Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1103-1] New Linux kernel 2.6.8 packages fix several vulnerabilities

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 22:24, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > http://security.debian.org/pool/updates/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.8-i38
> >6/ kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386_2.6.8-16sarge1_i386.deb
> > Size/MD5 checksum: 14058198 fd607b13caf99093ef31071ff7395d6d
>
> This package is actually not new.  I installed it already on
> 2005-11-22. There is no security update for kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386
> available according to aptitude!

That has been noted and corrected on this list already. A new formal 
notice will be sent out when new packages are also available for AMD64.

The new packages are kernel-image-2.6.8-_3_-386. If you have one of the 
meta packages (like kernel-image-2.6-386) installed, the new package will 
be pulled in automatically.

Cheers,
FJP


pgpPvxiz6Db9Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: So many patches!

[Frans Pop]

On Saturday 17 December 2005 07:35, curby . wrote:
> Within the last hour or so, I've gotten about 130 announcements of
> accepted patches/upgrades of packages on debian-changes.  Before then,
> I'd only usually get a few such announcements per day.  Is some
> backlog clearing up, did I miss some announcement, or is this
> otherwise expected or unexpected?

The release of 3.1r1 is being prepared so packages in the security archive 
are moving to the stable archive.


pgpAqCYhiQpDZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: CAN to CVE: changing changelogs?

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:34, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> To me it is a technical matter, as the changelogs are a tool for a
> technical job.

To me, changelogs are primarily a way of informing the user of changes in 
a package. Including references to fixed security issues is definitely a 
part of that.

However, when "upstream" policy on a numbering scheme is changed, going 
back 10 years in changelogs (/me is exaggerating to make a point) and 
fixing historic references to old entries that were perfectly valid at 
the time they were written is not a technical matter. I would agree more 
with the qualification of "revisionist history" made earlier.

Of course adding _missing_ references to fixed security issues would be 
like fixing a minor bug in the changelog. However, that also should not 
be taken too far: adding entries going back more than half a year (?) 
seems hardly relevant.


pgpOgod08pvGr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: CAN to CVE: changing changelogs?

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 27 October 2005 22:30, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> When dealing with Debian matters of a technical nature, yes.  When
> dealing with matters outside Debian, or of a non-technical nature, I
> may decide to not take such an instance.  And frankly, as long as it is
> a rule of mine, applied to myself, what business is it of yours?

Problem is that changing historic entries in a changelog is hardly a 
technical matter.


pgpBvZP4gOUW4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Woody End of Support - When?

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:57, Shane Machon wrote:
> Has there been an official announcement on this end of patches/support
> date or is it simply: release date + 6 months?

http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/

Release date + 1 year unless a new release happens sooner (which it will 
not).

Cheers,
FJP


pgp6kTyIhR4nR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sarge's FireHOL fails to start if previously stopped

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:27, Tilman Koschnick wrote:
> According to the changelog, this is fixed in firehol 1.231-3; Sarge has
> 1.231-2. This bug could possibly leave a system without a firewall
> activated, so I'm wondering if the bugfix would warrant an upload to
> the security archive.

Probably not, but it could well be a good reason to include the update in 
a point release (i.e. upload to sarge-proposed-updates).
The maintainer would have to contact the stable release manager for that 
(preferably by mail with the needed patch attached).


pgp7wvMEiToZP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Kernel Security Support

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 07 September 2005 19:07, peace bwitchu wrote:
> Are the kernel packages in Sarge currently supported
> by the security team?  I know that support for the
> kernel packages in Woody were dropped and you needed
> to roll your own for security updates.  Is this how it
> is going to be in Sarge or will we be able to apt-get
> update and pull in the security fixed kernels?

Kernel updates for Sarge are being prepared.
And even for the Woody kernels there seems to be some progress recently...

Cheers,
FJP


pgpmODtYbrnes.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bad press again...

