Did you mean once upon a tip?
I'm clearly no developer, but if I volunteered too folks would pay us NOT
to publish it. My current body style is 'prepubescent girl on her sixth
month in a concentration camp'.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> noah pugsley [noah.pugs...@g
There are tools such as static analysers and Todd and Theo's talk on
strl*, porting security guidelines etc. and many books (that may or may
not recommend c++ ;-)) and even Ada to C conversion but with added
worries about compilers and obfuscation or the Go language where
applicable but is there a
I may be missing something very simple, so if anyone can offer some
help I'd be grateful.
I want to set up a i386 OpenBSD system (using 5.4, but can try current
5.5 if that would help) to act a gateway/firewall. 3 network
interfaces, 2 wired, one wifi (ignoring wifi ATM, want to get wired
working,
noah pugsley [noah.pugs...@gmail.com] wrote:
> You know Chris, if you grew a beard..nmedia.net/bsdsexy? wopsexy?
> Maybe a sexy developer calendar can help with the donations...
>
Perhaps a swimsuit calendar? I'll volunteer for the cover!
Maybe a collaboration with Wu-Tang for the music trac
You know Chris, if you grew a beard..nmedia.net/bsdsexy? wopsexy?
Maybe a sexy developer calendar can help with the donations...
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Bob Eby [eby...@gmail.com] wrote:
> >
> > This seems to indicate you're using the AGPL version 9.06
> >
Okay
So 5.5 is going to use 9.07. Maybe it's just co-incidence?
Or perhaps the OpenBSD vetting is doing something to help the GNU
releases move forward?
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:35:49PM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
| Bob Eby [eby...@gmail.com] wrote:
| >
| > This seems to indicate you're using the AGPL version 9.06
| > ghostscript from the Artifex site? Is that correct?
| > Is AGPL compatible with OpenBSD ports?
| >
| > I just wonder why not
Bob Eby [eby...@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> This seems to indicate you're using the AGPL version 9.06
> ghostscript from the Artifex site? Is that correct?
> Is AGPL compatible with OpenBSD ports?
>
> I just wonder why not use the AGPL version 9.07 or 9.10?
> Seems odd you stick to the version GNU (no
On 18 April 2014 00:18, Alex Naumov wrote:
> Thank you for link, but... why? I mean, we are not going to continue work
> on translation anymore? Reason?
>
>
This was also discussed :
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=139653486420745&w=2
The translation was open sourced also, so nothing stops y
Hi,
I've spent some time building the GNU 9.06.0 version of
ghostscript from the GNU site.
I notice in the 5.4 ports Makefie:
VERSION= 9.06
DISTNAME= ghostscript-${VERSION}
...
MASTER_SITES= http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/
This seems to indicate you're using the AGPL version 9.06
ghosts
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
> Thank you for link, but... why? I mean, we are not going to continue work on
> translation anymore? Reason?
Read this thread on the topic from earlier this month.
http://marc.info/?t=13965139876&r=1&w=2
Thank you for link, but... why? I mean, we are not going to continue work
on translation anymore? Reason?
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Johan Beisser wrote:
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=139637003025491&w=2
>
> You did.
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
> > Hell
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=139637003025491&w=2
You did.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Naumov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just want to ask about "not English" (translated) pages. I can't find
> these.
> Also translation.html and steelix are not avaliable.
> Did I missed something?
>
>
Hello,
I just want to ask about "not English" (translated) pages. I can't find
these.
Also translation.html and steelix are not avaliable.
Did I missed something?
Thank you,
Alex
On 17 avril 2014 19:02:14 CEST, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:17:15PM +0200, Tristan PILAT wrote:
>> 2014-04-17 15:23 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
>>
>> > 2014-04-17 13:20 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
>> >
>> > 2014-04-17 12:25 GMT+02:00 Gregory Edigarov :
>> >>
>> >>> On 04/17/2014
Em 17-04-2014 15:08, Henning Brauer escreveu:
> * Giancarlo Razzolini [2014-03-24 15:46]:
>> First of all, I hardly see why you want or need to use if-bound, since
>> it most likely hurts pf performance.
> it doesn't.
>
> however, if-bound is stupid except very few cases, i. e. on encX.
>
>> Secon
* Giancarlo Razzolini [2014-03-24 15:46]:
> First of all, I hardly see why you want or need to use if-bound, since
> it most likely hurts pf performance.
it doesn't.
however, if-bound is stupid except very few cases, i. e. on encX.
> Secondly, the proper way of doing nat, is using match rules,
* Jeff Simmons [2014-03-08 04:42]:
> Using OpenNPTD from stable.
>
> Syncing to two redundant satellite receivers that provide ntp service and
> also
> radio programming. The satellite receivers tend to lose time sync
> occasionally, but regain it fairly quickly.
>
> NPTD reports:
>
> reply
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 05:17:15PM +0200, Tristan PILAT wrote:
> 2014-04-17 15:23 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
>
> > 2014-04-17 13:20 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
> >
> > 2014-04-17 12:25 GMT+02:00 Gregory Edigarov :
> >>
> >>> On 04/17/2014 12:24 PM, Tristan PILAT wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2014-04-15 18:42 G
That happens to me when I upgrade on a connection with one of those stupid
captive web portal things. Is that the case for you by any chance?
