[Fwd: Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've used denyhosts. If you do have an issue with fail2ban, it does pretty much the same thing. Andy - Original Message Subject: Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:08:07 +0200 From: Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: CentOS mailing list To: centos@centos.org References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tony Molloy wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:53:05 +0100: > you can specify noarch on the install > line. that's what I did, I was just curious. Kai - -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkiHX8EACgkQauMjEM4rxIS+OACgkb8cbA7lppmZh0COd4dFS2/W sz8AnRnVnxTpCMCUMOUwyOPF8eKk+bDP =nU4V -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall?
Tony Molloy wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:53:05 +0100: > you can specify noarch on the install > line. that's what I did, I was just curious. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall?
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 14:31:11 Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Tony Molloy wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:53:49 +0100: > > I installed fail2ban from rpmforge and it has no dependencies. > > Ah, thanks, I thought I had installed an rpm earlier that didn't have > dependencies, but I couldn't find the machine I did it on. I disabled the > kbs repo and I'm now getting it. yum wanted to install the older i386 rpm > first, though. Does the i386 override noarch, although the version is > newer? > > > > Kai I installed on some x86_64 systems but you can specify noarch on the install line. I don't know the precedence of i386 and noarch. Tony ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall?
Tony Molloy wrote on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:53:49 +0100: > I installed fail2ban from rpmforge and it has no dependencies. Ah, thanks, I thought I had installed an rpm earlier that didn't have dependencies, but I couldn't find the machine I did it on. I disabled the kbs repo and I'm now getting it. yum wanted to install the older i386 rpm first, though. Does the i386 override noarch, although the version is newer? Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] fail2ban needs shorewall?
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 13:45:31 Kai Schaetzl wrote: > I want to try out fail2ban and notice that both, kbs-CentOS-Testing and > ATrpms, have shorewall as a dependency. I do not use shorewall and have > never used it. I have my own iptables/firewall script and am happy with > it. Can I install shorewall without any ill effects to my current sue of > iptables or would I need to use shorewall for firewalling from that point > on? (It may be a good product, but I really don't want to learn yet > another rule syntax.) > > Kai I installed fail2ban from rpmforge and it has no dependencies. I use it with the default CentOS firewall fail2ban-0.8.2-2.el5.rf.noarch.rpm Tony ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