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:34, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
> >>below in public.  This should make it clear that the intent was to
> >>delegate: "Nach [URL] hat debian-admin klar die Authorität" --
> >>"according to [URL], debian-admin clearly has authority", and
> >>debian-admin was only listed in the referenced web page.  If the DPL
> >>felt that even that was enough to express delegation, mentioning the
> >>security team in the list message itself should make things even more
> >>clear.
> >
> > Does that mean everybody listed in the w.d.o/intro/organization pages
> > is automatically a delegate in the formal sense?
>
> The [URL] in the above quoted sentence was the -announce post, not the
> organization page.

No, the key of his argument is in "and debian-admin was only listed in the 
referenced web page" which was the organization page.

The weird thing is that that German mail was not about the security team 
at all, but about the debian-admin team, and the status of all other 
teams in existence is being extrapolated from that.


pgpNHBmBSqetk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bad press again...

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
> below in public.  This should make it clear that the intent was to
> delegate: "Nach [URL] hat debian-admin klar die Authorität" --
> "according to [URL], debian-admin clearly has authority", and
> debian-admin was only listed in the referenced web page.  If the DPL
> felt that even that was enough to express delegation, mentioning the
> security team in the list message itself should make things even more
> clear.

Does that mean everybody listed in the w.d.o/intro/organization pages is 
automatically a delegate in the formal sense? Surely not...
However, this will be my last post on this subject. I remain unconvinced.
Clarification of the status of the current team would be nice.

(BTW. I would have no problem with the security team being delegates. I 
just feel that your "evidence" is unconvincing.)


pgpHmOMWCAejI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bad press again...

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 29 August 2005 21:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I see no "(as DPL) I appoint" or "I delegate" in that mail.
>
> This is not necessary.

I'm sorry, but I still think you're doing creative reading. There is only 
an announcement of the addition of a new member to an existing team.

There is absolutely no indication that a change of the status of that team 
is intended. IMO intention to do so on the part of the DPL is the minimum 
requirement for delegation...


pgpd4XykEQoZQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bad press again...

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 29 August 2005 20:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr has made the security team a delegate by this
> message:
> 

Huh? I read no formal delegation in that message.
It just states that he talked to some people and announces that the team 
has been extended with one person.
I see no "(as DPL) I appoint" or "I delegate" in that mail.

A, title of the mail is "Delegations". But that may have been be a mistake 
on the part of tbm based on the assumption that the security team was 
delegated already.

IMO the status of the security team is not changed by that mail: if it was 
delegated before that time, it still is, and similar if it was not.


pgpsgO81T3jJp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 773-1] New amd64 packages fix several bugs

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 11 August 2005 21:24, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Package: several
> Vulnerability  : several
> Problem-Type   : local and remote
> Debian-specific: no
>
> This advisory adds security support for the stable amd64 distribution.

Great job!
Another major step for AMD64.


pgpyG9e9LhvGP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: On Mozilla-* updates

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:39, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> What is wrong with volatile?  It's for exactly this case.
> >
> > No it is not. volatile-sloppy [1] may be (if that's implemented).
>
> I read that, and I read more importantly volatile.debian.net, and I
> don't see any indication there of why gaim upgrades (or mozilla ones)
> are not allowed in volatile.

From volatile.debian.net:
  volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
  contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
  ^^
  functional;

Changes to stable programs <> new upstream versions (in principle).

As a rule, only changes to data files are accepted. Packaging changes are 
also not acceptable in principle.


pgpqSnuSRYAdg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: On Mozilla-* updates

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What is wrong with volatile?  It's for exactly this case.

No it is not. volatile-sloppy [1] may be (if that's implemented).

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00016.html


pgpQYcm3oGbIO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 741-1] New bzip2 packages prevent decompression bomb

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 07 July 2005 15:17, Christina Miller wrote:
> Do you know how I can get myself off of this list?  Somehow I signed up
> under my alias, so I can't just send a message from my email account.

