On Tue, 15 May 2001, Curious wrote:
> In classical security thought.. once someone has physical access to a
> box (router, workstation, etc) they are assumed to "own" the box.. and
> in most cases this is quite true.. so physical security, policy.. grr
> ARRRGGHH.. must stop security babble! okok
Kai MacTane:
> the point of all this? Sometimes, you don't need to consider what the worst
> possibility is; you just need to consider what will actually be going on
> under real-world conditions. Sure, there's a half-dozen sysadmin friends
> who come over on a regular basis who *could*, the ne
> but seriously, regarding the titles of books ... i don't understand how
> anyone can really care .. if it's an excellent book, should it matter that
> it's titled "linux for the computer illiterate?" or how about a terrible
> book with a very sophisticated intelligent sounding title? maybe i'
On Thu, 17 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > but seriously, regarding the titles of books ... i don't understand how
> > anyone can really care .. if it's an excellent book, should it matter that
> > it's titled "linux for the computer illiterate?" or how about a terrible
> > book with a v
Hi All,
I know how to make a boot floppy, using mkbootdisk. This works just fine,
but requires the system to have the kernel located at the right spots and
uses the disk based information to get running. I would like to show them
how to make a boot disk that does not require a working system
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:20:47PM -0700 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Raven, corporate courtesan thought:
> Yup. [grimace] After my third assurance to our new management
> that I didn't need an NT desktop in addition to my Sparc (and once
> actually refusing to accept one they delive
I would like to address several issues quickly here.
First to the person who thought that it was foolish to have security set at
medium on a linux box. rtfm. That is where security should be set for a
client machine on line. High and paranoid are only for servers and render
the box useless
Good luck hunting that person down on 10.91.218.147. That's a private
address block.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Linda MacPhee-Cobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 6:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [techtalk] message to all
To the owners of ip #211.72
I want to apologize for this one, I posted the portscan, and forgot
to remove the IP address from the nmap output. This is my fault, as
anytime an IP is posted anywhere, there are bound to be people who
get curious. If there are people on this list running exploits
against that machine, please sto
Ok,
I didn't want to join in on this thread but... oh, well here goes.
Comments are in-line:
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> I would like to address several issues quickly here.
>
> First to the person who thought that it was foolish to have security set at
> medium on a linux
Ok, I would like to throw my vote in for calling this officially "over the
line". The flamewar spawned by this person's original email was *hardly*
interesting enough to justify all of the traffic, but now we've sunk to
PERSONAL THREATS. This is unacceptable! Stop this crap now!!
Listmeistr
Pretty Physics Flamer,
I don't care who you are, who offended you, or what has been done, this was
pretty low and nasty, and I see no need for it.
There is a hell of a difference between questioning someone's email addy and
quoting private email.
And then threatening to forward it to someones empl
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 06:07:25PM -0400 or thereabouts, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> I would like to address several issues quickly here.
>
> First to the person who thought that it was foolish to have security set at
> medium on a linux box. rtfm. That is where security should be set for a
>
So here I am having the worst day I can remember and I read this
horrible
nasty email which just makes me all the more chipper :/ I've seen a
troll or
two in my time but this is really the worst. To our extremely rude
friend I say please read this manual: http://List-Etiquette.com/
Now please tak
At 5/16/01 03:07 PM , Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
>If you will all kindly stay away from me, and my computer... I'll return
>the favor in kind.
Please do. I have done nothing to you, your computer, or anything else
associated with either of them.
In return, kindly stay away from me and this lis
Amen to Maureen's post, I lose it at the mention of
of a threat to post personal e-mail to a list. ::grrr:
That's my hot button, right there. But enough of that,
on to actual tech talk :-)
I am extremely happy that we solved an SSL
problem today that has been plagueing us for
awhile. I posted s
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 06:07:25PM -0400, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> If you will all kindly stay away from me, and my computer... I'll return the
> favor in kind.
If there is one thing I really hate, it's extrapolation like that. Makes you
want to ban inductive reasoning, really.
>From someone
Title: RE: [techtalk] message to all
Hi Melissa,
Thanks for the URL (http://List-Etiquette.com/).
Davida
-Original Message-
From: Melissa Plunkett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 5:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [techtalk] message to all
So
Melissa Plunkett wrote:
> To Jen: You are one of the most helpful and kind people on the list.
> Please
> do not let pathetic human beings with an obvious chip on their shoulder
> bother
> you. I for one say you are one of the most valuable people on this
> list.
Hm. If being threatened gets
Heya --
Quoth prettyphysicslady:
> First to the person who thought that it was foolish to have security
> set at medium on a linux box. rtfm. That is where security should
> be set for a client machine on line. High and paranoid are only for
> servers and render the box useless for everythin
> > the point of all this? Sometimes, you don't need to consider what the worst
> > possibility is; you just need to consider what will actually be going on
> > under real-world conditions. Sure, there's a half-dozen sysadmin friends
> > who come over on a regular basis who *could*, the next ti
> > but seriously, regarding the titles of books ... i don't understand how
> > anyone can really care .. if it's an excellent book, should it matter that
> > it's titled "linux for the computer illiterate?" or how about a terrible
> > book with a very sophisticated intelligent sounding title? m
*senses some hostility here* but it's kinda funny :)
abe
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linda MacPhee-Cobb wrote:
> I would like to address several issues quickly here.
>
> First to the person who thought that it was foolish to have security set at
> medium on a linux box. rtfm. That is where se
i was going to ignore the rest myself ... but a few specific examples i'd
like to point out ..
> Ok,
> I didn't want to join in on this thread but... oh, well here goes.
> Comments are in-line:
>
> > I would like to address several issues quickly here.
> >
> > First to the person who thought th
I just set up a new alphaserver on my home network. It is running
Debian testing.
When I ssh into this box, it sometimes takes 20-30 seconds for the
login prompt to come up. Does anyone know why it would take this long
to display a login prompt over a LAN? The machine has almost no load
on it.
T
Im going to pipe up, if only because I actually know the answer to this one!
;)
SSH is trying to do nslookups, id guess. Check you have a valid /etc/hosts
/ c:\windows\hosts / c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file with entries
for both client and server.. that may solve it.
(Waves to Fenchur
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:26:36PM -0400, David Merrill wrote:
> When I ssh into this box, it sometimes takes 20-30 seconds for the
> login prompt to come up. Does anyone know why it would take this long
> to display a login prompt over a LAN? The machine has almost no load
> on it.
It's trying
27 matches
Mail list logo
