* Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On mer, 2004-08-04 at 19:10 -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > For the unstable distribution (sid), these problems will be fixed
> > soon.
>
> I've just uploaded fixed packages for unstable; however I've noticed
> mozilla still crashes on the crafted PNG provided by Chris
* Matthias Westphal wrote:
> 2) why wasnt firefox 1.04 removed off the package list immediately
> if the problem couldnt be fixed in time ?
Read this thread again.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Paul Gear wrote:
> Sam Morris wrote:
> > I'm attaching a diff against mozilla-firefox_1.0.6-1.diff that
> > makes Firefox 1.0.6 build on Sarge.
>
> I've been trying to build Firefox 1.06 based on the current unstable
> sources (1.0.6-3 instead of 1.0.6-1), but i'm not sure where your
> patch sho
* Mathieu JANIN wrote:
> I detected some unexpected incoming traffic from klecker.debian.org
> (ports TCP 4672, 4668), and source.rfc822.org (port TCP 1794), all
> coming from port 80 at 12:17 yesterday.
>
> I was updating my system at that time, but klecker.debian.org is not
> in my sources (or pe
* Martin Schulze wrote:
> A bug in gallery has been discoverd that grants all registrated
> postnuke users full access to the gallery.
Huh?
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Unfortunatly it is not possibel to open two instances of mozilla.
You can run multiple instances of mozilla using different profiles.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Matteo Moro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Laurent Tickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] a patch who work on Kernel 2.2.X and 2.4.X ;)
>
> It's 2.4.20 only... :-P
That bug was the reason why 2.2.25 was released.
* Federico Lazcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, i'm using the official kernel 2.4.21, and I've patched it with the
> following
>
> + IPSEC patch from Debian
> + patch-omatic H.323 patch from www.netfilter.org
> + grsecurity patch para kernel 2.4.21
>
> Anyone knows conflicts or problems?
Dep
* Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 at 12:58:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:13:35 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > > Will Bind9 in stable get the delegation-only patch?
> >
> > Probably not. Stable only gets updated for secur
I've upgraded to bind 9.2.3rc4 because of that new delegation-only
feature, and I noticed that bind is opening a new udp port.
,
| udp0 0 0.0.0.0:43338 0.0.0.0:*
22720/named
`
This is new, and didn't happen with 9.2.2. If I restart named,
* Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norbert Tretkowski said on Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:34:16PM +0200:
> > I've upgraded to bind 9.2.3rc4 because of that new delegation-only
> > feature, and I noticed that bind is opening a new udp port.
> >
> > ,
* Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> BIND binds to a socket for outgoing querys. But he already did that in
> 9.2.2 (at least he does here).
Looks like BIND doesn't open a socket for outgoing queries when it's
running only as a forwarder.
--
- nobse
* Thomas Sjögren wrote:
[...]
> Server security mishap - you think?!
http://luonnotar.infodrom.org/~joey/debian-announce.txt
--
- nobse
* E&Erdem wrote:
> I have not upgraded kernel before this. What will be my
> configurations? For example my old modules (sound, eth, USB,
> iptables etc.) will been changed?
They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the
* Markus Schabel wrote:
> Does anybody know of these samba packages?
>
> http://ftp.cvut.cz/samba/samba-latest.tar.gz
>
> AFAICS they are faked and contain some kind of rootkit (you can see
> this in the history below. the server this history is from is taken
> offline for security reasons, and n
* Raffaele D'Elia wrote:
> This antivirus should protect web clients, not the proxy itself: I'm
> quite sure I've already protected the server choosing debian...
Try mod_clamav, it's a apache2 module, and it works quite well here.
The only bad news is that there's currently no Debian package for
* Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
> > including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
>
> Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know that the backports.org
> mozilla package
* Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> Can I put in version something like libselinux1_1.6-0.1-bp.mps_i386.deb
> instead of libselinux1_1.6-0.1_i386.deb?
Well, if 1.6-0.1 will be in our next stable release, your backport
will not be replaced with the version from stable.