Use the unsubscribe button on this page after filling in the address you 
used to subscribe:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bad press related to (missing) Debian security - action

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:02, martin f krafft wrote:
> > instead of adding to the security team's tasks, and instead of
> > writting emails, why don't we spend the time to write some scripts
> > to do what we're expecting to be done by the security team ??
>
> thanks for the proposal. why did you write it and not just get on
> with those scripts already?
>
> > - yes.. i'm volunteering if there is enough "folks" that want to
> >   solve security problems and automate security patch releases
> > - it's a task for debian-man .. more than what super-man or
> > bat-man can do
>
> people "volunteering" are useless. people actually doing something
> are not.

Hey! You were being so constructive and positive. Why are you now falling 
back to old fashioned Debian-like flaming?

Before you actually start something in an area like this I think it's 
perfectly fair to first mail the list and get reactions.

Maybe you should take a break and let others get their ideas into this 
thread. (Not saying that your contribution so far isn't appreciated.)

Cheers,
FJP


pgpsrDknzNXdk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bad press related to (missing) Debian security

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 27 June 2005 20:39, Marek Olejniczak wrote:
> I don't understand the philosophy of Debian security team. It's really
> so difficult to push into sarge spamassassin 3.0.4 which is not
> vulnerable? This version is in Debian testing and why this version
> can't be push into stable?

Seems that you don't understand the philosophy of the 'stable' release 
either. The basic rule for stable is: "no new upstream versions allowed".
This means security updates for spamassassin need to be backported to 
3.0.3 (excluding any functional changes).

Even if 3.0.4 contains only the security fix, it will still be backported 
and released as 3.0.3-1sarge1 or something like that.


pgpjMmIClsYLa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Security status of orphaned woody packages when upgraded to sarge?

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 10 May 2005 20:56, David Stanaway wrote:
> The problem I see is that there is no warning that the package no
> longer exists, and could potentially have security problems that go
> unnoticed even if you check debian security advisories diligently.

If you use dselect or aptitude, such packages will be listed as "obsolete 
and local packages", so there is warning available.

Cheers,
FJP


pgp57nqhb9Z0f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: post-fix-upgrade procedures notification

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 04 April 2005 21:46, Todd Troxell wrote:
> What about running daemons that depend on security-fixed
> libraries?

You'll need to restart those manually.
I use the attached script that I keep in /usr/local/sbin to check for 
daemons that need restarting after library updates. (It's not extremely 
pretty, but does the job.)

Cheers,
Frans Pop



checkdeleted
Description: application/shellscript


pgpIUjWB1shyE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: debian security support history

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 24 November 2004 16:50, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> - was there really no 2.1r1 to 2.1r3? the first point release i can see
> there is r4...

Guess no formal announcements for point releases were made back then.

[1] will give you an approximate date for 2.1r2 (end of April 1999 
probably) and an explanation why there really was no r1.
The earliest messages in the list archives for 2.1r3 are from Sept 1999.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/05/msg01451.html

Cheers,
FJP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBpLergm/Kwh6ICoQRAtwdAJ49cDxwu3+oPZiGhLWSYIFzBMaiYQCfVh2y
5gHJOhL5x4kPbZADQoX2Y4E=
=LKkY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Woody packages on security.d.o/ _testing_?

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

Is there a good reason why I find Woody packages here?
http://security.debian.org/dists/testing/updates/main/binary-i386/Packages

It gave me some problems during a test installation with Debian Installer.

