run "lsof -i -P" and you will see what process(es) is/are bound to the
open port(s).
On 24 Jul 2002, Crawford Rainwater wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I was experimenting with Portsentry for the first time in a while,
> using nmap to help scan for the open ports on a beta test box (Debian
> 3.0 upgraded).
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I couldn't agree more. Will there be an official announcement on this
list about how long you will be supporting potato?
-Original Message-
From: martin f krafft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:08 AM
To: 'debian-security@lists.debian.org'
Subject: Re: Support
Previously Jens Hafner wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. Will there be an official announcement on this
> list about how long you will be supporting potato?
This week I hope. First we need to sort out a few technical issues
related to the woody release.
Wichert.
--
_
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 at 22:47:32 +, Crawford Rainwater wrote:
>
> I was experimenting with Portsentry for the first time in a while,
> using nmap to help scan for the open ports on a beta test box (Debian
> 3.0 upgraded).
>
> What I noticed beforehand, ports were closed beyond 1024 (did
> nma
On 25.07.2002 0:47 Uhr thou speakest, Crawford Rainwater these words:
[..cut portsentry descr..]
Hi!
well, this is the way portsentry works: it "opens" the ports to the outside,
but is the only daemon behind listening to the ports. And if something
"naughty" (in portsentry's opinion) is going on
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Quoting Zelko Slamaj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> What I realized is:
> .) 'till now it is safe to leave it that way but
> .) those kiddies scan your computer and think that these ports _are_ indeed
> open, so you have more attack-tries, which results in longer log-files and
> longer ip-chains.
Plus
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:03:44PM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> All,
>
> I am doing a college Honor's project on different distributions. Data on
> Debian and it's security fixes would be helpful if it is available. I would
> be looking for anythings useful in particular, the following:
>
unsubscribe
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved -
Click
Here
Hi Ralf!
> 2. chroot everything
> just chroot the users at the login after ssh (if you want to allow ssh),
How can chroot a user who logs in via ssh? Do you have some links about
this?
--
Sebastian Schinzel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
Quoting Sebastian Schinzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Ralf!
>
> > 2. chroot everything
> > just chroot the users at the login after ssh (if you want to allow ssh),
>
> How can chroot a user who logs in via ssh? Do you have some links about
> this?
> --
> Sebastian Schinzel
>
http://tjw.org/chr
Hello all,
I'm looking at re-arranging my network, which currently consists of an
ipmasq box with 3 nics, one going to the outside, one going to a DMZ,
and one going to an internal network. The masq box allows a few
services into machines in the DMZ, restricts the DMZ from getting
outside except
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:07:19PM -0500, Dast wrote:
> So my question is, is it safer to host the NFS from the DMZ and
> mount remotely on machines in the internal network, or host the NFS
> from a machine on the internal network and remotely mount in the
> DMZ? Or does it matter?
I suppose it
Mike Renfro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:07:19PM -0500, Dast wrote:
>
> > So my question is, is it safer to host the NFS from the DMZ and
> > mount remotely on machines in the internal network, or host the NFS
> > from a machine on the internal network and remotely mou
On Thursday, 2002-07-25 at 14:51:09 -0500, Dast wrote:
> Mike Renfro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:07:19PM -0500, Dast wrote:
> > > So my question is, is it safer to host the NFS from the DMZ and
> > > mount remotely on machines in the internal network, or host the NF
Quoting Dast ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> My problem is, I need to have a network mount shared between a machine
> in the DMZ ("untrusted") and machines in the internal network.
> Hosting NFS on the ipmasq box is not an option for me.
Any chance you could use AFS or SFS for this, instead? As Mike Ren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lupe Christoph) writes:
> If you don't have realtime requirements, you could rsync between
> the two machines.
The amount of data is many gigabytes, so I don't want to duplicate
things and use twice the disk space. Otherwise that would be a fine
solution.
--
--Dast
"Practi
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any chance you could use AFS or SFS for this, instead? As Mike Renfro
> points out, you're creating an intermachine dependency between the
> bastion host and the inside machine no matter how you do it, but at
> least, with those, the mount and resource-a
Quoting Dast ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hmm, I'll look into those filesystems. Are they supported in stock
> Debian kernels and userland tools or do they require extra patches?
I have no idea about Debian packaging.
For SFS of Linux, you'll need your Linux system to have a kernel with
NFSv3 support
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Hmm, I'll look into those filesystems. Are they supported in stock
> > Debian kernels and userland tools or do they require extra patches?
>
> I have no idea about Debian packaging.
>
> For SFS of Linux, you'll need your Linux syste
21 matches
Mail list logo
