On 12/17/2011 10:26 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
Quoting: "Or you could just set up syslog to use a remote server."
__
Isn't allowing any remote server stuff, the user compromising
security..?
No. You can have a remote syslog server behind yet another firewall
that ONLY lets sy
Quoting: "Or you could just set up syslog to use a remote server."
__
Isn't allowing any remote server stuff, the user compromising
security..?
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html
--
users mailing list
users@lists.f
Tim:
>> Well, if you are being security minded, logs on the same machine
>> can't be trusted. Because someone who can break in, can do
>> something to change the logging. ;-)
Jake Shipton:
> This is true, which is why most of my logs are mailed locally to a
> separate user account which is sole
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 13:49 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> On 17/12/11 12:40, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 11:26 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> >>> Well, if you are being security minded, logs on the same machine
> >> can't
> >>> be trusted. Because someone who can break in, ca
On 17/12/11 12:40, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 11:26 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
>>> Well, if you are being security minded, logs on the same machine
>> can't
>>> be trusted. Because someone who can break in, can do something to
>>> change the logging. ;-)
>>>
>> This is tru
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 11:26 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> > Well, if you are being security minded, logs on the same machine
> can't
> > be trusted. Because someone who can break in, can do something to
> > change the logging. ;-)
> >
> This is true, which is why most of my logs are mailed locall
On 17/12/11 10:09, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:39 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
>> Though my system is logged like a server should be, even though it's
>> just a plain and simple desktop on ethernet behind a router & firewall
>> not moving anywhere.. but I do like to know what my system does
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:39 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> Though my system is logged like a server should be, even though it's
> just a plain and simple desktop on ethernet behind a router & firewall
> not moving anywhere.. but I do like to know what my system does. I
> probably would detect a break
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:54 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 11:34 AM, Linda McLeod wrote:
> > The goons who are insulting me in this blog are probably police
> > officers.. especially the one who always comes out with the "tin-hat"
> > insult.. He has used his "tin-hat" insult in at least 1
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 00:01 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2011 16:36:43 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > > I was under the impression that codecs were executables and as such, OS
> > > specific. I presume that a Windows
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:08 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 12:45 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 17:21 +1030, Tim wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> >>> My next advise would be to do the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Regularly c
On Thursday 15 December 2011 16:36:43 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > I was under the impression that codecs were executables and as such, OS
> > specific. I presume that a Windows codec/trojan could run under wine if
> > you have it installed, b
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:34:22 -0800, LM (Linda) wrote:
> I found that the mindless demons could somehow get into FireFox enough
> to block my passwords from coming up from the password file in FireFox..
Whether a "Saved Password" in FF is filled in automatically when
revisiting a web site depends
On 12/16/2011 11:34 AM, Linda McLeod wrote:
The goons who are insulting me in this blog are probably police
officers.. especially the one who always comes out with the "tin-hat"
insult.. He has used his "tin-hat" insult in at least 15 forums that I
was in...
Linda, I've tried, for the most par
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out...
Jake Shipton wrote:
>> My next advise would be to do the following:
>>
>> 1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
> Personally, I don't see the point in this. I think it's a fallacy.
_
On 12/16/2011 12:45 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 17:21 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
My next advise would be to do the following:
1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
Personally, I don't see the point in th
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 17:21 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> > My next advise would be to do the following:
> >
> > 1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
>
> Personally, I don't see the point in this. I think it's a fallacy.
+1
Th
On 16/12/11 13:02, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
> On 12/16/2011 01:51 AM, Tim wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
>>> My next advise would be to do the following:
>>>
>>> 1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
>> Personally, I don't see the point in t
On 12/16/2011 01:51 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
My next advise would be to do the following:
1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
Personally, I don't see the point in this. I think it's a fallacy.
I totally agree with you. But
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:45:45 -0800, LM (Linda) wrote:
> > > The g'rillas get into it through
> > > weaknesses in FireFox..
> >
> > What makes you think so?
> I get the same cracker treatment as I did with "Storm Virus" creator..
> after I exposed him.. He got onto my desktop.. and emptied a wh
On 12/15/2011 10:51 PM, Tim wrote:
Unlike in the movies, crackers don't
get clues to when they're getting close to guessing your password, it's
just pass or fail.
Not only that, they don't get the slightest clue as to whether it's your
username or your password is the problem. All they know i
On 12/15/2011 06:52 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 15:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/15/2011 02:53 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Which email virus are you thinking of? I don't know any that would work
on both Windows and Linux, but no doubt someone has tried.