Cheers,
Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbZ0ugm/Kwh6ICoQRAqkyAKC9+Jo98dH/ab0biQ4O1LfPzLZVuACgpnB3
VIrtxkBoMYleG0f+pu3z2Ng=
=QAbT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: what process is using a port

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 03 May 2004 19:14, LeVA wrote:
> Is there a way to figure out what program is using a port. For example I
> want to know which process is using port 80. How can I do this?
>
# info lsof
# lsof -i :

Cheers,

FJP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAloX9gm/Kwh6ICoQRAvOtAJ9yNxh6tJRcP15LkSQlfjzIK1d8+ACgzExW
ogQoo8wjUK8ZEwj/zJsgECg=
=fB6H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: what process is using a port

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 03 May 2004 19:14, LeVA wrote:
> Is there a way to figure out what program is using a port. For example I
> want to know which process is using port 80. How can I do this?
>
# info lsof
# lsof -i :

Cheers,

FJP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAloX9gm/Kwh6ICoQRAvOtAJ9yNxh6tJRcP15LkSQlfjzIK1d8+ACgzExW
ogQoo8wjUK8ZEwj/zJsgECg=
=fB6H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: strange PIDs on kernel threads

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:12, Laurent Corbes {Caf'} wrote:
>
> see bug #217525
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=217525
>
> it's a kernel bug :/
>
Not sure about that. I have same kernel (2.4.20) but different procps (2.0.7-8 
from Woody). And for me the processes are shown OK.
I'll post an addition to the bugreport with more info.

FJP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQE/nEQqgm/Kwh6ICoQRAg7xAKDYuWq5TvILjTgKjAkyyPUJob0wSACWMu+3
jbhJAx2DyYMeOec3MAfbcA==
=F2sZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: strange PIDs on kernel threads

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:12, Laurent Corbes {Caf'} wrote:
>
> see bug #217525
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=217525
>
> it's a kernel bug :/
>
Not sure about that. I have same kernel (2.4.20) but different procps (2.0.7-8 
from Woody). And for me the processes are shown OK.
I'll post an addition to the bugreport with more info.

FJP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQE/nEQqgm/Kwh6ICoQRAg7xAKDYuWq5TvILjTgKjAkyyPUJob0wSACWMu+3
jbhJAx2DyYMeOec3MAfbcA==
=F2sZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Ideas for logcheck overhaul

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Steve,

I saw your announcement in debian-security that you and Jon Middleton are 
working on a new version of logcheck.
I recently started using logcheck and syslog-ng and have some ideas on how 
logcheck could be extended, especially for use on loghosts.

I have entered my ideas in the wishlist for logcheck on Alioth (although I 
think the project is not yet completely set up).

See:
http://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=300289&group_id=1320&atid=410417
(My indentation was lost by Alioth, but I think it is still readable.)

Hope you can use some of it.

Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/moYXgm/Kwh6ICoQRAo8nAKCNKmnIukkLLRHJFQ+VK06uutyAzQCgpwNt
W4IA10ze+srZ8YJDCcGtEL0=
=6DLx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Ideas for logcheck overhaul

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Steve,

I saw your announcement in debian-security that you and Jon Middleton are 
working on a new version of logcheck.
I recently started using logcheck and syslog-ng and have some ideas on how 
logcheck could be extended, especially for use on loghosts.

I have entered my ideas in the wishlist for logcheck on Alioth (although I 
think the project is not yet completely set up).

See:
http://alioth.debian.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=300289&group_id=1320&atid=410417
(My indentation was lost by Alioth, but I think it is still readable.)

Hope you can use some of it.

Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/moYXgm/Kwh6ICoQRAo8nAKCNKmnIukkLLRHJFQ+VK06uutyAzQCgpwNt
W4IA10ze+srZ8YJDCcGtEL0=
=6DLx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Verisign does hijack 'country' domains !!!

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Sorry Michelle,

If I try the domain you entered, I get "Welcome to Wendy!".
I have also tried most other examples you have given of problems and never yet 
been redirected to Verisign.

Obviously there is something very wrong with your browser or DNS(-server) 
configuration.

Maybe they have only resulted in strange behaviour after the "Verisign 
hijack", but the cause of the problems is still on your side.
I would suggest you put any further questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your questions are _not_ security problems, but configuration problems.

