On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Svante Signell wrote:
> Is this an attack? Successful?
> Version: portmap-4.0-28
>
> Nov 30 00:47:05 em2 portmap[16190]: connect from 202.8.227.42 to dump(): request
>from unauthorized host
Yes a probe -- not successful from what you show here.
Either you lack a firesall,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> what I want? Hmmm... is there a user-space daemon that I can use
Use the earlier nfsd (RHL 6.1? 6.0?) and check the kernel docs to verify that
it's compatible with your kernel.
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL
I find myself in a situation where I badly need to do NFS uid/gid
remapping between two redhat 6.2 boxes that are currently using
knfsd for NFS directory sharing.
exports(5) says that it is possible to do uid/gid remapping, with
all sorts of great solutions.
However, this is obviously NOT descri
certainly, its:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(subscribe to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/guinness-list)
HTH
Michael Weiner
--
Ray Atnip wrote:
>
> Is there a guinness mail list? If so, how/where to subscribe?
>
> thanks
> --
> Ray Atnip
> "If we couldn't laugh, we
Is there a guinness mail list? If so, how/where to subscribe?
thanks
--
Ray Atnip
"If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane." -- Jimmy Buffett
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listin
On Thu Nov 30 2000 at 01:09, Svante Signell wrote:
> Is this an attack? Successful?
> Version: portmap-4.0-28
>
> Nov 30 00:47:05 em2 portmap[16190]: connect from 202.8.227.42 to dump(): request
>from unauthorized host
Don't panic. Probably (highly likely) a tcp_wrappers thing.
Someone obviou
Is this an attack? Successful?
Version: portmap-4.0-28
Nov 30 00:47:05 em2 portmap[16190]: connect from 202.8.227.42 to dump(): request from
unauthorized host
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/li
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Svante Signell wrote:
> When running ping the following message appears:
>
> Warning: no SO_TIMESTAMP support, falling back to SIOCGSTAMP
> Is this warning from glibc? If so, does this mean that iputils have to be
> modified upstream to reflect the changed behaviour in glibc?
When running ping the following message appears:
Warning: no SO_TIMESTAMP support, falling back to SIOCGSTAMP
Is this warning from glibc? If so, does this mean that iputils have to be
modified upstream to reflect the changed behaviour in glibc? Other
causes, solutions?
The new glibc-2.2-5 is ins
On 23:52, martedì 28 novembre 2000, you wrote:
> My question is: is there a specific way to use the compat-egcs compiler?
> If it is, is it documented somewhere? If it isn't - how can I go about
> compiling programs which refuse to compile with the new compiler (I am
> developing PalmOS programs,
10 matches
Mail list logo