On Sat, 12 May 2001, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> > > Which manual? There is no "Linux manual" per se. It depends on how
> > > well the individual distro documents things and writes their manual.
>
> Rute, the manual that came with caldera, insiders guide to linux, the linux
> superbible, and tw
> > Who are these back doors built in for?
===Probably for those that manage their own systems...something that Linux
encourages in people.
===I am a newbie, and I knew of thisI am suprised it has caused such a
hubaballo. It is reasonably simple to shut down, and I saw it as directed
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 09:23:07PM -0400, coinneach graced me with:
> All right that's enough! You are way out of line.
I beg to differ. You are running Windows, using Outlook Express, I'm
not certain that you're any sort of authority on Linux operating
standards. Linda currently has her box co
From: Linda MacPhee-Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have been painstakingly going through the lilo documentation. I have
not
> found in the documentation, on my computer or at sunsite, a single
reference
> to this back door into my computer. It is not even documented in the
source
> code.
Linux, f
I
wonder if she considers Cisco's password recovery procedure a "backdoor".
With physical access to any Cisco router I can reset the enable password and
then do anything I want. But, just like single user mode, it's very well
documented. If it's an important piece of equipment you should
You say 'back door', most of us say 'recovery feature'.
Ah well. Most of us consider backdoors to be those that
can
accessed *remotely* since that is what truly counts in
most of our lives. As we have continued to say ad
nauseum,
there is no such thing a *truly* secure machine if a
good
s
Amy wrote:
> I just don't understand why this person doesn't take
> all of this advice she has been given and just secure her
> darn machine and stop bothering us about why it isn't as
> secure as Windows (bwahaha). Take it up with the distro
> developers. Or even better, make you own distro whe
Coinneach MacSandair wrote:
> First, PrettyPhysicsLady is NOT being unreasonable. It IS a back
> door. And we're not talking about using boot floppies or recovery CD's
> or cracking the stupid case to erase the CMOS to override the BIOS
> password here -- we're talking about a serious mist
This
is *NOT* a backdoor. Backdoors are hidden, secret ways in to a
system. This isn't hidden. It isn't secret. It's very well
known and is a recovery method. It's *NOT* a "series mistake in the
default shipping configuration". This is a recovery mechanism almost every
UNIX system has
Jeff,
All right that's enough! You are way out of
line.
First, PrettyPhysicsLady is NOT being
unreasonable. It IS a back door. And we're not
talking about using boot floppies or recovery CD's or cracking the stupid case
to erase the CMOS to override the BIOS password here -- we're t
Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
>
>> > Which manual? There is no "Linux manual" per se. It depends on how
>> > well the individual distro documents things and writes their manual.
>
> Rute, the manual that came with caldera, insiders guide to linux, the
> linux superbible, and two o'reilly guide
Mary Gardiner wrote:
> That's incredible Jenn. There's an implicit implication that you have the
> right screws there, or that you haven't 'borrowed' screws from all the hard
> drives and ethernet cards to build a second machine and that's pretty damn
> unusual, where I live.
All the screws we
> > Which manual? There is no "Linux manual" per se. It depends on how
> > well the individual distro documents things and writes their manual.
Rute, the manual that came with caldera, insiders guide to linux, the linux
superbible, and two o'reilly guides to linux amoung others.
>of the rea
Hi All,
Have anyone ever seen this? How does one create a "helper"
program to get the x program cdroast to run?
GTK+WARNING **: This process is currently running setuid or setgid.
This is not a supported use of GTK+. You must create a helper
program instead. For further details see:
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 05:39:57PM +0100, Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> UNIX, as I first met it, was not based on the idea of "one box, keyboard,
> monitor and mouse, all in front of you". It was multiple users on multiple
> accounts from multiple terminals which were nowhere near the console.
> The termi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To add my bit to the pile on how systems must be physically secure...
At my office, our data center takes up approximately one fifth of the floor.