Success,

FJP

On Sunday 28 September 2003 12:22, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Sice some hours I have tried to access some governement servers
> without success all Servers are ending in .fr or .gov.fr
>
>
> If anyone tell me Verisign wildcards only .net and .com Domains...
>
> Sorry, but I have attached a JPEG from a server which I had accessed
> for 3 days...
>
> My german .de Domains have the same problem !!!
>
> Greetings
> Michelle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dtR/gm/Kwh6ICoQRAsqzAJ9S4khouAaJR3Zk3mTdwQ5tVoeFCgCdHm8z
zTLC+4egsLLp7Qi5npccolU=
=VI+2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Verisign does hijack 'country' domains !!!

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Sorry Michelle,

If I try the domain you entered, I get "Welcome to Wendy!".
I have also tried most other examples you have given of problems and never yet 
been redirected to Verisign.

Obviously there is something very wrong with your browser or DNS(-server) 
configuration.

Maybe they have only resulted in strange behaviour after the "Verisign 
hijack", but the cause of the problems is still on your side.
I would suggest you put any further questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Your questions are _not_ security problems, but configuration problems.

Success,

FJP

On Sunday 28 September 2003 12:22, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Sice some hours I have tried to access some governement servers
> without success all Servers are ending in .fr or .gov.fr
>
>
> If anyone tell me Verisign wildcards only .net and .com Domains...
>
> Sorry, but I have attached a JPEG from a server which I had accessed
> for 3 days...
>
> My german .de Domains have the same problem !!!
>
> Greetings
> Michelle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dtR/gm/Kwh6ICoQRAsqzAJ9S4khouAaJR3Zk3mTdwQ5tVoeFCgCdHm8z
zTLC+4egsLLp7Qi5npccolU=
=VI+2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Wrong manpage/doc file modes in exim-3.35-1woody1 [DSA 377-1]

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Same on my boxes. Thanks for pointing out the cause.

I did
  sudo chmod 644 `find . -perm 640`
in /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc/exim to fix the problem.

I guess a new package will be made?

Frans Pop

On Sunday 07 September 2003 14:26, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (I guess someone must have noticed this already, but I haven't been able
> to find a trace from such a report.)
>
> exim-3.35-1woody1 (i386) from security.debian.org hasn't its files in
> /usr/share/doc/exim and /usr/share/man world readable.
>
> This causes /etc/cron.daily/man-db to fail and send mail to the
> administrator.
>
> Rebuilding the package from source fixes the problem.
>
> --
> Jeremie Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/W1Oegm/Kwh6ICoQRAhcTAKDEZ1yb/ISLSJ6eK/rshRDLt8SeNACdF8T1
ZOD4YkoEGJ3/39MebapeH3k=
=xvfo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Wrong manpage/doc file modes in exim-3.35-1woody1 [DSA 377-1]

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Same on my boxes. Thanks for pointing out the cause.

I did
  sudo chmod 644 `find . -perm 640`
in /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc/exim to fix the problem.

I guess a new package will be made?

Frans Pop

On Sunday 07 September 2003 14:26, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (I guess someone must have noticed this already, but I haven't been able
> to find a trace from such a report.)
>
> exim-3.35-1woody1 (i386) from security.debian.org hasn't its files in
> /usr/share/doc/exim and /usr/share/man world readable.
>
> This causes /etc/cron.daily/man-db to fail and send mail to the
> administrator.
>
> Rebuilding the package from source fixes the problem.
>
> --
> Jeremie Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/W1Oegm/Kwh6ICoQRAhcTAKDEZ1yb/ISLSJ6eK/rshRDLt8SeNACdF8T1
ZOD4YkoEGJ3/39MebapeH3k=
=xvfo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Strange email from debian list

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 01 September 2003 22:42, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org
> > to me?
> > I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the
> > original mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have
> > been in the past).
> >
> > Thnx.
> >
> > =START OF RECEIVED MAIL=
> > Return-Path:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> According to one of the listmasters, yes, you are subscribed to
> debian-i386-changes.
Oops...
After checking my archives way back to april, I find I did subscribe.
Forgot all about it (this is the first email I've received from the list since 
subscribing; must be a very slow list!).