I'm not t
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 20:57 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> this is all simply laughable
>
> tell me why i never had any malware or intrusions on my computers?
Because, unlike them, you don't have an obvious mental problem, perhaps?
It seems quite apparent, to me, and probably others, that the oth
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:08 +, Jake Shipton wrote:
> My next advise would be to do the following:
>
> 1) Regularly change your password, say every 3/6 months.
Personally, I don't see the point in this. I think it's a fallacy.
If they haven't guessed/cracked your password, there's no point
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 15:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 02:53 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Which email virus are you thinking of? I don't know any that would work
> > on both Windows and Linux, but no doubt someone has tried.
>
> I'm not thinking of any of them. I was using email
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 17:09 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> The windows ones are becoming REAL problems, the good anti-malware
> programs block them, though. There are also ones for MACs and I have no
> information on how well they will work on generic Linux. Thing is,
> there are also one
I did a little digging through my various notes and found the following
for limiting SSH connections:
simply limit the amount of connections a host is allowed to the ssh port
iptables -N SSHSCAN
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -j SSHSCAN
iptables -A SSHSCAN -m recent --
On 12/15/2011 02:53 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Which email virus are you thinking of? I don't know any that would work
on both Windows and Linux, but no doubt someone has tried.
I'm not thinking of any of them. I was using email viruses as an
example of something we used to think was impo
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:21 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 01:06 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > They're usually libraries and may be cross-platform, e.g. the mplayer
> > non-free codecs are designed for Windows but work in Linux as well.
>
> I see. Thank you. However, considering the
On 12/15/2011 03:29 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/15/2011 12:01 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
There are some other attack vectors. For example you download an audio
recording or get one in your email and it starts up with a message that
a codec is needed and you ALLOW it. Thing is that codec that is
On 12/15/2011 01:06 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
They're usually libraries and may be cross-platform, e.g. the mplayer
non-free codecs are designed for Windows but work in Linux as well.
I see. Thank you. However, considering the differences between the two
environments, especially the dif
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 12:29 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 12:01 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> > There are some other attack vectors. For example you download an audio
> > recording or get one in your email and it starts up with a message that
> > a codec is needed and you ALLOW it. Thing
On 12/15/2011 12:29 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
even if someone is sniffing my whole traffic i can not imageine
how he would intruse my system - packages are signed, the real
relevant traffic is encrypted, ssh must not use the same passwords
like any unimportant web-account
I didn't say I believed
Am 15.12.2011 21:24, schrieb Joe Zeff:
> On 12/15/2011 11:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> what you are trying to tell us here is simply impossible if you
>> are not so dumb and everytime you reinstall your computer restore
>> a compromised userhome with a autostart
>
> There's another possibility
On 12/15/2011 12:01 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
There are some other attack vectors. For example you download an audio
recording or get one in your email and it starts up with a message that
a codec is needed and you ALLOW it. Thing is that codec that is
retrieved is malware. So in this case e
On 12/15/2011 11:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what you are trying to tell us here is simply impossible if you
are not so dumb and everytime you reinstall your computer restore
a compromised userhome with a autostart
There's another possibility. Back when I was working in tech support, I
helped
On 12/15/2011 02:45 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out...
From:
"Michael Schwendt" [Add]
To:
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date:
Wed, 14 Dec 2011 3:33 PM (18 hours 45 minutes ago)
Show message - Delete attached message - Sa
Am 15.12.2011 20:45, schrieb Linda McLeod:
> Seems they never get-in while the OS is updating, but when FF is up,
> they do so get in, and mess things up, like a brat kid with a full
> diaper leaking streaks all over mum's living-room white shag carpet...
> Sometimes they lock-out FF's tools head
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out...
From:
"Michael Schwendt" [Add]
To:
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date:
Wed, 14 Dec 2011 3:33 PM (18 hours 45 minutes ago)
Show message - Delete attached message - Save copy of attached
message
Show full header
takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
From:
"Joe Zeff"
To:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence do you
have that strangers have targeted your machine and repe
On 12/15/2011 11:30 AM, Jake Shipton wrote:
On 15/12/11 15:32, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Jake Shipton wrote:
[snip]
Some of your advice is good, but some of it is not. Even though your
reply was to a known troll of this list, I'd like to respond to some of
your comments.
