
I'm joining you to thanks everyone too. More than great job !
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:28:08 -0800, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> ... but on a second thought: how do I find this information out ion my own
> and what does "SMP" stand for?
>
The kernel image will install the .config file it was compiled with in
/boot as config-. This file will tell you what was
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:57:29PM +0100, Adam ENDRODI ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:46:51AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:31:29PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Riku Valli wr
Le 12390ième jour après Epoch,
Bradley Alexander écrivait:
> I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank everyone in the Debian
> community for their hard work on the cleanup and forensic analysis of the
> recent system compromise.
I'm joining you to thanks everyone too. More than great job !
on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:57:29PM +0100, Adam ENDRODI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:46:51AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:31:29PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:21:57PM +0200, Riku Valli wrote:
>
Hi,
I didn't find /usr/share/kernel-image-2.4.18-bf.2.4/ also there isn't
any kernel image folder on my machine (?) So i forget all other things
and installed bf2.4 again (apt-get update && apt-get install
kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4) Everything went fine. I were asked just a few
questions, that's al
Hi,
I didn't find /usr/share/kernel-image-2.4.18-bf.2.4/ also there isn't
any kernel image folder on my machine (?) So i forget all other things
and installed bf2.4 again (apt-get update && apt-get install
kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4) Everything went fine. I were asked just a few
questions, that's al
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:51:38 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
> to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the new kernel.
>
There is one thing to be careful about - some drivers might be
compiled into bf2.4 kerne
* E&Erdem wrote:
> I have not upgraded kernel before this. What will be my
> configurations? For example my old modules (sound, eth, USB,
> iptables etc.) will been changed?
They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:51:38 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
> to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the new kernel.
>
There is one thing to be careful about - some drivers might be
compiled into bf2.4 kerne
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:41:37AM +0100, mi wrote:
Was it suckit which made the kernel oops ? Does suckit cause oopses on
2.4.21, 2.4.22 immediateley when running ?
Not necessarily.
Mike Stone
* E&Erdem wrote:
> I have not upgraded kernel before this. What will be my
> configurations? For example my old modules (sound, eth, USB,
> iptables etc.) will been changed?
They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:47:53AM +0100, Matthias Faulstich wrote:
> Having the kernel-souces, knowledge about make-kpkg and a propper
> working .config for a previously kernel is one thing, but having a debian
> patched kernel (or kernel-sources) is a second.
> E.g. cramfs for initrd still doe
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:41:37AM +0100, mi wrote:
Was it suckit which made the kernel oops ? Does suckit cause oopses on
2.4.21, 2.4.22 immediateley when running ?
Not necessarily.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Hi,
I use 2.4.28-bf2.4, and i want to change it to
kernel-image-2.4.18-1-386_2.4.18-12_i386.deb for new security upgrade,
but this will be first time for me. I have not upgraded kernel before
this. What will be my configurations? For example my old modules (sound,
eth, USB, iptables etc.) will been
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:47:53AM +0100, Matthias Faulstich wrote:
> Having the kernel-souces, knowledge about make-kpkg and a propper
> working .config for a previously kernel is one thing, but having a debian
> patched kernel (or kernel-sources) is a second.
> E.g. cramfs for initrd still doe
Hi,
I use 2.4.28-bf2.4, and i want to change it to
kernel-image-2.4.18-1-386_2.4.18-12_i386.deb for new security upgrade,
but this will be first time for me. I have not upgraded kernel before
this. What will be my configurations? For example my old modules (sound,
eth, USB, iptables etc.) will been
hi,
i only read the story on wiggynet.
So i'm probably not 'up to date'.
I just hope a little grain in my questions maybe helpful.
I'll join the list for some days now.
Was it suckit which made the kernel oops ? Does suckit cause oopses on
2.4.21, 2.4.22 immediateley when running ?
Murphy was the
[On 04 Dec, @07:24, Paul wrote in "Re: chkrootkit and linux 2.6 ..."]
>I see this same behavior with 2.6.0-test8. Chkrookit comes up with 42
>processes possibly caused by LKM rootkit. I would have 69 processes
>running with 42 of them owned by root. When I boot back to 2.4.23, it
>
I see this same behavior with 2.6.0-test8. Chkrookit comes up with 42 processes possibly caused by LKM rootkit. I would have 69 processes running with 42 of them owned by root. When I boot back to 2.4.23, it comes up with the 4 mentioned in the bug. I'm no Linux master by any means, but I'm
hi,
i only read the story on wiggynet.
So i'm probably not 'up to date'.
I just hope a little grain in my questions maybe helpful.
I'll join the list for some days now.
Was it suckit which made the kernel oops ? Does suckit cause oopses on
2.4.21, 2.4.22 immediateley when running ?
Murphy was the f
Am Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2003 21:26 schrieb Kjetil Kjernsmo :
> On Wednesday 03 December 2003 20:57, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > You may wish to look at the make-kpkg(kernel-package) package. It
> > takes your stock 2.4.23 source and makes it into a nice .deb file for
> > you.
> >
> > Note: This
peace bwitchu wrote:
> Well the thing about Debian kernel source is they
> incorporate more than just security patches into their
> source.
How do I find out which patches exactly are compiled in the Debian
kernel source? Thanks,
Phil
[On 04 Dec, @07:24, Paul wrote in "Re: chkrootkit and linux 2.6 ..."]
>I see this same behavior with 2.6.0-test8. Chkrookit comes up with 42
>processes possibly caused by LKM rootkit. I would have 69 processes
>running with 42 of them owned by root. When I boot back to 2.4.23, it
>
I see this same behavior with 2.6.0-test8. Chkrookit comes up with 42 processes possibly caused by LKM rootkit. I would have 69 processes running with 42 of them owned by root. When I boot back to 2.4.23, it comes up with the 4 mentioned in the bug. I'm no Linux master by any means, but I'm
Am Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2003 21:26 schrieb Kjetil Kjernsmo :
> On Wednesday 03 December 2003 20:57, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > You may wish to look at the make-kpkg(kernel-package) package. It
> > takes your stock 2.4.23 source and makes it into a nice .deb file for
> > you.
> >
> > Note: This
48 matches
Mail list logo
