On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:06:41AM -0600, Michael Scott Shappe wrote:
> MacOS up through 9.x is arguably more secure *out of the box* for the same
> reason that Windows9x is secure *out of the box* -- there's no network
> listener running as a matter of course on such a system, and no provision
> w
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:58:27AM -0500, Steve Rudd wrote:
> I have been told by a "Mac-head" that the Mac is the most secure server and
> that it is significantly more secure than any unix system, including Linux.
>
> Any comments
:-}
Try this:
# nmap -sU -p 1-65535 name.of.idiots.mac
And
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 11:06:41AM -0600, Michael Scott Shappe wrote:
> MacOS up through 9.x is arguably more secure *out of the box* for the same
> reason that Windows9x is secure *out of the box* -- there's no network
> listener running as a matter of course on such a system, and no provision
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:58:27AM -0500, Steve Rudd wrote:
> I have been told by a "Mac-head" that the Mac is the most secure server and
> that it is significantly more secure than any unix system, including Linux.
>
> Any comments
:-}
Try this:
# nmap -sU -p 1-65535 name.of.idiots.mac
An
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 08:25:00PM -0600, Jordan Bettis wrote:
> But I should not be responsible if I scan someone who's system is so flaky
> that it can't take the scan.
True, and I heartily agree with you. Unfortunately, there are people
who don't see it that way, and might be able to c
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:50:48AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> This is a subject of debate in security circles. Some believe that
> portscanning is an indication of malicious intent and should be treated
> as such.
Some people who fall into the above category would be those whose
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 08:25:00PM -0600, Jordan Bettis wrote:
> But I should not be responsible if I scan someone who's system is so flaky
> that it can't take the scan.
True, and I heartily agree with you. Unfortunately, there are people
who don't see it that way, and might be able to
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:50:48AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> This is a subject of debate in security circles. Some believe that
> portscanning is an indication of malicious intent and should be treated
> as such.
Some people who fall into the above category would be those whose
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:39:40AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > Actually let me chime in at this point and say that personally I'd
> > probably prefer non-developers auditing. If you adopt code as an auditor,
> > you lose the objectivity to be able to junk bad code relatively
> > quickly...
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:39:40AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > Actually let me chime in at this point and say that personally I'd
> > probably prefer non-developers auditing. If you adopt code as an auditor,
> > you lose the objectivity to be able to junk bad code relatively
> > quickly...
Does anyone know of any very trimmed down MTA that all it does is
forward mail to a smarthost/central mailhost? i want something that doesn't
even sit on port 25, and unfortunately even when i configure exim in
"satellite" mode, it still keeps port 25 open.
Does anyone know of any very trimmed down MTA that all it does is
forward mail to a smarthost/central mailhost? i want something that doesn't
even sit on port 25, and unfortunately even when i configure exim in
"satellite" mode, it still keeps port 25 open.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> I thought about unplugging the reset button and power switches, but it's
> tough to hit them accidentally and if someone wanted the system down,
> they'd pull the plug out of the back. I like having the ability to
> reset bec
On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:24:55PM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> I thought about unplugging the reset button and power switches, but it's
> tough to hit them accidentally and if someone wanted the system down,
> they'd pull the plug out of the back. I like having the ability to
> reset be
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 08:55:10AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Thor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard
> to say:
> ..unless, of course, the machine's owner has disabled floppy boots..in which
> case, you have to open the thing up and reset the BIOS; if the
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 08:55:10AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Thor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to
>say:
> ..unless, of course, the machine's owner has disabled floppy boots..in which
> case, you have to open the thing up and reset the BIOS; if the
his whole network using LDAP, and Samba already has
support (according to a previous email I saw on this list), but he
needed a solution for his Macs as well. I don't have his email
here (he contacted me at work).
Nathan Paul Simons
http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons/
et his whole network using LDAP, and Samba already has
support (according to a previous email I saw on this list), but he
needed a solution for his Macs as well. I don't have his email
here (he contacted me at work).
Nathan Paul Simons
http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/urandom`&
for a better efect start it several times :-))
This can be done be any regular user !
- ----- End forwarded message -
Nathan Paul Simons
http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBONxCzFegz5xsV
h brings me to a question:
At work, i've scanned most of our major Linux servers with the
above nmap command and found something open on port 800. nmap says it's
called mdbs_daemon, but i can't find it being used anywhere in lsof
or listed in /etc/services. Does anyone know
ays to, but
very few people use that, on either end (user or programmer). It might be
a good idea to put them in a subdirectory owned by the user, say
/tmp/.${USER}/ORBit, or, like you say in their home directory, say
~/.orbit.
Nathan Paul Simons
http://www.nmt.edu/~npsimons/
21 matches
Mail list logo
