On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:28:07PM +0200, Benny Kleykens wrote:
> lacking this skill. Obviously few of you would give a rats-ass but Im
> truly considering unsubscribing from this list, this is the second
> lenghty flame-war in less than a month... maybe a moderator is needed to
> keep this mailing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:28:07PM +0200, Benny Kleykens wrote:
> lacking this skill. Obviously few of you would give a rats-ass but Im
> truly considering unsubscribing from this list, this is the second
> lenghty flame-war in less than a month... maybe a moderator is needed to
> keep this mailin
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:18:10PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:33:12AM -0400, Jason Healy wrote:
> > machine. The machine was locked in the server room, so the only
> > people who could get to the root password (and the console) were the
> > people with keys. If you ne
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:18:10PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:33:12AM -0400, Jason Healy wrote:
> > machine. The machine was locked in the server room, so the only
> > people who could get to the root password (and the console) were the
> > people with keys. If you n
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 10:38:20PM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> My questions are, what's the difference between a normal compilation and a
> statically linked one?
>
> Why would you place the C libraries into your chroot tree?
"Normal" means link against shared libraries. In that case, the progr
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 10:38:20PM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> My questions are, what's the difference between a normal compilation and a
> statically linked one?
>
> Why would you place the C libraries into your chroot tree?
"Normal" means link against shared libraries. In that case, the prog
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:36:49PM +0200, Piotr Krukowiecki wrote:
> But what bothers me is where did that file come from?
> 'test' is in shellutils, but '[' is not in any of package files:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LANG=en dpkg -S `which [` `which test`
> dpkg: /usr/bin/[ not found.
> shellutils: /us
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:36:49PM +0200, Piotr Krukowiecki wrote:
> But what bothers me is where did that file come from?
> 'test' is in shellutils, but '[' is not in any of package files:
> piotr@localhost:~$ LANG=en dpkg -S `which [` `which test`
> dpkg: /usr/bin/[ not found.
> shellutils: /usr
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:02:47AM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> be SUID, you're safer without it being SUID). Is there any (sane) way
> of making it so that programs such as passwd, chsh, etc. don't need to
> be SUID?
Not really. Not if you want to ensure that any of the data they can alter
passe
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:02:47AM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
> be SUID, you're safer without it being SUID). Is there any (sane) way
> of making it so that programs such as passwd, chsh, etc. don't need to
> be SUID?
Not really. Not if you want to ensure that any of the data they can alter
pass
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:48:27PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> you know, what I've ment. Debian *distribution* is main and non-US/main
Is that policy or your opinion? Last time I looked, there were still those
pesky other sections on the servers, in the bug system, and so forth.
--
You arguably h
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:48:27PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> you know, what I've ment. Debian *distribution* is main and non-US/main
Is that policy or your opinion? Last time I looked, there were still those
pesky other sections on the servers, in the bug system, and so forth.
--
You arguably
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Debian ought to offer security updates for the stable distribution, but
> > it doesn't. Instead, it is only offering security updates for the
> > packages in the stable distribution. T
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:34:11PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Well, it depends. You can never tidy up a rooted box; the same mentality
> sort of applies all the way down - if you're setting up a box, why worry
> about installing this and uninstalling that, when your original
> installation shouldn'
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Debian ought to offer security updates for the stable distribution, but
> > it doesn't. Instead, it is only offering security updates for the
> > packages in the stable distribution.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:34:11PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Well, it depends. You can never tidy up a rooted box; the same mentality
> sort of applies all the way down - if you're setting up a box, why worry
> about installing this and uninstalling that, when your original
> installation shouldn
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Myriad bugs in bind.
Beaucoup. You meant to say "beaucoup bugs in bind." :-)
Thanks to the team for the prompt action, BTW.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Myriad bugs in bind.
Beaucoup. You meant to say "beaucoup bugs in bind." :-)
Thanks to the team for the prompt action, BTW.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:04:47PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Another option would be to not store the AIDE configuration file anywhere
> that the cracker could see it. Without that configuration file, the
> cracker would have no way to generate a valid, substitute list of
> checksums. Thi
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:04:47PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Another option would be to not store the AIDE configuration file anywhere
> that the cracker could see it. Without that configuration file, the
> cracker would have no way to generate a valid, substitute list of
> checksums. Th
20 matches
Mail list logo
