On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:40:13AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:50, Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems like they should be 660, not 600, as I suggested (wall(1) and
> > talkd(1) would break otherwise, probably).
>
> What prevents wall from sending those escap
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:18:41AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 07:51:27PM +0200, Jan Minar wrote:
> >
> > > Come on, Matt: Virtually all terminal emulators are vulnerable, and the
> > > vulnerability is a common knowledge. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"(B
$B$*FI$_D:$-!"$"$j$,$H$&$4$6$$$^$9!#(B
$B!~K\%a%k%^%,$NG[?.ITMW!"$^$?$OEPO?$7$?3P$($N$J$$>l9g$O(B
$B!!0lHV2<$N!z!z!z!!:#F|$NE75$M=Js!!!z!z!z(B
$B$H(,KhD+8+$l$k!*!!A49q$N$*E75$(,!!(B
$B!!$N4V$K$"$k%"%I%l%9$G2r=|$5$;$FD:$-$^$9!#!!(B
$B(,(,(,(,(,(,
[Matthew, Colin - I suspect you're on debian-security anyway. If so, no
need to reply off-list; I just wanted to make sure you see this, since
I considered filing a bug about this.]
Hi,
Package: ssh
Version: 1:3.8p1-3
Tags: bug-not-filed
I have a cople of issues with UsePam in ssh.
First, it
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> [Matthew, Colin - I suspect you're on debian-security anyway. If so, no
> need to reply off-list; I just wanted to make sure you see this, since
> I considered filing a bug about this.]
>
> Hi,
>
> Package: ssh
> Version: 1:3.8p1-3
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 14.24, Giacomo Mulas wrote:
> > First, it seems to always enable PasswordAuthentication. All my
> > systems have 'PasswordAuthentication no' and 'PubkeyAuthentication
> > yes', so I was very surprised when I was prompted for a password
> > trying to login to one of the sys
Hi!
Am Dienstag, 20. April 2004 15:27 schrieb Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder:
> So, to rephrase the question, is
> there a way to have PAM set up my session (specifically, pam_env)
> without allowing users to log in with their password?
I think you can do this by removing a line in /etc/pa
Title: sunday
Re-finance now, even with bad-credit!
- Best Re-fi.nance Rate for cre.dit challenged.
- Best Customer Service
- Lo.west-int.erest-rates in years
- Sa.ve $100-$400 per month
Our easy application only takes 1 minutes.
--
To modify your future
is there a type of listening bug that can be put on a person to here every thing said
Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ... appologies
for the post's data-mining ... I'm still looking for other references.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27403-2004Apr20.html
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:29:34PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ... appologies
> for the post's data-mining ... I'm still looking for other references.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27403-2004Apr20.html
Since t
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ...
It's just TCP sequence number/RST stuff:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.bugtraq/11208>
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 14:29:34 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> Has anyone heard about this?
Hmm... from the subject it sounds like it might be OSVDB ID: 4030
"TCP Reset Spoofing",
http://www.osvdb.org/displayvuln.php?osvdb_id=4030
aka CAN-2004-0230
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-
- Forwarded message from David Ahmad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:39:02 -0600
From: David Ahmad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: NISCC Vulnerability Advisory 236929: Vulnerability Issues in TCP
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezm
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 at 02:49:48PM -0400, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:
> Since the article is for subscribers only, this is a "wild" guess:
> http://www.uniras.gov.uk/vuls/2004/236929/index.htm
This article isn't anything I am going to loose sleep over. Any mission
critical long term TCP connections over
CERT has issued a vulnerability email.
They seem to think it's a little more serious
8><
Technical Cyber Security Alert TA04-111A archive
Vulnerabilities in TCP
Original release date: April 20, 2004
Last revised: --
Source: US-CERT
Systems Affected
* Systems that re
Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This article isn't anything I am going to loose sleep over. Any mission
> critical long term TCP connections over an untrusted network (The
> Internet) should already be using IPSec.
Core routers usually don't have the CPU power to run IPsec (yes,
Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
have [ TCP Header | encrypted([TCP HEADER | TCP DATA]) ] that you could
still kill.
St
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:37:50PM -0700, Steve Ramage wrote:
> Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
> kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
> it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
> have [ TCP Header
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 at 06:37:50PM -0400, Steve Ramage wrote:
> Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
> kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
> it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
> have [ TCP Header
Title: Réponse automatique d'absence du bureau : Failure
ABSENTE JUSQU'AU 26 AVRIL AU MATIN, EN CAS D'URGENCE, MERCI DE CONTACTER SEBASTIEN GEORGES AU 01.39.24.10.79 OU PASCAL GUENOT AU 01.39.24.10.78
A BIENTOT !
