Dear FreeBSD friends,
Is this behavior, related to dhclient and /etc/resolv.conf.sav, FreeBSD
specific or is it a general feature of dhclient? I might have a use for
it on my debian linux laptop.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:57:41AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:52:35AM +0
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm attempting quad-boot my notebook with STABLE and CURRENT, both
>> i386 and AMD64. I installed them manually by booting f
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Carlos A. M. dos Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm attempting quad-boot my notebook with STABLE and CURRENT, both
> i386 and AMD64. I installed them manually by booting from a thumb
> drive, partitioning the hard disk and extracting the distribution
Hello,
I'm attempting quad-boot my notebook with STABLE and CURRENT, both
i386 and AMD64. I installed them manually by booting from a thumb
drive, partitioning the hard disk and extracting the distributions
from ISO images that I had stored on an external hard drive. My disk
layout is as follows:
--On Thursday, July 10, 2008 21:47:17 +0200 Ronald Klop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:31:51 +0200, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:50:25 +0200 Ronald Klop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:27:26 +0200, Paul Schmehl
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:31:51 +0200, Paul Schmehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:50:25 +0200 Ronald Klop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:27:26 +0200, Paul Schmehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ever since I upgraded this workstation to 7.0 STABL
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:52:35AM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we have been bitten by something that obvoiusly
> is a feature, not a bug, but I do not quite understand
> the intentions and reasoning behind it.
>
> I have a host with manual interface and resolver configuration
> a
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the serious nature of the vulnerability, I'm sure this is at the top
> of someone's list. Do we have a scheduled release date yet?
See the thread "BIND update?".
Scott
PS: please do not crosspost.
_
> Given the serious nature of the vulnerability, I'm sure this is at the
> top of
> someone's list. Do we have a scheduled release date yet?
>From -security :
>Dear all,
>
>Doug just updated the ports tree with the updated BIND ports. If you
>urgently want to upgrade and really cannot wait f
Given the serious nature of the vulnerability, I'm sure this is at the top of
someone's list. Do we have a scheduled release date yet?
--
Paul Schmehl
As if it wasn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.
___
freebsd-s
--On Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:50:25 +0200 Ronald Klop
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:27:26 +0200, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ever since I upgraded this workstation to 7.0 STABLE, I have been unable
to reboot with my USB hard drive attached. During the boot
At 06:29 AM 7/10/2008, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,
> e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> (FWIW the security fix would negatively affec
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:03:24AM -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:33PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> > > > OK, thanx for clarification. I totally overlooked the updated bind
> > > > port;
> > > > anyhow, I use base system bind and didn't plan to ch
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:33PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
OK, thanx for clarification. I totally overlooked the updated bind port;
anyhow, I use base system bind and didn't plan to change that (although
it might me a good idea, as this situation clear
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:03:24AM -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:33PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> > > OK, thanx for clarification. I totally overlooked the updated bind port;
> > > anyhow, I use base system bind and didn't plan to change that (although
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:33PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> > OK, thanx for clarification. I totally overlooked the updated bind port;
> > anyhow, I use base system bind and didn't plan to change that (although
> > it might me a good idea, as this situation clearly shows).
>
> Yo
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29:55PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> > Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,
> > e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> > (FWIW the secu
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:33PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> OK, thanx for clarification. I totally overlooked the updated bind port;
> anyhow, I use base system bind and didn't plan to change that (although
> it might me a good idea, as this situation clearly shows).
You can always us
At 07:09 AM 7/10/2008, Patrick Lamaizière wrote:
I've found, i think. The Geode handles only AES with a 128 bits key.
When setkey/ipsec opens a crypto session, the driver returns an error
(EINVAL) if the key length is != 128. So setkey fails.
There is no way to tell to the crypto framework that
Le Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:31:30 -0400,
Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Without the module loaded, I can do something simple like
> glxsb0: detached
> glxsb0: (AES-128-CBC,RNG)> mem 0xa000-0xa0003fff irq 10 at device 1.2 on
> pci0 # sh s
> The result of line 1: Invalid argument.
> Th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Snow wrote:
| Xin LI wrote:
|> Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process, e.g.
| ...
|> rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a very good
|> solution.
|
| I second this opinion. When there is hype all
Xin LI wrote:
Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process, e.g.
...
rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a very good
solution.
I second this opinion. When there is hype all over the net about a new
vulnerability, it is too easy to allow ill-considere
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
> Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,
> e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> (FWIW the security fix would negatively affect heavy traffic sites)
> and document it (i.e. th
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:44:51PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Jul-10 11:40:06 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >shouldn't there be a very urgent BIND update somewhere around?
>
> There has been a very long thread about this in -security. Leaving
> out the tro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:44:51PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
|> On 2008-Jul-10 11:40:06 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>> shouldn't there be a very urgent BIND update somewhere around?
|> There has bee
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:44:51PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Jul-10 11:40:06 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >shouldn't there be a very urgent BIND update somewhere around?
>
> There has been a very long thread about this in -security. Leaving
> out the trolls a
On 2008-Jul-10 11:40:06 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>shouldn't there be a very urgent BIND update somewhere around?
There has been a very long thread about this in -security. Leaving
out the trolls and flaming, the salient points are:
- The bind port has been updated to
Hi,
shouldn't there be a very urgent BIND update somewhere around? I
understand the latest flaw doesn't impact system security directly.
Nevertheless, it might impact the security of the whole network
indirectly.
- Olli
--
| Oliver Brandmueller | Offenbacher Str. 1 | Germany D-14197 B
Hello,
we have been bitten by something that obvoiusly
is a feature, not a bug, but I do not quite understand
the intentions and reasoning behind it.
I have a host with manual interface and resolver configuration
and an additional interface that should get it's IP address
via DHCP. But only it's
29 matches
Mail list logo
