Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:15:55 +0200 Tobias Reckhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I.R.van Dongen wrote: > > If the shells are changed, there are some really big consequences, > > but > > Such as? Please share your knowledge. :-) - manually compiled postgresql (user:postgres) expects the user it ru

Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:27:54 +0200 Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 'su -s /bin/bash -c "cmd" user ' > > > > sounds like a very bs argument > Do you understand the term 'breakage' ? > How about the idea that changing something in the system may force to > you to rewrite parts o

Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:15:55 +0200 Tobias Reckhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I.R.van Dongen wrote: > > If the shells are changed, there are some really big consequences, > > but > > Such as? Please share your knowledge. :-) - manually compiled postgresql (user:postgres) expects the user it ru

Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:53:10 +0200 Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a reason why Debian chooses to specify /bin/sh for system > don't know. > > > accounts? Do we risk breaking anything if we perform an > > s/\/bin\/sh$/\/bin\/false/ ? > Yes, you'll run into trouble tr

Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:27:54 +0200 Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 'su -s /bin/bash -c "cmd" user ' > > > > sounds like a very bs argument > Do you understand the term 'breakage' ? > How about the idea that changing something in the system may force to > you to rewrite parts o

Re: Why do system users have valid shells

2003-10-22 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:53:10 +0200 Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a reason why Debian chooses to specify /bin/sh for system > don't know. > > > accounts? Do we risk breaking anything if we perform an > > s/\/bin\/sh$/\/bin\/false/ ? > Yes, you'll run into trouble tr

Re:

2003-04-08 Thread I . R . van Dongen
Seems like a normal portscan, like the one shields up does. On 08 Apr 2003 11:52:50 +0100 Ricardo Sousa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi. I'm getting some alerts in my log files, and i getting worry. > The logs are some like this: > > In /var/log/syslog,i'm getting this: > > Apr 8 01:01:37

Re: iptables and apt-get

2003-03-11 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:20 - "Ian Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All is fine now. Adding the line: > > iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT > > fixes the problem. Does anyone know what this line does? I found this using > an online script generator at htt

Re: iptables and apt-get

2003-03-11 Thread I . R . van Dongen
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:48:20 - "Ian Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All is fine now. Adding the line: > > iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT > > fixes the problem. Does anyone know what this line does? I found this using > an online script generator at htt

Re: iptables and apt-get

2003-03-11 Thread I . R . van Dongen
iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -d /32 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:45:48 - "Ian Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I am setting up iptables on my debain woody box. I have decided to close > everyting and then open up just ssh and ssl. This obviously prevents my >

Re: iptables and apt-get

2003-03-11 Thread I . R . van Dongen
iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -d /32 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:45:48 - "Ian Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I am setting up iptables on my debain woody box. I have decided to close everyting > and then open up just ssh and ssl. This obviously prevents my apt