Sorry. Should have checked better.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Strange email from debian list

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org to 
me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the original 
mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have been in the 
past).

Thnx.

=START OF RECEIVED MAIL=
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murphy.debian.org (146.82.138.6) by mail.tiscali.nl (6.7.018)
id 3F4E0DD7001B093A for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:35:01 
+0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 01FA41FF5F; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from web10607.mail.yahoo.com (web10607.mail.yahoo.com 
[216.136.130.171])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A95D71FF78
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:41 -0500 
(CDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [128.123.220.133] by web10607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 31 
Aug 2003 23:34:41 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: fuad alhaidry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: old kernel
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=4.0
tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS
version=2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_08_30
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_08_30 
(1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/43
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: 

List-Unsubscribe: 

List-Archive: 
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Status: R
X-Status: N
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:

Hi all,
I just installed debian through the network. when I
finished the installation, I found out that I got the
kernel 2.2.20 not the latest. I was trying to install
the latest kernel, but my system fail to boot. I
installed the old one back again :( !

the other problem is that the xfree86 server did not
work with "ati agp video carda". my question:

Is there an easy way to update or install the new
kernel?

and how can I make my xserver work wiht ati agp card?
Thank you in advance!
Alhaidry


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


- --
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

=END OF RECEIVED MAIL=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/U5Y3gm/Kwh6ICoQRAhEOAKDSJBz5Caymr4wkvZK4Y5IxAHYVUACdEU3X
vFu+/jyk58vmyJ6DDf4Sk/s=
=zsKM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Strange email from debian list

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 01 September 2003 22:42, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org
> > to me?
> > I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the
> > original mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have
> > been in the past).
> >
> > Thnx.
> >
> > =START OF RECEIVED MAIL=
> > Return-Path:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> According to one of the listmasters, yes, you are subscribed to
> debian-i386-changes.
Oops...
After checking my archives way back to april, I find I did subscribe.
Forgot all about it (this is the first email I've received from the list since 
subscribing; must be a very slow list!).

Sorry. Should have checked better.

Strange email from debian list

[Frans Pop]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org to 
me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the original 
mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have been in the 
past).

Thnx.

=START OF RECEIVED MAIL=
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murphy.debian.org (146.82.138.6) by mail.tiscali.nl (6.7.018)
id 3F4E0DD7001B093A for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:35:01 
+0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 01FA41FF5F; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from web10607.mail.yahoo.com (web10607.mail.yahoo.com 
[216.136.130.171])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A95D71FF78
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:41 -0500 
(CDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [128.123.220.133] by web10607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 31 
Aug 2003 23:34:41 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: fuad alhaidry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: old kernel
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=4.0
tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS
version=2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_08_30
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_08_30 
(1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/43
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: 

List-Unsubscribe: 

List-Archive: 
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2003 01:34:48 -0500 (CDT)
Status: R
X-Status: N
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:

Hi all,
I just installed debian through the network. when I
finished the installation, I found out that I got the
kernel 2.2.20 not the latest. I was trying to install
the latest kernel, but my system fail to boot. I
installed the old one back again :( !

the other problem is that the xfree86 server did not
work with "ati agp video carda". my question:

Is there an easy way to update or install the new
kernel?

and how can I make my xserver work wiht ati agp card?
Thank you in advance!
Alhaidry


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


- --
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

=END OF RECEIVED MAIL=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/U5Y3gm/Kwh6ICoQRAhEOAKDSJBz5Caymr4wkvZK4Y5IxAHYVUACdEU3X
vFu+/jyk58vmyJ6DDf4Sk/s=
=zsKM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-