On 02/05/15 16:41, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 02/04/2015 04:06 PM, dE wrote:
Although you can choose this in the installer, isnt the provided values
supposed to be the default?
I tired the following
inst.repo=hd:/dev/sdb1:/repo
Result: /dev/sdb1 is not mounted.
On 02/03/2015 04:56 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Let’s flip it around: what’s your justification *for* weak passwords?
You don't need to write them down. Or trust some 3rd party password
keeper to keep them.Whereas when
On 02/05/2015 01:03 PM, g wrote:
On 02/02/2015 02:15 PM, Tim wrote:
Am 1. Februar 2015 21:30:52 MEZ, schrieb g gel...@bellsouth.net:
greetings.
while attempting to install c7, i got lost at 'repository' entry.
i canceled, loaded centos.org, looked for help for installing c7,
but did not
On 02/04/2015 07:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Rent ? That costs money. Just crack open some Windoze machines and do
it for free. That is what many hackers do.
Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who rent out botnet
time to people who just was to get the work done. There is
On Thu, February 5, 2015 9:34 am, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:51 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 02/04/2015 07:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Rent ? That costs money. Just crack open some Windoze machines and do
it for free. That is what many hackers do.
Those crackers
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
... there seem to be many
Windows brew people up on the top of IT ladder these days). I feel like
there is brave new world of admins who feel it right to have iPad-like
everything, i.e. boxes cooked up and sealed
On Wed, February 4, 2015 17:16, Lamar Owen wrote:.
Now, I have seen this happen, on a system in the wild, where the very
first thing the attacker did was grab a copy of /etc/shadow, even with
an interactive reverse shell and root access being had. So even when
you recover your system from
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:27 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
.. I feel like
there is brave new world of admins who feel it right to have
iPad-like everything, i.e. boxes cooked up and sealed by vendor, and
you have no way even to look inside, not to say re-shape interior to
your
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:0129
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0129.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:0130
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0130.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz
Sent: 04 February 2015 22:44
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] multipathd
Am 04.02.2015 um 15:02 schrieb Rushton Martin:
Our cluster was supplied with two IBM
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:0123
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0123.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 12:35 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Thu, February 5, 2015 10:08 am, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:41 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
I know, I know, everybody is reasonable, it is just I didn't have my
coffee yet...
Your logic is amazingly good
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 13:59 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 02/05/2015 10:34 AM, Always Learning wrote:
Surely its time for the Feds to arrest and change them ?
The Feds in which country?
The USA for a start. The USA's law enforcement is never slow at working
with foreign countries law
On 01/31/2015 02:06 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
We are almost ready to release an i686 version of C7 .. but for mock,
all our build root is available publicly here:
http://buildlogs.centos.org/
Thanks for the help, Johnny. I've got the packages that I needed built.
Still, I'm surprised that
On Thu, February 5, 2015 12:45 pm, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Thu, February 5, 2015 10:08 am, Always Learning wrote:
snip
I know, I know, everybody is reasonable, it is just I didn't have my
coffee yet...
Your logic is amazingly good for a coffee drinker.
No, I
On 02/04/2015 05:55 PM, Warren Young wrote:
On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
There have been remotely exploitable vulnerabilities where an arbitrary file
could be read
CVEs, please?
CVE-2006-3392 for one. As this one was against Webmin, well, webmin by
nature has
On Thu, February 5, 2015 12:49 am, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-02-04, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
I'm neutral to sudo (even though I was taught the smaller number of
SUID/SGID files you have, the better). Yet, I'm considering it less safe
to have regular user who can log
On Wed, February 4, 2015 16:55, Warren Young wrote:
On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Again, the real bruteforce danger is when your /etc/shadow is
exfiltrated by a security vulnerability
Unless you have misconfigured your system, anyone who can copy
/etc/shadow
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:31:43AM -0600, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 02/02/2015 11:00 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 02/02/2015 04:21 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
What's the best place to update the docs/howto for docker and related
packages on centos?
Could I add to
On 2015-02-04, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
On C5 the default appears to be:-
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
It is much more likely that someone has screwed up your system. I think
even CentOS 4 had shadow as 400. And what on earth would the point be
in
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Keith Keller
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On C5 the default appears to be:-
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
It is much more likely that someone has screwed up your system. I think
even CentOS 4 had shadow as 400. And what
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:19 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2015-02-04, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
On C5 the default appears to be:-
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
It is much more likely that someone has screwed up your system. I think
even CentOS 4
In CentOS 6 with KVM, I have libguestfs-tools installed, but the
virt-xxx tools like virt-df just give, libguestfs: error: cannot
find any suitable libguestfs supermin, fixed or old-style appliance on
LIBGUESTFS_PATH (search path: /usr/lib64/guestfs). What am I missing?
All the guests boot and
On Thu, February 5, 2015 4:29 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Keith Keller
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On C5 the default appears to be:-
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
It is much more likely that someone has screwed up your
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Yes, /etc/shadow would have always been readable only by root by
default. The interesting question here is whether an intruder did
it, clumsily leaving evidence behind, or whether it is just a local
change from
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 16:39 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
Be it me, I would consider box compromised. All done on/from that box
since probable day it happened compromised as well. If there is no way to
establish the day, then since
On 2/5/2015 10:59 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
However, another password with similar characteristics would be fine.