It's big. It's got about $80 million worth of hardware in there. All of our
production, test, and
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:46:45AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Take one screwdriver.
> Take one computer.
> Discover that your screwdriver is the wrong type.
> Get another screwdriver.
> Discover that it's the wrong type too.
> Look for the right screwdriver.
> Remember that you lent that o
More log questions:
May 12 15:38:05 kathweb named[2936]: wrong ans. name (www.merck.com !=
iserv.merck.com)
May 12 15:38:05 kathweb named[2936]: wrong ans. name (www.merck.com !=
iserv.merck.com)
Whats that mean?
- Kath
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kath" <[EMAIL
Telsa Gwynne:
> You are indeed evil. This is _exactly_ what happened when we took my
> Vaio apart. Sony use -- wait for it -- non-standard screw sizes. Well,
> "didn't fit our first two sets" sizes. However, the set of useless
> "what are these sizes anyway?" screwdrivers I got at a Linux Expo fr
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:14:36PM -0400 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Mandi thought:
>
> For desktop unix, if you have need to worry about the physical security of
> the hosts you are deploying, get rid of init 1 in /etc/inittab. Comment
> out the lines about runlevel 1. You can also passw
I just got my mail after oh, 18 whole hours of being offline, and read the
threads on the single user boot thing, and whether it was a "feature" or a
"security hole."
There have already been eloquent answers in this thread, but one thing that
struck me is the issue of how security depends not
Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> All these terminals. And 'w' showed you people you'd never met and
> your friends, and they were on tty this and that. But the root user
> (or the operator account, or whatever) was sometimes logged in from
> the console. And the console was special.
>
> (I never really k
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 12:19:39PM +0200 or thereabouts, Gina Lanik wrote:
> hm, what I forgot - no I don't mean removing the entry for runlevel 1.
> relevant part of my inittab:
> # What to do in single-user mode.
> ~~:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
> HTH & HAND,
This won't cover booting with sash or /bin
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:47:35AM +1000 or thereabouts, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> However, it did remind me that Linux is a system with a large enough
> public user base to be subject to frequent attacks when on a hostile
> network (eg the internet).
>
> Securing Linux is an important part of ru
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:46:45AM +1000 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Oh, I'm soo evil!
>
> > 1) Hardware access exploits (how exactly do you remove a hard drive and gain
> > access to its data, how to encrypt one, how to lock a machine up).
>
> Take one screwdriver.
Heya --
Quoth Gina:
> hm, what I forgot - no I don't mean removing the entry for runlevel
1.
> relevant part of my inittab:
>
> # What to do in single-user mode.
> ~~:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
Someone asked what that does -- it's a single user login program
that init will call instead of its no
Mary Gardiner wrote:
> Yes, having admitted to said eviilll knowledge Jenn, I'm afraid you must now
> brain-dump all your knowledge of:
Oh, I'm soo evil!
> 1) Hardware access exploits (how exactly do you remove a hard drive and gain
> access to its data, how to encrypt one, how to
Heya --
>> But again, if it is a 'recovery thing' where is the documentation?
>> Why wasn't it clearly in the manual?
>
> Which manual? There is no "Linux manual" per se. It depends on how
> well the individual distro documents things and writes their manual.
Quite. Also, you can't e
Mary Gardiner wrote:
> Hence it's perfect material for our techtalk FAQ. I don't know whether it
> includes much, but I feel inspired to do more. And since I've had CVS access to
> it for months now and haven't touched it, it is time to do some work.
>
> Anyone got any sample Qs and As for me?
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't think you'll convince me this is anything but a disaster. I don't
> think turning my linux passwords into the equivalent of Win 95, not even Nt,
> passwords to be anything but bad.
