On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:09:59 +0100
Albert Cervera Areny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it isn't really that the hole system runs 8% slower. Sorry for my
> first explanation... Now I think it is an overhead which is afordable
> seeing its benefits.
For your purposes, anyways.
As has been said, thi
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:40:51 +0100
Vincent Hanquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> this message is syslog-ng notice message, which tell you it hasn't
> drop any /dev/log packets.
> (this feature seem not connected as far as I can see)
>
> You can rid of this message with something like th
On Thu Mar 20, 11:27pm -0800, Josh Carroll wrote:
> In general, I don't use -REJECT unless I'm worried
> about being polite. And in most circumstances,
> politeness isn't my goal ;)
Just to throw in my two cents, for each ten million people that don't
care, you've made one admin cry.
:)
pgp1wyy
On Sat Mar 22, 12:01pm -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
> firewall runs
> whois server - gwhois or jwhois?
No comment, I don't run any WHOIS servers.
> iptables - firewall
iptables is fine, if you set it up properly.
> bind9 - for external dns
>
Also fine, if you se
On Thu, 1 May 2003 18:34:17 +1000
Joshua Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More debianish would be some kind of additional dependency analyser
> that would restart afflicated daemons on your behalf.
/usr/bin/checkrestart in debian-goodies :)
pgpwg3HQTonYM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 25 May 2003 13:04:30 -0500
Jayson Vantuyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have no idea how he's getting in, but we've got his rootkit fairly
> nailed down (he uses a few slightly different ones).
Good god man! Include them in your post. There may be a new, unknown
vulnerability. Not to men
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0400
Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last 4-5 days we have had 8 servers come under attack. We are
> working frantically to keep ahead of these attacks. We have come to the
> conclusion that the SSH in woody is likely vulnerable. Of the 8 servers
> th
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:16:56 -0500
"eyem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I have no idea where to go from here.
> I dont know if it will be just a couple of things to fix up, or if I should
> toast my whole system: major major hasstle)
>
> any help is appreciated
Really, yes, you want to re
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:20:56 +1200 (NZST)
"TiM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if the kiddies only have an exploit that works only on Debian woody,
> they're going to know to target my box.
> Make them work for their information :)
The likelyhood of them even attempting to get that information i
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:09:59 +0100
Albert Cervera Areny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it isn't really that the hole system runs 8% slower. Sorry for my
> first explanation... Now I think it is an overhead which is afordable
> seeing its benefits.
For your purposes, anyways.
As has been said, thi
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:40:51 +0100
Vincent Hanquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> this message is syslog-ng notice message, which tell you it hasn't
> drop any /dev/log packets.
> (this feature seem not connected as far as I can see)
>
> You can rid of this message with something like th
On Thu Mar 20, 11:27pm -0800, Josh Carroll wrote:
> In general, I don't use -REJECT unless I'm worried
> about being polite. And in most circumstances,
> politeness isn't my goal ;)
Just to throw in my two cents, for each ten million people that don't
care, you've made one admin cry.
:)
pgp
On Sat Mar 22, 12:01pm -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
> firewall runs
> whois server - gwhois or jwhois?
No comment, I don't run any WHOIS servers.
> iptables - firewall
iptables is fine, if you set it up properly.
> bind9 - for external dns
>
Also fine, if you se
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0400
Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last 4-5 days we have had 8 servers come under attack. We are
> working frantically to keep ahead of these attacks. We have come to the
> conclusion that the SSH in woody is likely vulnerable. Of the 8 servers
> th
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:16:56 -0500
"eyem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I have no idea where to go from here.
> I dont know if it will be just a couple of things to fix up, or if I should
> toast my whole system: major major hasstle)
>
> any help is appreciated
Really, yes, you want to re
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:20:56 +1200 (NZST)
"TiM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if the kiddies only have an exploit that works only on Debian woody,
> they're going to know to target my box.
> Make them work for their information :)
The likelyhood of them even attempting to get that information i
To quote Steve Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# Well first, I repent of calling Linux 7: Redhat 7. Yes I am new. I
have
# been maintaining my own box from a su level for about 3 months. That
is why
# I was calling in an expert to install Debian tomorrow. It has become
quite
# obvious to me that I am
To quote Steve Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
# Well first, I repent of calling Linux 7: Redhat 7. Yes I am new. I
have
# been maintaining my own box from a su level for about 3 months. That
is why
# I was calling in an expert to install Debian tomorrow. It has become
quite
# obvious to me that I am
Just a quick question :)
I'm pretty new to the list. Is this sort of question generally the type
that's discussed on this list?
Thanks for your time :)
--
.--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=.
/David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \
\Cl
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:38:07 -0500
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty new to the list. Is this sort of question generally the
> type that's discussed on this list?
Thanks for all replies :)
(BTW: keep in mind I subscribe to this list ... the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:02:00 +1300 (NZDT)
Patrick Mackey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edit '/etc/hostname' to reflect the change. Then run:
>
> hostname -F /etc/hostname
>
> That should do it.
You might also want to edit /etc/mailname
--
.--=-=-=-=--=---=-=
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:41:48 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ensured it foolish. fourth, it really just sounds bad. fifth, did i
> say it sounds bad?
I'd just like to take a quite moment to second this.
Security is an attitude, not any single set of procedures. It can't be
"so
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:01:14 +
Lazarus Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is definitely a security risk. There is no reason that such
> information should be exposed to attackers. Just because FreeBSD has
> some lame security practices doesn't mean Debian has to emulate them.
> (If I ran
Just a quick question :)
I'm pretty new to the list. Is this sort of question generally the type
that's discussed on this list?
Thanks for your time :)
--
.--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=.
/David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \
\Cla
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:38:07 -0500
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty new to the list. Is this sort of question generally the
> type that's discussed on this list?
Thanks for all replies :)
(BTW: keep in mind I subscribe to this list ... the
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 02:02:00 +1300 (NZDT)
Patrick Mackey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edit '/etc/hostname' to reflect the change. Then run:
>
> hostname -F /etc/hostname
>
> That should do it.
You might also want to edit /etc/mailname
--
.--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:41:48 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ensured it foolish. fourth, it really just sounds bad. fifth, did i
> say it sounds bad?
I'd just like to take a quite moment to second this.
Security is an attitude, not any single set of procedures. It can't be
"sol
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:01:14 +
Lazarus Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is definitely a security risk. There is no reason that such
> information should be exposed to attackers. Just because FreeBSD has
> some lame security practices doesn't mean Debian has to emulate them.
> (If I ran
This message is just to measure the delay between posting a message to a
Debian list, and having it cached on groups.google.com
Thank you for your patience :)
--
\ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http
the nature of the exploit and the
specifics aren't being told.
However, supposedly, you need to be able to talk to the sshd in order to
exploit it. So if nothing (or nothing malicious) can open a connection,
you're fine.
--
__________
f the
exploit, it seems like the code involved is further on.
I could be wrong, though. :)
--
____________
\ David B. Harris, Systems administrator | http://www.terrabox.com
31 matches
Mail list logo
