At 02:54 22/10/2011, Joe Altman wrote:
Greetings...
I was running portupgrade on libxul and noticed it depends on Firefox
3.x. I cancelled the upgrade, because I thought FF3.x was insecure and
therefore deprecated while FF7 was recommended and secure.
My questions:
1) is the dependency libxul
From: Damien Fleuriot :
> > Maybe also I should put this releng9-supfile in a safer place where
> > it won't be deleted by the next installation/upgrade?
> Indeed you should.
> >>From my /etc/make.conf:
> SUP_UPDATE= yes
> SUP=/usr/bin/csup
> SUPFLAGS= -zgL 2
>
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:32:47 +0200, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> As far as i know, the libxul port is inside ff3. Installing libxul
> doesn't install ff3, only libxul. Perhaps it's an old libxul and the
> newr one is inside ff7, so libxul port should point there, don't know that.
I'm not sure if it s
On 22/10/2011 10:22, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> From: Damien Fleuriot :
>>> > >>From my /etc/make.conf:
>> > SUP_UPDATE= yes
>> > SUP=/usr/bin/csup
>> > SUPFLAGS= -zgL 2
>> > SUPHOST=cvsup1.fr.freebsd.org
>> > SUPFILE=/etc/cvsup/stable-supfile
>> > PORTSSUPFILE=
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:29:25 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> The really strange thing is that after I followed all the directions here:
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/sound-setup.html
>
> This command:
>
> cat /dev/random > /dev/dsp
>
> *does* produce quite a bit of
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:45:11 +0200
Polytropon articulated:
> I'm not sure if it still applies, but in earlier Firefox
> version transitions (and the consideration of dependencies)
> some programs depending on libxul would install an outdated
> Firefox version. The solution has been WITH_GECKO=libx
Hello all
FreeBSD odin.thorshammare.org 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #0: Sat Oct 22
10:14:48 CEST 2011 ha...@odin.thorshammare.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ODIN
i386
Firewall PF.
Blocking China and some other related countries in that region.
Disabled ssh root logins
Apparently, I'm un
I am attempting to set up a firewall using IPFW with a stateful
behavior.
While I have investigated how to set up these rules, I have run into
conflicting opinions as to whether to all or deny "established"
behavior.
EXAMPLE: (preceded by a "checkstate" rule)
allow tcp from any to any establishe
El dÃa Saturday, October 22, 2011 a las 03:43:44PM +0200, Admin
ValhallaProjectet escribió:
> Hello all
>
>
>
> FreeBSD odin.thorshammare.org 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #0: Sat Oct 22
> 10:14:48 CEST 2011 ha...@odin.thorshammare.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ODIN
> i386
>
> Firewall PF.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:33 +0200
"Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> [...]
>
> I have tried to follow the suggestion from the comment by modifiying
> the else-statement thus:
>
> } else {
> struct passwd *trgpwd;
> if (!(trgpwd = GETPWNAM(arg->val)))
> errx(EX_DATAERR, "User %s does not e
On 22/10/2011 14:43, Admin ValhallaProjectet wrote:
Apparently, I'm under some kind of attack, for the last 3 days.
Lots of attempts to ssh in as root from many different IP addresses.
No bruteforce attempts.
Appreciate all ideas of how to proceed with this mather.
Keep calm and carry on
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a different port.
Is there _any_ reason why moving from port
On 22 Oct 2011, at 15:12, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
>> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
>> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a differen
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:37:55 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>
> On 22 Oct 2011, at 15:12, Polytropon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
> >> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of '
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] På vegne af Matthias Apitz
Sendt: den 22 oktober 2011 15:59
Til: Admin ValhallaProjectet
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Emne: Re: Breakin attempt
El dÃa Saturday, October 22,
Polytropon wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
>> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
>> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a different port.
>
> Is there _any_ r
"Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:33 +0200
> "Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > I have tried to follow the suggestion from the comment by modifiying
> > the else-statement thus:
> >
> > } else {
> > struct passwd *trgpwd;
> > if (!(trgpwd = GETPWNAM(ar
I'd like to know whether the "power to serve" OS FreeBSD is also capable
of hosting a groupware like OX. I want to build a grupware server and
found OX really nice. Our lab's administration is using OX.
I can't find equivalent software for FreeBSD, but I may lack in the
right termini and so I do no
Thanks for your statement.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:54:49 -0400, Michael Powell wrote:
> One such relatively minor argument might be the use by external entities for
> the ability to connect in a standardized way. Such a client may need to
> connect but has no way of knowing in advance what port t
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] På vegne af Polytropon
Sendt: den 22 oktober 2011 16:13
Til: Bruce Cran
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Emne: Re: Breakin attempt
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:10:44 +0200, Hasse Hansson wrote:
> It don't bother me more than cluttering up my logfiles, but I got curious if
> this
> Attempt was originating from one person.
That's problematic... in many cases, attackers do "hijack"
home PCs or corporate networks to do their "dirty wor
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:12:42 +0200
> From: Polytropon
> Subject: Re: Breakin attempt
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
> > running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
> > at
On 22/10/2011 15:37, Bruce Cran wrote:
> If you run some sort of shell server, or where many people need to
> login using ssh, you'll have a bit of a support problem telling people
> to select the non-default port. Also, some might consider it security
> through obscurity, which is often said to be
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Howard Jones wrote:
> On 22/10/2011 15:37, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > If you run some sort of shell server, or where many people need to
> > login using ssh, you'll have a bit of a support problem telling people
> > to select the non-default port. Also, some mig
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:23:23AM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> Arguements aginst doing so are generally based on the "'security by
> obscurity' is not security" concept.
>
> That argument _is_ 'technically accurate'.