I can confirm on almost the exact same hardware that it does work no problem
with a not-stupid internet connection. (At least as of a few days ago. I had
li
On 17/04/2014 11:24, Tristan PILAT wrote:
Is there a way to make this work with "allow from any inet prefixlen 8 -
24" to accept /32 only for the blackhole ?
What about: allow from group customers prefixlen = 32 community 64514:888
Please pay attention of not allowing one of your customers to
>> partial-iwn-firmware-5.10p0+partial-iwn-firmware-5.10p0.1+partial-iwn-firmwar
>> e-5.10p0.2->iwn-firmware-5.10p0
strange package names in there .. partial-iwn-firmware-5.10p0.1,
partial-iwn-firmware-5.10p0.2 ..
Em 17-04-2014 08:05, alexander taylor escreveu:
> thanks for the reply! i am trying to keep the keys safe in the
> scenario whereby an attacker steals someone's computer, takes out the
> hard drive, mounts it in another machine and bypasses access rights
> specified by the filesystem.
>
If this is
On 2014-04-17, alexander taylor wrote:
> gnome-keyring does the trick on linux, but for the feature to be
> popular and easy to use, pehaps it's better if it the solution is
> cross platform / built into ssh-keygen.
The way you are talking about doing this is dependent on PAM so it's
only availab
2014-04-17 15:23 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
> 2014-04-17 13:20 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
>
> 2014-04-17 12:25 GMT+02:00 Gregory Edigarov :
>>
>>> On 04/17/2014 12:24 PM, Tristan PILAT wrote:
>>>
>>> 2014-04-15 18:42 GMT+02:00 Laurent Caron (Mobile) <
lca...@unix-scripts.info>
:
2014-04-17 13:20 GMT+02:00 Tristan PILAT :
> 2014-04-17 12:25 GMT+02:00 Gregory Edigarov :
>
>> On 04/17/2014 12:24 PM, Tristan PILAT wrote:
>>
>> 2014-04-15 18:42 GMT+02:00 Laurent Caron (Mobile) <
>>> lca...@unix-scripts.info>
>>> :
>>>
>>> On 14 avril 2014 17:57:53 CEST, Tristan PILAT
w
thanks for the reply, hugo! good points. let me try to address them:
i would like to avoid any dependencies for ssh as well. maybe if the
user tries to use "--protect", only then would it prompt the user to
install dependencies, such as the linux data protection service i'd
like to create, whic
thanks for the reply! i am trying to keep the keys safe in the
scenario whereby an attacker steals someone's computer, takes out the
hard drive, mounts it in another machine and bypasses access rights
specified by the filesystem.
On 16 April 2014 23:57, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14,
2014-04-17 12:25 GMT+02:00 Gregory Edigarov :
> On 04/17/2014 12:24 PM, Tristan PILAT wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-15 18:42 GMT+02:00 Laurent Caron (Mobile) <
>> lca...@unix-scripts.info>
>> :
>>
>> On 14 avril 2014 17:57:53 CEST, Tristan PILAT
>>> wrote:
>>>
match from any community 64514:888 set n
On 04/17/2014 12:24 PM, Tristan PILAT wrote:
2014-04-15 18:42 GMT+02:00 Laurent Caron (Mobile)
:
On 14 avril 2014 17:57:53 CEST, Tristan PILAT
wrote:
match from any community 64514:888 set nexthop blackhole
Hi,
Make sure you dont accept from any but eg from group customers, make sure
the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:19 AM, David Coppa wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Bodzar
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > anyone with working vpnc against Cisco VPN concentratos after last
>> > change
>> > http://marc
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:19 AM, David Coppa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Bodzar
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > anyone with working vpnc against Cisco VPN concentratos after last change
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=139634144615435&w=2 ?
> >
> > It does seems to be c
2014-04-15 18:42 GMT+02:00 Laurent Caron (Mobile)
:
> On 14 avril 2014 17:57:53 CEST, Tristan PILAT
> wrote:
> >match from any community 64514:888 set nexthop blackhole
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Make sure you dont accept from any but eg from group customers, make sure
> the address *does* belong to your c
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> anyone with working vpnc against Cisco VPN concentratos after last change
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=139634144615435&w=2 ?
>
> It does seems to be connecting, but no IP assigned, no routes created and
> there's not /etc
Hi all,
anyone with working vpnc against Cisco VPN concentratos after last change
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=139634144615435&w=2 ?
It does seems to be connecting, but no IP assigned, no routes created and
there's not /etc/vpnc-script
$ sudo vpnc user.conf
Password:
Enter password for us
On 2014-04-14 00:28, alexander taylor wrote:
> I need advice on a contribution I'd like to make as part of my
> research with a cryptography professor at UC San Diego. I mostly want
> to know if there are any obvious practical problems with my idea.
>
> The problem I'm trying to solve is that casu
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:28:15AM -0700, alexander taylor wrote:
> The problem I'm trying to solve is that casual users [...] may not bother
> creating
> passphrases for their private ssh keys. [...] [T]hese keys could be
> cryptographically protected under the user's Windows/Linux logon
> passwo
37 matches
Mail list logo
