El 21/02/11 21:34, Thomas Sachau escribió:
> Am 21.02.2011 01:23, schrieb Aaron W. Swenson:
>> On 02/19/2011 12:02 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> On 02/15/2011 02:12 PM, Chris Frederick wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'll chime in on this one. I want to clarify what is being asked, and add
Am 21.02.2011 01:23, schrieb Aaron W. Swenson:
> On 02/19/2011 12:02 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 02/15/2011 02:12 PM, Chris Frederick wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'll chime in on this one. I want to clarify what is being asked, and add
>>> my two cents.
>
>> Okay, I don't think there
I've been running nut & upsd without ipv6 (either in kernel or userland)
for ages on Hardened x86.
Regards:
Dw.
--
dr Tóth Attila, Radiológus, 06-20-825-8057
Attila Toth MD, Radiologist, +36-20-825-8057
2011.Február 21.(H) 19:34 időpontban sch...@subverted.org ezt írta:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 12:02:20PM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
| On 02/15/2011 02:12 PM, Chris Frederick wrote:
| > Hi everyone,
| >
| > I'll chime in on this one. I want to clarify what is being asked, and add
my two cents.
|
| Okay, I don't think there was a consensus on this issue, so I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/19/2011 12:02 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 02:12 PM, Chris Frederick wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'll chime in on this one. I want to clarify what is being asked, and add
>> my two cents.
>
> Okay, I don't think there was a
On 02/15/2011 02:12 PM, Chris Frederick wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'll chime in on this one. I want to clarify what is being asked, and add my
> two cents.
Okay, I don't think there was a consensus on this issue, so I'm sure to
make someone unhappy. I think for now, we'll leave the status quo,
El 15/02/11 16:52, Alex Efros escribió:
> Hi!Quick Google and CVE searches shows there was many enough vulnerabilities
> in all OSes (including Linux) IPv6 stack implementations. And, as we all
> know, most of vulnerabilities will be found only after product become
> popular and wide used, which do
On 02/09/11 21:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Jan Kundrat asked on gentoo-dev why hardened removes ipv6 from its
> profiles. To be honest, I see no good reason. I want to add it back.
> Before I do, does anyone in the community know of any issues with
> hardened + ipv6? I don't
On 02/15/2011 10:52 AM, Alex Efros wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Quick Google and CVE searches shows there was many enough vulnerabilities
> in all OSes (including Linux) IPv6 stack implementations. And, as we all
> know, most of vulnerabilities will be found only after product become
> popular and wide used,
On 15/02/11 16:52, Alex Efros wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> Keeping this in mind, I think it have sense to avoid enabling IPv6 by
> default on hardened until IPv6 will be wide used/tested/hacked on
> non-hardened systems for some time or until it become critical feature
> required for normal operation o
I run full dual stacked on my network at home just fine, ip6tables and
filtering at the gateway work for me. As far as IPV6 specific
vulnerabilities, I think that would be the price to pay (if we decide to go
down this route).
-- Matthew Thode
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:52, Alex Efros wrote:
>
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 06:10:52PM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> I don't think there are any issues with it. The only argument I know of
> >> is that it increases the attack surface for a feature that 0% + epsilon
> >> of people use.
> > Tests done by a colleague show that, right now, t
I can also verify that I used ipv6 to get the cert with he.net (with them as
the tunnel broker) for whatever that's worth.
-- Matthew Thode
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 07:17, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 15/02/11 12:53, Ed W wrote:
> >
> >>> Tests done by a colleague show that, right now, the amount of
On 15/02/11 12:53, Ed W wrote:
>
>>> Tests done by a colleague show that, right now, the amount of inbound
>>> ipv6
>>> traffic on his systems is none but I can perfectly understand your
>>> concerns
>>> even if they should apply only to the network stack itself, as the
>>> daemons
>>> listening t
Tests done by a colleague show that, right now, the amount of inbound ipv6
traffic on his systems is none but I can perfectly understand your concerns
even if they should apply only to the network stack itself, as the daemons
listening to v6 should be the same that listen to v4, once configured
On 02/11/2011 03:32 AM, Darknight wrote:
> 2011-02-10 21:03:01 Michael Orlitzky
>> On 02/09/11 22:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Jan Kundrat asked on gentoo-dev why hardened removes ipv6 from its
>>> profiles. To be honest, I see no good reason. I want to add it back.
>>> B
2011-02-10 21:03:01 Michael Orlitzky
> On 02/09/11 22:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Jan Kundrat asked on gentoo-dev why hardened removes ipv6 from its
> > profiles. To be honest, I see no good reason. I want to add it back.
> > Before I do, does anyone in the community kn
On 02/09/11 22:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Jan Kundrat asked on gentoo-dev why hardened removes ipv6 from its
> profiles. To be honest, I see no good reason. I want to add it back.
> Before I do, does anyone in the community know of any issues with
> hardened + ipv6? I don't
Hi everyone,
Jan Kundrat asked on gentoo-dev why hardened removes ipv6 from its
profiles. To be honest, I see no good reason. I want to add it back.
Before I do, does anyone in the community know of any issues with
hardened + ipv6? I don't know of any and all my servers have it
enables. So, I'
19 matches
Mail list logo