Okay :-). I'll respo
not working within the security field. I am simply passing
on advise from what I have learned over the years :-) (Well part of it)
>
> On 12/15/2011 08:08 AM, Jake Shipton wrote:
>> On 14/12/11 23:13, Linda McLeod wrote:
>>> Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the
On 15/12/11 15:32, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Jake Shipton wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Some of your advice is good, but some of it is not. Even though your
> reply was to a known troll of this list, I'd like to respond to some of
> your comments.
Okay :-). I'll respond back to yours.
>
>> Ensure when
Jake Shipton wrote:
> [snip]
Some of your advice is good, but some of it is not. Even though your
reply was to a known troll of this list, I'd like to respond to some of
your comments.
Ensure when setting up your system you do not use the same password
twice, or the same password you use any
McLeod wrote:
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
From:
"Joe Zeff"
To:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence do you
have that strangers h
Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jake Shipton wrote:
> On 14/12/11 23:13, Linda McLeod wrote:
> > Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
> > Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
> >
>
On 14/12/11 23:13, Linda McLeod wrote:
> Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
> Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
>
> From:
> "Joe Zeff"
> To:
>
>
>
>
> "Extraordinary
It's the same 3-5 people speaking shit on this list. Enough with the
insults. Tweet or something
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mail
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 19:20 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 06:04 PM, Craig White wrote:
> > How about considering the season, is it possible you can find a little
> > charity for others?
>
> As far as "the season" goes, I tend to agree with the late Ebeneezer
> Scrooge. However, Happy Ha
On 12/14/2011 06:04 PM, Craig White wrote:
How about considering the season, is it possible you can find a little
charity for others?
As far as "the season" goes, I tend to agree with the late Ebeneezer
Scrooge. However, Happy Hanukkah! And, as far as insulting the OP, I
was hoping that the
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 15:49 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 03:13 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
> > The evidence is in this 5-inch stake of evidence, and in this box beside
> > the tower.. which proves that they destroyed a lot of my property, and
> > proves that psychotic-humans destroyed their g
On 12/14/2011 03:13 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
The evidence is in this 5-inch stake of evidence, and in this box beside
the tower.. which proves that they destroyed a lot of my property, and
proves that psychotic-humans destroyed their greatest scientist yet...
The only thing I can suggest right n
Am 15.12.2011 00:13, schrieb Linda McLeod:
> so I do
> my updating of my private hd's on a secret IP, on the other-side of
> town... because this IP isn't secure.. The g'rillas get into it through
> weaknesses in FireFox.. but this last OS-install, I finds the hd didn't
> get fully erased, so I
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:13:09 -0800, LM (Linda) wrote:
> The g'rillas get into it through
> weaknesses in FireFox..
What makes you think so?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
G
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
From:
"Joe Zeff"
To:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence do you
have that strangers have targeted yo
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
From: "Robert Moskowitz"
> Please tell, what is being done to eliminate screensaver's slideshow
> fade time-period..?
"I never use resources on screensavers beyond a blank screen."
___
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:03:20 -0800, LM (Linda) wrote:
> As far as "properly detailing what's happning to my machine", I think I
> have detailed it as much as words can say it.. what parts of, "crazy
> people are targeting and torturing my life", can't you understand sir..?
It's not a problem of
On 12/12/2011 10:07 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
In F-14.. when "screensaver slideshow" runs, the previous pix takes
quite a while to fully fade-out, and is completely gone only a few
seconds before the pix changes again.. but on an old tower, with only
250-megs of RAM, the fade is nearly instant..?
On 12/13/2011 05:03 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
As far as "properly detailing what's happning to my machine", I think I
have detailed it as much as words can say it.. what parts of, "crazy
people are targeting and torturing my life", can't you understand sir..?
Extraordinary claims require extraor
Re: Screensaver takes too much time to fade-out the previous pix, but...
Re: "RE: F14 login fails on backup copy; gdm error?"
From:
"Michael Schwendt"
"Rather than getting rude and flaming Harald, who is a knowledgeable
subscriber of this list (and it may be
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:07:30 -0800, LM (Linda) wrote:
>
> In F-14.. when "screensaver slideshow" runs, the previous pix takes
> quite a while to fully fade-out, and is completely gone only a few
> seconds before the pix changes again..
Have you checked whether this is still like that with Fedor
In F-14.. when "screensaver slideshow" runs, the previous pix takes
quite a while to fully fade-out, and is completely gone only a few
seconds before the pix changes again.. but on an old tower, with only
250-megs of RAM, the fade is nearly instant..? Which maybe means that
"less RAM allocated to
62 matches
Mail list logo