This isn't the case, as we have already expla
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:17:27AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am sure I am not the only person concerned on this list, or lurking, I
> > think you should share any other things you are aware of as a system
> > admin that allow someone into the system or give root access through
> > w
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:50:54AM -0400, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> >There's probably other things which I know of, understand and
> >approve of; but which would upset you. The problem is, I can't
> >think of what they might be. I'm not *intentionally* not telling
> >you .. I just don't know wha
>There's probably other things which I know of, understand and
>approve of; but which would upset you. The problem is, I can't
>think of what they might be. I'm not *intentionally* not telling
>you .. I just don't know what your assumptions are!
Jenn,
I am sure I am not the only person concern
Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> I am sure I am not the only person concerned on this list, or lurking, I
> think you should share any other things you are aware of as a system
> admin that allow someone into the system or give root access through
> ways other than the normal channels as well as t
Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> The comment about the janitor was good, and that gets right to the heart
> of it. I do not expect the janitor to know enough or be interested
> enough to dismantle the beast and pull out the hd to read on another
> machine. I do expect something as trivally worke
Kath wrote:
> Sorry, stupid Outlook has some kind of shortcut key to autosend or
> something...
>
> here is the log:
>
> May 12 09:15:55 kathweb kernel: IP_MASQ:reverse ICMP: failed checksum
> from 61.11.12.152!
> May 12 09:21:48 kathweb kernel: IP_MASQ:reverse ICMP: failed checksum
> from
Hi all,
I don't think you'll convince me this is anything but a disaster. I don't
think turning my linux passwords into the equivalent of Win 95, not even Nt,
passwords to be anything but bad.
The comment about the janitor was good, and that gets right to the heart of
it. I do not expect th
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:00:36AM -0400, Kath wrote:
> Whats this mean?
>
It means you have a problem between the keyboard and chair;)
Sorry couldn't resist:)
kent
--
From seeing and seeing the seeing has become so exhausted
First line of "The Panther" - R. M. Rilke
_
Hi, Linda and everyone else,
> But again, if it is a 'recovery thing' where is the documentation? Why
> wasn't it clearly in the manual?
Which manual? There is no "Linux manual" per se. It depends on how well the
individual distro documents things and writes their manual. It *is* in the
curr
I think we're being trolled here, and reasonably well, too.
To support this, we have have our troll making inflammatory claims, completely
ignoring any kind of logic, and tossing in extras like comparisons to Windows.
Also, cute female physicists tend not to go advertising that fact on the net.
Whats this mean?
Sorry, stupid Outlook has some kind of shortcut key
to autosend or something...
here is the log:
May 12 09:15:55
kathweb kernel: IP_MASQ:reverse ICMP: failed checksum from 61.11.12.152!May
12 09:21:48 kathweb kernel: IP_MASQ:reverse ICMP: failed checksum from
61.11.12.152!
- Kath
hm, what I forgot - no I don't mean removing the entry for runlevel 1.
relevant part of my inittab:
# What to do in single-user mode.
~~:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
HTH & HAND,
Gina
On Sat, 12 May 2001 11:59:26 +0200, Gina Lanik writes:
>
>other people on this list have said what I felt like saying
other people on this list have said what I felt like saying, so there's
only one thing left... if you're -absolutely- sure that you don't want
this maintenance feature up you can go and change /etc/inittab
accordingly (as it is done by default on a Debian system).
cheers,
Gina
On Fri, 11 Ma
hiyas!
On Thu, 10 May 2001 15:15:26 PDT, Kai MacTane writes:
>Hi. I'm seeking a way out of RPM hell, and it looks like it involves some
>rather nasty installs from source. I'll try to describe the problem
>concisely, but it's a fairly big problem.
hm, have you ever thought about upgrading you
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Daniel Manrique wrote:
> > I've been informed this is a 'feature' not a 'flaw'. sound like MS?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> The "linux single" or "linux 1" "security flaw" gets "spotted"
> continuously, by people who don't realize that, given physical access to
> the computer
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just found a huge security flaw that lets anyone take root control of your
> computer during boot.
Hrmm... You aren't referring to things like:
boot with init=/bin/sh
boot to single user mode
etc?
> I sent mandrake a bug report, but wh
47 matches
Mail list logo
