Suppose You manage class C net with private addresses
that connects to Internet through some NAT gateway.
If everyone go to internet with only one address of
the gateway that's IP Masquerading also refferenced
as Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) .
Now suppose that not all 254 hosts of y
Hetz? can you post it to SD please?
-- Forwarded message --
Date: 10 Mar 1999 18:26:21 GMT
From: Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: linuxworld expo report finally up
It took a while becuase I spent the weekend going through the 500 pictures I
took. As
Today, Semion Lisyansky blurbed:
> >NAT and IP Masquerading is the same thing.
>
> When I told NAT I meant the static NAT. I use IP NAT patch
> originally written by Michael Hassenstein for kernels 2.0.x
> and then ported to later kernel versions. IP Masquerading
> implements the dynamic NAT
Today, Ishai Parasol blurbed:
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Ishai Parasol wrote:
> Hello
>
> Does anyone know when RedHat releases it's new version to linux (5.3 or 6.0)
> ?
no one at LWE wanted (or knew what) to tell me. RH's lips are sealed.
they usually like to release just before a big show, I th
Thanks a lot for the help with getting my mail working. In the end I did have to
generate a new sendmail.cf (and upgrade sendmail because I couldn't find sendmail-cf
that was the same version as comes with RH5.2). This made me invent a new sendmail.cw
(I put "zahav.net.il username" into it whic
"Peter L. Peres" wrote:
> If the files in /tmp are 666 ANYONE can delete and replace them with a
> symlink to ANY readable file. It is to be shown that the permissions on wp
> are not enough to overwrite some important file. Try this:
Nothing happened. The file was left untouched. Maybe it was
PLP>> If the files in /tmp are 666 ANYONE can delete and replace them with a
Wrong. /tmp has +t bit (on every normal instalation), which prevents you
from deleting other user's files. You can write it, but not delete it.
Also, you can't move it to another name.
PLP>> start xwp, stop xwp with kil
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Itamar S.-T. wrote:
>http://linux.corel.com/linux8/linuxfix.htm
>
>I don't understand this. I can see that having 666 files in /tmp isn't
>great. But I checked my installed files and the binary isn't suid root, so
>why should there be any major security problem, as long as
And this too: (Novell is into the act.)
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2558734798-fcf
Daniel Feiglin wrote:
> Please take a look at this:
>
> http://www.software.ibm.com/is/mp/linux/
>
>
>
> Daniel Fe
"Ze'ev Maor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I tell mgetty's callback how many attempts to make on connecting?
> It doesn't appear anywhere in the man pages, either callback's or
> mgetty's.
IIRC, it's a compile-time option (3 by default).
Regards,
Evgeny
--
___
How do I tell mgetty's callback how
many attempts to make on connecting?
It doesn't appear anywhere in the man
pages, either callback's or mgetty's.
At 04:26 PM 3/10/99 +0200, you wrote:
>
>NAT and IP Masquerading is the same thing.
When I told NAT I meant the static NAT. I use IP NAT patch
originally written by Michael Hassenstein for kernels 2.0.x
and then ported to later kernel versions. IP Masquerading
implements the dynamic NAT only.
>
Yes, NAT and Masq are the same,
If you can send some usefull information to the list, you
would get planty of help, as Linux Masq is a well documented subject.
information needed as to how you have compiled the kernel, what
firewall you are using for the masq, your routing table, etc.
Reg.
NAT and IP Masquerading is the same thing.
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Semion Lisyansky wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I am trying to implement solution that uses both - IP NAT and
> IP Masquerading with kernel 2.2.x - without great success.
> Is someone have an experience with this issue? Can it work
> toge
Hi List,
I am trying to implement solution that uses both - IP NAT and
IP Masquerading with kernel 2.2.x - without great success.
Is someone have an experience with this issue? Can it work
together at all?
Best Regards
Shimon Lisyansky
"Itamar S.-T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://linux.corel.com/linux8/linuxfix.htm
>
> I don't understand this. I can see that having 666 files in /tmp isn't
> great. But I checked my installed files and the binary isn't suid root,
> so
> why should there be any major security proble
http://linux.corel.com/linux8/linuxfix.htm
I don't understand this. I can see that having 666 files in /tmp isn't
great. But I checked my installed files and the binary isn't suid root, so
why should there be any major security problem, as long as you don't run wp
as root?
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root
Hehehe Very funny article
especially the Penguin part :-)
Whoow its hard for me to call some one stupid so i wont
http://www.cw.com.hk/Comment/c990308001.htm
--
--
Canaan Surfing Ltd.
Internet Service Providers
Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
Tel: 972-6-6925757
Fax: 972-6-69258
Hello
Does anyone know when RedHat releases it's new version to linux (5.3 or 6.0)
?
Ishai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux - It's safe now to turn ON your computer...
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
