GnuPG breakage
Howdy! GnuPG 1.0.5-2 went into Woody the other day, and of course I upgraded as I always do. However, now it has started complaining that there's no valid OpenPGP data found. An example: % gpg -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] somefile.txt gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: processing message failed: eof Similarly, other programmes tell me that I have no secret keys in my key ring. GPA (GNU Privacy Assistant, see http://www.gnupg.org/gpa.html) shows everything to be normal, though. I tried going back to an older version of GnuPG, but it gave me the same results. No files under ~/.gnupg have been altered in the process, judging from the time stamps, which is the strangest part. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this? Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
pam-mysql has open security bug since >180 days - want NMU!
Hello According to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=77537&repeatmerged=yes this package has a open security bug for more than 180 days. Although the fix would simply be an upgrade to the version Wichert mentioned. The maintainer Michael Alan Dorman did not response to either Wicherts report nor to my bug regarding another topic. Therefore I like to ask for permission to upload an NMU version of this package. bye, -christian- P.S.: Something that also annoyes me: The copyright file says: Copyright 2000, Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> although the mysql_pam.c clearly states: * Original Version written by: Gunay ARSLAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * This version by: James O'Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
GnuPG breakage
Howdy! GnuPG 1.0.5-2 went into Woody the other day, and of course I upgraded as I always do. However, now it has started complaining that there's no valid OpenPGP data found. An example: % gpg -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] somefile.txt gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: processing message failed: eof Similarly, other programmes tell me that I have no secret keys in my key ring. GPA (GNU Privacy Assistant, see http://www.gnupg.org/gpa.html) shows everything to be normal, though. I tried going back to an older version of GnuPG, but it gave me the same results. No files under ~/.gnupg have been altered in the process, judging from the time stamps, which is the strangest part. Does anyone have a rational explanation for this? Martin -- Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/ GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pam-mysql has open security bug since >180 days - want NMU!
Hello According to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=77537&repeatmerged=yes this package has a open security bug for more than 180 days. Although the fix would simply be an upgrade to the version Wichert mentioned. The maintainer Michael Alan Dorman did not response to either Wicherts report nor to my bug regarding another topic. Therefore I like to ask for permission to upload an NMU version of this package. bye, -christian- P.S.: Something that also annoyes me: The copyright file says: Copyright 2000, Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> although the mysql_pam.c clearly states: * Original Version written by: Gunay ARSLAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * This version by: James O'Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bootable floppy
Hi, You can find answers of this type of questions on www.linuxfromscratch.org murat, On Sat, 19 May 2001, Halil Demirezen wrote: > i wanna know how can i make a floppy bootable and it will run directly my > program that i write in c or any other programinng languages. > for exaple think that you are writing a kernel and you should need some > othere files to provide the booting.. is there something master boot > recort for floopy??? > sorry to send these kind of questions to such a security based groups... > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: use of /tmp by installers
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 12:51:08PM +1000, Ian wrote: > Hi, > > i have my /tmp mounted noexec, but I was suprised to see the Postfix > installer (in testing) want to execute some temporary scripts out of /tmp. [snip] I'm no Postfix freak but doesn't it honour $TMP or $TMPDIR?? I prefer exporting them to $HOME/.tmp or something similar than mounting /tmp noexec. Jörgen
Re: bootable floppy
Hi, You can find answers of this type of questions on www.linuxfromscratch.org murat, On Sat, 19 May 2001, Halil Demirezen wrote: > i wanna know how can i make a floppy bootable and it will run directly my > program that i write in c or any other programinng languages. > for exaple think that you are writing a kernel and you should need some > othere files to provide the booting.. is there something master boot > recort for floopy??? > sorry to send these kind of questions to such a security based groups... > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of /tmp by installers
You might be just as well mounting it nosuid, and you'd end up breaking a lot less. -- Kevin - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- > Hi, > i have my /tmp mounted noexec, but I was suprised to see the Postfix > installer (in testing) want to execute some temporary scripts out of /tmp. > Of course, there was alot of mucking about to shut down processes so I > could umount tmp, change fstab, and mount it again. > What is debian's stance on this? I would prefer to leave /tmp mounted > noexec. > Ian. > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of /tmp by installers
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 12:51:08PM +1000, Ian wrote: > Hi, > > i have my /tmp mounted noexec, but I was suprised to see the Postfix > installer (in testing) want to execute some temporary scripts out of /tmp. [snip] I'm no Postfix freak but doesn't it honour $TMP or $TMPDIR?? I prefer exporting them to $HOME/.tmp or something similar than mounting /tmp noexec. Jörgen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use of /tmp by installers
You might be just as well mounting it nosuid, and you'd end up breaking a lot less. -- Kevin - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- > Hi, > i have my /tmp mounted noexec, but I was suprised to see the Postfix > installer (in testing) want to execute some temporary scripts out of /tmp. > Of course, there was alot of mucking about to shut down processes so I > could umount tmp, change fstab, and mount it again. > What is debian's stance on this? I would prefer to leave /tmp mounted > noexec. > Ian. > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
