If you are really doing professional services then you should know how
to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an
appropriate comment telling me, that you also send me a unnessary copy
to my private address.
On 01-08-08 Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:12:11AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
If you are really doing professional services then you should know how
to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an
appropriate comment telling me, that
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And
just on the LAN.
Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer
kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel
On 01-08-08 Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And
just on the LAN.
Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
I believe your ping command is using features only available in a
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer
kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U
switch to ignore this.
What should a
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
If I use the -U argument, then the message is gone.
And there are no error (or like error) messages.
any ideas?
Try upgrading your kernel (like I mentioned in a previous mail) or try
downgrading your ping.
Warning: time of day goes back,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote:
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;)
We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :|
Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time...
It' solved, there were 2
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote:
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;)
We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :|
Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time...
It' solved, there were 2
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
Segmentation fault
czajnik@earth:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2.
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
Segmentation fault
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
Segmentation fault
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time to rest
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
Segmentation fault
czajnik@earth:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time to rest
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
Segmentation fault
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
Enhanced Real Time Clock support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
Look at this:
czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Look at this:
czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ?
I
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
Enhanced Real Time Clock support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
Enhanced Real Time Clock support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ?
I
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All,
Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
particular)
Thanks,
D. Ghost
Package:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l
^
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
^
--
Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1]
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All,
Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
particular)
Thanks,
D. Ghost
Package: ippl
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l
^
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
^
--
Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1]
Sure, just use ipchains:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
-jg
--
Jeremy L. Gaddis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM
To: debian-isp
Subject:ping
Hello All,
Is there a way
/sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l
ipchains: Protocol not available
Is that a kernel option or a package?
I am not familiar with ipchains.
Thanks for the reply!
D Ghost
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
Sure, just use ipchains:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
-jg
--
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
those kinds of things.
Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine
or
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
those kinds of things.
Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine
or
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
those kinds of things.
Are
What ping of death attacks?
The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
quick after they came out.
On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote:
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
anyway.
Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to
At 11:33 AM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan wrote:
What ping of death attacks?
The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
quick after they came out.
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a box after a
few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good
What ping of death attacks?
The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
quick after they came out.
On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote:
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
anyway.
Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to ping
37 matches
Mail list logo
