On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> what worse issues? let me know -- I will have it fixed ;-)
The debian one uses 100% CPU, the Dapper one simply doesn't start.
> gy gy -- ask Canonical about that... just teasing ;-) or may be MOTUs?
True, although if it's a security issue, surely it
> Fair enough, although I might wait for tomorrow given the debian one has
> worse
> issues.
what worse issues? let me know -- I will have it fixed ;-)
> However, if the dapper one has real security issues shouldn't it be
> updated there at some stage, given it's still supported for servers, wh
On Friday 29 February 2008 17:40:44 Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> you better install some backport from sid/lenny. 0.6 is heavily insecure
> and imho no sense to have this issue fixed there
Fair enough, although I might wait for tomorrow given the debian one has worse
issues. However, if the dapper
o boy... for that one:
dapper (net): bans IPs that cause multiple authentication errors
[universe]
0.6.0-3: all
you better install some backport from sid/lenny. 0.6 is heavily insecure and
imho no sense to have this issue fixed there
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Eythian wrote:
> On Friday 29 February 20
On Friday 29 February 2008 16:29:05 Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> see
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=468382
> apply patch provided and please verify that it works after...
That patch won't apply because it's for a significantly different version of
fail2ban than the one in dapper
see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=468382
apply patch provided and please verify that it works after...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Eythian wrote:
> Public bug reported:
> Binary package hint: fail2ban
> Today is the 29th of February. restartd tells me fail2ban is failing to
> start.