>
> Moving sshd to a non-standard port does _not_ do anything to make the
howdy,
when attempting to build x11/gnome2-power-tools from ports on my
FreeBSD9.0 desktop, the package failed to build spitting out the error
message below: gnome2-power-tools-2.32.1_2 depends on executable:
thefish - not found ===> Verifying install for thefish in
/usr/ports/sysutils/thefi
For at least several weeks, attempts to rebuild emacs from ports fails
with an odd linker error saying it can't find symbols in the termcap
library. I poked around a little, the makefile does include the
appropriate library and adding it again at the end of the line in
the makefile didn't help.
T
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:45:08 +0200
Fabian Keil wrote:
> "Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:33 +0200
> > "Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I have tried to follow the suggestion from the comment by
> > > modifiying the else-statement thus:
> > >
> I'd like to know whether the "power to serve" OS FreeBSD is also capable
of
> hosting a groupware like OX. I want to build a grupware server and found
OX
> really nice. Our lab's administration is using OX.
Googling "open-xchange freebsd" turns up a few circa-2005 tutorials and
quite a bit of di
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:56:12 -0400
Carmel wrote:
> I am attempting to set up a firewall using IPFW with a stateful
> behavior.
>
> While I have investigated how to set up these rules, I have run into
> conflicting opinions as to whether to all or deny "established"
> behavior.
>
> EXAMPLE: (prec
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Polytropon wrote:
> Is there _any_ reason why moving from port 22 to something
> different is _not_ a solution?
>
> Reason why I'm asking: Moving SSH away from its default port
> seems to be a relatively good solution as break-in attempts
> concentrate on default
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:56:12 -0400
Carmel wrote:
> I am attempting to set up a firewall using IPFW with a stateful
> behavior.
>
> While I have investigated how to set up these rules, I have run into
> conflicting opinions as to whether to all or deny "established"
> behavior.
>
> EXAMPLE: (pre
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:54 AM, RW wrote:
> Normally if the rules are stateless you would allow established tcp
> packets, but would deny them with stateful rules. In the latter case,
> established traffic would be passed by the check-state
You need to pay attention to direction as well. Suppo
Polytropon writes:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
>> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
>> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a different port.
>
> Is there _any
On 22/10/2011 17:24, John Levine wrote:
> For at least several weeks, attempts to rebuild emacs from ports fails
> with an odd linker error saying it can't find symbols in the termcap
> library. I poked around a little, the makefile does include the
> appropriate library and adding it again at the
Lowell Gilbert writes:
> Polytropon writes:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:08:50 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote:
>>> I suspect that these sorts of attacks are fairly normal if you're
>>> running ssh on the standard port. I used to have lots of 'break-in
>>> attempts' before I moved the ssh server to a d
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
>
> Similarly, for udp rules, be sure to include the keep-state (but not
> setup) keyword.
>
RIght - if you're just protecting a single host, for example, your
ruleset might be something like
ipfw add 1000 allow ip from any to any via
Actually this looks like fairly normal white noise you can expect on a
public facing ssh server. There are a lot of bots out there, looking for
another box to own. If you're running PF put in something like the
following.
block in quick log from {}
.
.
.
pass in log on $ext_if proto tcp to ($e
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:08:56 -0500
> To: FreeBSD
> Subject: Re: Configuring IPFW
>
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:56:12 -0400
> Carmel wrote:
>
> > I am attempting to set up a firewall using IPFW with a stateful
> > behavior.
> >
> > While I have investigated how to set up these rules, I have ru
> "Lowell" == Lowell Gilbert
> writes:
Lowell> Connecting from behind other people's paranoid firewalls gets difficult
Lowell> on other ports.
That's why mine's on 443. Doubly useful when I want to connect to it
from behind an outbound web proxy. :)
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehen
"Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:45:08 +0200
> Fabian Keil wrote:
>
> > "Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:53:33 +0200
> > > "Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> > > As I stil do not know why the latter variant of my code worked and
> > > the former
On 22/10/2011 16:12, Polytropon wrote:
Is there _any_ reason why moving from port 22 to something
different is _not_ a solution?
Yes
Reason why I'm asking: Moving SSH away from its default port
seems to be a relatively good solution as break-in attempts
concentrate on default ports. So in case
On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Joe Altman wrote:
> Greetings...
>
> I was running portupgrade on libxul and noticed it depends on Firefox
> 3.x. I cancelled the upgrade, because I thought FF3.x was insecure and
> therefore deprecated while FF7 was recommended and secure.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1) i
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 09:28:40PM +0200, Beat G?tzi wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Joe Altman wrote:
> > Greetings...
> >
> > I was running portupgrade on libxul and noticed it depends on Firefox
> > 3.x. I cancelled the upgrade, because I thought FF3.x was insecure and
> > therefore depre
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 06:53:33PM +0200, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
>
> To improve on my C and to learn something about systems programming, I
> have begun to pick out "bite-size bits" from the bin-PRs. Currently, I
> am dispairing about bin/149972, which is about 1) adding error handling
> to pw
In message <20111022125209.9ba97a1f.free...@edvax.de>,
Polytropon wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:29:25 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> The really strange thing is that after I followed all the directions here:
>>
>>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/sound-setup.html
>>
>> T
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:03:27 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I did
> install mplayer and cdparanoia, and then I used the latter to suck some .wav
> files off of one of my old CDs and then used mplayer to play them (which
> worked OK) but I don't see how any of that should have had any effect on
On 10/22/11, b. f. wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
>> After attempting unsuccessfully to update KDE4 via "portmaster", I
>> found a number of errors printed out when using "pkg_version-vIL=".
>>
>> I eventually used "portmanager" to update the KDE4 port successfully;
>> however, I am still receiving the fol
48 matches
Mail list logo