You just never want to use it on more than one server to be safe.
there's a very useful tool built into centos's 'expect' package...
$ mkpasswd -l 15 -d 3 -C 5
5ufkpX@SDxa2DF3
On Thu, February 5, 2015 5:23 pm, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 16:39 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
Be it me, I would consider box compromised. All done on/from that box
since probable day it happened compromised as
On Thu, February 5, 2015 5:07 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Yes, /etc/shadow would have always been readable only by root by
default. The interesting question here is whether an intruder did
it, clumsily leaving
On 6 February 2015 at 10:23, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Logically ?
1. to change the permissions on shadow from -rw-x-- or from
-- to -rw-r--r-- requires root permissions ?
2. if so, then what is the advantage of changing those permissions when
the entity
Warren Young wyml at etr-usa.com Tue Feb 3 00:32:15 UTC 2015
Are you telling me you cannot memorize a series of 8 characters that do
not violate those rules?
Keep in mind the original context isn't for production computers, it's
testing Fedora. Many testers do dozens of installs per week,
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Valeri Galtsev
galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Be it me, I would consider box compromised. All done on/from that box
since probable day it happened compromised as well. If there is no way
to
establish the day, then since that system originally build. With full
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Foolish and stupid implicit trust in a third party. Just look at the
Windoze world ever since Win95 (first edition of many) materialised.
Trust M$ and get a free virus every time !
I wouldn't go there unless you want to
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 10:10 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Or unless you have some sort of proof that a current Windows 2012
server is less secure or stable than a Linux distro.
Not every 'home' or business user uses, or
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2015:0118 Moderate
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0118.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:41 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
wac4140SoeTer'#621strAAt0918;@@
Gee thanks. I'll use it for root on every server ;-)
I know this is joke. Yet (in a slim chance someone out there can follow it
with seriousness) I would strongly suggest:
Don't do it. Don't
On Wed, February 4, 2015 17:55, Warren Young wrote:
But of course the same people fighting this move to more secure
password minima are the same ones that turn off SELinux.
Ah. Sorry, NO.
First, we are not talking about a more secure password minima. We are
discussing an arbitrary change
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2015:0122
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2015-0122.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:0131
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0131.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
On 2015-02-05, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
On Thu, February 5, 2015 5:23 pm, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 16:39 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1220 Jan 31 03:04 shadow
Be it me, I would consider box compromised. All done
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 17:36 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Logically ?
1. to change the permissions on shadow from -rw-x-- or from
-- to -rw-r--r-- requires root permissions ?
2. if so, then what is the advantage of changing those permissions when
the entity possessing
Jonathan Billings billings at negate.org Tue Feb 3 20:35:44 UTC 2015
Honestly, of all the faults and foibles in the Red Hat/CentOS installer,
I'm
amazed that someone is complaining about that.
Someone is trying to keep the scope of such faults and foibles on topic,
otherwise they'd easily
On 02/05/2015 04:13 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
In CentOS 6 with KVM, I have libguestfs-tools installed, but the
virt-xxx tools like virt-df just give, libguestfs: error: cannot
find any suitable libguestfs supermin, fixed or old-style appliance on
LIBGUESTFS_PATH (search path:
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 10:50 +1100, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 6 February 2015 at 10:23, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Logically ?
1. to change the permissions on shadow from -rw-x-- or from
-- to -rw-r--r-- requires root permissions ?
2. if so, then what is the
On 02/04/2015 04:06 PM, dE wrote:
Although you can choose this in the installer, isnt the provided values
supposed to be the default?
I tired the following
inst.repo=hd:/dev/sdb1:/repo
Result: /dev/sdb1 is not mounted.
inst.repo=nfs:[fc00::6009]:/home/auser/repo
Result: NFS is not
Yep, that's what I do at home. The trouble for off-net machines is the
download time - over 24 hours for CentOS 7 + epel, and then copy over.
If you don't grab everything, the one package you miss is the one that
stops the update. :-(
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
re-sending to list. other attempt got addressed wrong.
On 02/02/2015 02:15 PM, Tim wrote:
Am 1. Februar 2015 21:30:52 MEZ, schrieb g gel...@bellsouth.net:
greetings.
while attempting to install c7, i got lost at 'repository' entry.
i canceled, loaded centos.org, looked for help for
On Thu, February 5, 2015 10:08 am, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:41 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
wac4140SoeTer'#621strAAt0918;@@
Gee thanks. I'll use it for root on every server ;-)
I know this is joke. Yet (in a slim chance someone out there can follow
it
On 02/04/2015 10:22 PM, Ted Miller wrote:
On 02/02/2015 03:15 PM, Tim wrote:
What are you exactly searching for?
Sounds like he is doing a network install, and is looking for the
network path that must be supplied in order to do the install.
correct.
If he doesn't have a local
On 02/05/2015 10:34 AM, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 09:51 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
Those crackers who build these botnets are the ones who rent out
botnet time to people who just was to get the work done. There is a
large market in botnet time.
Surely its time for the Feds
51 matches
Mail list logo