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:18:41AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 07:51:27PM +0200, Jan Minar wrote:
> >
> > > Come on, Matt: Virtually all terminal emulators are vulnerable, and the
> > > vulnerability is a common knowledge. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"(B
$B$*FI$_D:$-!"$"$j$,$H$&$4$6$$$^$9!#(B
$B!~K\%a%k%^%,$NG[?.ITMW!"$^$?$OEPO?$7$?3P$($N$J$$>l9g$O(B
$B!!0lHV2<$N!z!z!z!!:#F|$NE75$M=Js!!!z!z!z(B
$B$H(,KhD+8+$l$k!*!!A49q$N$*E75$(,!!(B
$B!!$N4V$K$"$k%"%I%l%9$G2r=|$5$;$FD:$-$^$9!#!!(B
$B(,(,(,(,(,(,
[Matthew, Colin - I suspect you're on debian-security anyway. If so, no
need to reply off-list; I just wanted to make sure you see this, since
I considered filing a bug about this.]
Hi,
Package: ssh
Version: 1:3.8p1-3
Tags: bug-not-filed
I have a cople of issues with UsePam in ssh.
First, it
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> [Matthew, Colin - I suspect you're on debian-security anyway. If so, no
> need to reply off-list; I just wanted to make sure you see this, since
> I considered filing a bug about this.]
>
> Hi,
>
> Package: ssh
> Version: 1:3.8p1-3
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 14.24, Giacomo Mulas wrote:
> > First, it seems to always enable PasswordAuthentication. All my
> > systems have 'PasswordAuthentication no' and 'PubkeyAuthentication
> > yes', so I was very surprised when I was prompted for a password
> > trying to login to one of the sys
Hi!
Am Dienstag, 20. April 2004 15:27 schrieb Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder:
> So, to rephrase the question, is
> there a way to have PAM set up my session (specifically, pam_env)
> without allowing users to log in with their password?
I think you can do this by removing a line in /etc/pa
Title: sunday
Re-finance now, even with bad-credit!
- Best Re-fi.nance Rate for cre.dit challenged.
- Best Customer Service
- Lo.west-int.erest-rates in years
- Sa.ve $100-$400 per month
Our easy application only takes 1 minutes.
--
To modify your future
is there a type of listening bug that can be put on a person to here every thing said
Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ... appologies
for the post's data-mining ... I'm still looking for other references.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27403-2004Apr20.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:29:34PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ... appologies
> for the post's data-mining ... I'm still looking for other references.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27403-2004Apr20.html
Since t
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone heard about this? this article has no details ...
It's just TCP sequence number/RST stuff:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.bugtraq/11208>
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 14:29:34 -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> Has anyone heard about this?
Hmm... from the subject it sounds like it might be OSVDB ID: 4030
"TCP Reset Spoofing",
http://www.osvdb.org/displayvuln.php?osvdb_id=4030
aka CAN-2004-0230
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-
- Forwarded message from David Ahmad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:39:02 -0600
From: David Ahmad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NISCC Vulnerability Advisory 236929: Vulnerability Issues in TCP
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
User-
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 at 02:49:48PM -0400, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:
> Since the article is for subscribers only, this is a "wild" guess:
> http://www.uniras.gov.uk/vuls/2004/236929/index.htm
This article isn't anything I am going to loose sleep over. Any mission
critical long term TCP connections over
CERT has issued a vulnerability email.
They seem to think it's a little more serious
8><
Technical Cyber Security Alert TA04-111A archive
Vulnerabilities in TCP
Original release date: April 20, 2004
Last revised: --
Source: US-CERT
Systems Affected
* Systems that re
Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This article isn't anything I am going to loose sleep over. Any mission
> critical long term TCP connections over an untrusted network (The
> Internet) should already be using IPSec.
Core routers usually don't have the CPU power to run IPsec (yes,
Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
have [ TCP Header | encrypted([TCP HEADER | TCP DATA]) ] that you could
still kill.
St
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:37:50PM -0700, Steve Ramage wrote:
> Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
> kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
> it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
> have [ TCP Header
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 at 06:37:50PM -0400, Steve Ramage wrote:
> Stupid Question, I don't understand how IPSec is secure. Can't you just
> kill the IPSec connection, or is IPSec connectionless? As I understand
> it you have [TCP HEADER | TCP DATA ] in a TCP Packet. With Ipsec you
> have [ TCP Header
Title: Réponse automatique d'absence du bureau : Failure
ABSENTE JUSQU'AU 26 AVRIL AU MATIN, EN CAS D'URGENCE, MERCI DE CONTACTER SEBASTIEN GEORGES AU 01.39.24.10.79 OU PASCAL GUENOT AU 01.39.24.10.78
A BIENTOT !
Le mardi 20 avril 2004 Ã 12h24 (-0400), [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ãcrivait :
> is there a type of listening bug that can be put on a person to here
> every thing said
If you have some microphone plugged in and somebody has access to your
machine, with rights to read /dev/dsp (or any audio input type devic
42 matches
Mail list logo
