Re: Pam module for hylafax
Adarsh V.P wrote: i am using hylafax with debian sarge.I can only use the fax utilites(sendfax,faxstat,...) while logging in as root. Just man faxadduser can make you happy I guess :) faxadduser and faxdelusers tools manage the hylafax auth files /etc/hylafax/hosts.hfaxd /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd You can easily configure it to access it from other hosts. Ex faxstat -h myfaxserver. Don't forget to define passwords. Usernames defaults to the current (unix/linux) user. I strongly recommend you to read the very usefull HylaFax Handbook http://www.hylafax.org/content/Handbook Ch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pam module for hylafax
hi ch, thank u for the reply. I can work with hosts.hfaxd.But my real problem is i want to make use of the pam support so that i can use the common authentication mechanism(such as ldap edirectory etc) Thanks Regards Adarsh
Debian Kernel security status?
Hello, looking at the recent vanilla changes, there seem to be a rather rapid development at the moment ;-) and I've to confess, that I lost the overview, what sec-holes do affect debian and which don't. I was frightend recently, then I noticed that 2.4.27 was fixing somecve-2004 stuff other a month ago as well as 2.6. Just take a look at CVE-2004-1017. It was fixed in red hat in january 2005 and fixed in debian in march 2006. Therefore I suspect, that the debian kernel do have some security flaws, fixed in mainline kernel months ago. Am I wrong here? This takes me to a difficult point: - I can run 2.4 on my servers, what is considered to be depracted for etch. - I can use the debian kernels and risk being compromised. - I can say goodbye to linux and use Debian/kBSD - I can use my own vanilla builds, building a new kernel every day. (Looking at the amount of patches since april 12th.) Anyway, what do you recommend? And is there any public status / shape information on the debian kernels? Thanks in advance, Keep smiling yanosz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Kernel security status?
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:50:27 +0200 Jan Luehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - I can use my own vanilla builds, building a new kernel every day. (Looking at the amount of patches since april 12th.) That's what I'm doin. Not everyday, but faster than Debian ;-) Plus some GRSec and other non-kernel security. Just my $0.02 -- ^^^| Evgeni -SargentD- Golov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) d(O_o)b | PGP-Key-ID: 0xAC15B50C -|- | WWW: http://www.die-welt.net ICQ: 54116744 / \| IRC: #sod @ irc.german-freakz.net Frueher nahmen wir pr0n, um die Leitung vollzumachen. Heute tun's auch KDE-updates (jjFux - IRCNet) pgp64IqTXs6hD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Kernel security status?
--On April 19, 2006 4:50:27 PM +0200 Jan Luehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, looking at the recent vanilla changes, there seem to be a rather rapid development at the moment ;-) and I've to confess, that I lost the overview, what sec-holes do affect debian and which don't. I was frightend recently, then I noticed that 2.4.27 was fixing somecve-2004 stuff other a month ago as well as 2.6. Just take a look at CVE-2004-1017. It was fixed in red hat in january 2005 and fixed in debian in march 2006. Therefore I suspect, that the debian kernel do have some security flaws, fixed in mainline kernel months ago. Am I wrong here? This takes me to a difficult point: - I can run 2.4 on my servers, what is considered to be depracted for etch. - I can use the debian kernels and risk being compromised. - I can say goodbye to linux and use Debian/kBSD - I can use my own vanilla builds, building a new kernel every day. (Looking at the amount of patches since april 12th.) Anyway, what do you recommend? And is there any public status / shape information on the debian kernels? Increasingly 2.6 is unsuitable for production use due to its huge amount of change and lack of stable tree. There was a decision to do away with the old split development/odd numbered development model sometime after about 2.6.11 so all hope of a stable 2.6 series is gone. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Kernel security status?
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:56:41PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote: Increasingly 2.6 is unsuitable for production use due to its huge amount of change and lack of stable tree. There was a decision to do away with the old split development/odd numbered development model sometime after about 2.6.11 so all hope of a stable 2.6 series is gone. Speaking as the admin of a large (several hundred hosts) Debian installation, I agree. Hopefully something will come of http://kerneltrap.org/node/6386 Speaking as a Security Team secretary, you should not treat all kernel CVEs as equal. Many of them are low priority information leaks, hard to exploit DoS attacks, or only effect obscure hardware. Many of them affect only a very few users or are only exploitable in theory. None of them are being widely exploited. Rest assured that, if a remote root exploit is discovered in the kernel tomorrow, we'll have a fix out promptly. I don't mean for the above to be interpreted as though the Debian security team does not take kernel security seriously. That's quite the opposite. However, releasing a new kernel update for every CVE that comes out is really not in anybody's interest. noah signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: postfix in qmail out proftpd in pureftpd
I found you in a search and thought you could help. I am unable to get in touch with the webmaster at qmail. If you can answer this question it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for your help. diane "We have been receiving mail from several people being sent under different screen names and we think they are all from the same person. When checking the "internet details" of each mail we find same information in all of them which isthe line below. Does this mean that all of the mails are originating from the same person? Does the "uid 60001" signify the qmail user? Thank you for your help. Received: (qmail 77869 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Mar 2006 21:21:02"