I'd suggest using libselinux1_1.6-0.0
* Matteo Moro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Laurent Tickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] a patch who work on Kernel 2.2.X and 2.4.X ;)
>
> It's 2.4.20 only... :-P
That bug was the reason why 2.2.25 was released.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
* Federico Lazcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, i'm using the official kernel 2.4.21, and I've patched it with the
> following
>
> + IPSEC patch from Debian
> + patch-omatic H.323 patch from www.netfilter.org
> + grsecurity patch para kernel 2.4.21
>
> Anyone knows conflicts or problems?
Dep
* Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 at 12:58:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:13:35 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > > Will Bind9 in stable get the delegation-only patch?
> >
> > Probably not. Stable only gets updated for secur
I've upgraded to bind 9.2.3rc4 because of that new delegation-only
feature, and I noticed that bind is opening a new udp port.
,
| udp0 0 0.0.0.0:43338 0.0.0.0:*
22720/named
`
This is new, and didn't happen with 9.2.2. If I restart named,
* Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norbert Tretkowski said on Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:34:16PM +0200:
> > I've upgraded to bind 9.2.3rc4 because of that new delegation-only
> > feature, and I noticed that bind is opening a new udp port.
> >
> > ,
* Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> BIND binds to a socket for outgoing querys. But he already did that in
> 9.2.2 (at least he does here).
Looks like BIND doesn't open a socket for outgoing queries when it's
running only as a forwarder.
--
- nobse
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
* Thomas Sjögren wrote:
[...]
> Server security mishap - you think?!
http://luonnotar.infodrom.org/~joey/debian-announce.txt
--
- nobse
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* E&Erdem wrote:
> I have not upgraded kernel before this. What will be my
> configurations? For example my old modules (sound, eth, USB,
> iptables etc.) will been changed?
They are still available with the new kernel. If you have added them
to /etc/modules they will be loaded while booting the
* Markus Schabel wrote:
> Does anybody know of these samba packages?
>
> http://ftp.cvut.cz/samba/samba-latest.tar.gz
>
> AFAICS they are faked and contain some kind of rootkit (you can see
> this in the history below. the server this history is from is taken
> offline for security reasons, and n
* Raffaele D'Elia wrote:
> This antivirus should protect web clients, not the proxy itself: I'm
> quite sure I've already protected the server choosing debian...
Try mod_clamav, it's a apache2 module, and it works quite well here.
The only bad news is that there's currently no Debian package for
* Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> > Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
> > including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
>
> Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know that the backports.org
> mozilla package
* Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> Can I put in version something like libselinux1_1.6-0.1-bp.mps_i386.deb
> instead of libselinux1_1.6-0.1_i386.deb?
Well, if 1.6-0.1 will be in our next stable release, your backport
will not be replaced with the version from stable.
I'd suggest using libselinux1_1.6-0.0
* Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-01-29 14:45:37, schrieb Harald Krammer:
> > You are right, but why is the kernel image from woody not up-to
> > date ?
>
> There are Security Updates for kernel 2.4.18
The last update for kernel-source-2.4.18 in stable was in April 2004.
Norbert
--
To UNSUB
* Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There will be no new version of 2.4.XX
Wrong.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Martin Schulze wrote:
> For the unstable distribution (sid) these problems have been fixed
> in version 1.12.9-11.
This should be 1.12.9-12, which was never uploaded (-13 was uploaded
today).
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:08:10 +0200 schrieb Jan Christoph Ebersbach:
> I was looking at the security issues regarding the mysql-server and I'm
> wondering why CVE-2007-6303 does not seem to be fixed in Debian but in
> all other major distributions.
Fixed since 5.0.45-5, 5.0.32 from etch was not aff
Am Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:24:24 +0100 schrieb Janosch Siller:
> sorry but i did not find any information if the MySQL Bug #21074 (Large
> query_cache freezes mysql server sporadically under heavy load) is fixed
> in 5.0.32-7etch8 .
> Can anybody please confirm if this is fixed or not?
It's not fixed
* Juha Jäykkä wrote:
> I have a woody which would need slrn removed if woody's newest
> version (that is, 0.9.7.2-4) is vulnerable.
Use 0.9.7.2-6 from unstable.
pgpsG51eOWdLu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
36 matches
Mail list logo
