Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Rudi Ahlers
On 6/3/09, Scott Silva wrote: > on 6-2-2009 2:46 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: >> On 6/2/09, Scott Silva wrote: >>> on 6-2-2009 2:30 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: Hi all, One of our CentOS 5.3 randomly reboots, at different times of the day, and I can't see why it'

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Ian Forde
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 01:57 -0400, JohnS wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 00:46 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:30:10AM -0500, Neil Aggarwal wrote: > > > > > > It would be prudent to review his web code to see > > > if he did something in an insecure way. If his code >

[CentOS] CentOS 5.3 SuperMicro x7sbi AHCI

2009-06-02 Thread Ron Lorah
Greetings, Wondering if anyone could assist with this. I have many SuperMicro 5015B-MTB servers. These all have the X7SBi Motherboards. After upgrading to CentOS 5.3 the Hard Drive LED's on some of the servers started blinking red(drive fail) but all is functioning normally. All servers are runn

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread JohnS
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 00:46 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:30:10AM -0500, Neil Aggarwal wrote: > > > > It would be prudent to review his web code to see > > if he did something in an insecure way. If his code > > is open to attack, it will be so even if he puts it >

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:30:10AM -0500, Neil Aggarwal wrote: > > It would be prudent to review his web code to see > if he did something in an insecure way. If his code > is open to attack, it will be so even if he puts it > on a new machine. Hence my statements to evaluate the web-app

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
Bruce: > you state that "..An unauthorized user currently has the > ability to run > processed on the machine" > > how do we know that.. The original poster stated he did know how what the process was. He stated he believed the machine was being attacked. He asked for advice from the co

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
Bruce: > my only point, was that reinstalling wotjout understanding > what was/is going > on is a draconian step.. does it resolve the issue.. sire.. > does it get to > what might have been the cause.. not in my opinion... This point seems valid. If you do not understand why and how the mach

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread bruce
neil... you state that "..An unauthorized user currently has the ability to run processed on the machine" how do we know that.. did i miss something in an earlier thread.. don't get me wrong, you might know more on this thread than the few msgs i saw... al i saw was that there was the 'atack'

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
Bruce: > i'm inclined to think the processs is something on his server... > > now, how it got there is a curious issue that he's going to have to > address.. This is precisely the point. An unauthorized user currently has the ability to run processed on the machine. We do not know what they h

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread bruce
you and i agreee on him figuring out what web apps are causing the issues.. or in fact, exactly what the 'atack' process is? i didn't see the initial threads.. was this simething that he discussed? did he say what the arack process was doing? my only point, was that reinstalling wotjout understan

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread bruce
neil... the ps he showed, showed the 'atack' processes being run by the apache user... i'm incined to agree that he should take the machine offline, but i don't know what the 'atack' processes are, and unless his system is really f*ed up.. i'm inclined to think the processs is something on his se

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:48:41PM -0700, bruce wrote: > > not kidding... the majority of windows based attacks on an apache system > running on linux systems are obnoxiousm but not harmful... the kinds of > attacks that are looking to exploit windows buffer overflows are harmless to > linux syste

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
Bruce: I think you are misunderstanding something. He showed a process listing of processes running on his server. Those were not apache processes being attacked from the outside. They were rogue processes running on his machine. Neil -- Neil Aggarwal, (832)245-7314, www.JAMMConsulting

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Raymond Lillard
htebruce wrote: > it's possible your box is attacked, has been compromised.. of it's possible > that it's also being slammed by some sort of potential attack/hack. > regarding the apache app, what do the log files say... what apps do you have > running on the apche server? are these apps home grown

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread bruce
nope... not kidding... the majority of windows based attacks on an apache system running on linux systems are obnoxiousm but not harmful... the kinds of attacks that are looking to exploit windows buffer overflows are harmless to linux systems.. this isn't to say that all windows attacks are harm

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:34:55PM -0700, bruce wrote: > it's possible your box is attacked, has been compromised.. of it's possible > that it's also being slammed by some sort of potential attack/hack. > regarding the apache app, what do the log files say... what apps do you have > running on the

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread bruce
it's possible your box is attacked, has been compromised.. of it's possible that it's also being slammed by some sort of potential attack/hack. regarding the apache app, what do the log files say... what apps do you have running on the apche server? are these apps home grown, or installed from some

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:01:35PM -0700, Linux Advocate wrote: > > o godd. > > i have a quite a few linux boxes and not even one has been hacked. oh man > !! That you have noticed. > really??? i have to format the box.

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:48:11PM -0400, William Warren wrote: > > some google foo shows this is a WINDOWS exploit not a linux one. > > http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/analyzing-apache-logs-174552/ Um, perhaps I am just missing something but I don't see any r

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
> i have a quite a few linux boxes and not even one has been > hacked. oh man !! Consider yourself lucky that you have not had it happen in the past. Nothing is 100% secure. > really??? i have to format the box. Yes, you do. Neil -- Neil Aggarwal, (832)245-7314, www.JAMM

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Neil Aggarwal
Hello: If there are processes running on your machine which you do not recognize, assume the machine has been compromised. Take it offline and wipe it immediately. Neil -- Neil Aggarwal, (832)245-7314, www.JAMMConsulting.com Eliminate junk email and reclaim your inbox. Visit http://www

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Linux Advocate
reply below - Original Message > From: John R. Dennison > To: CentOS mailing list > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:43:46 AM > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:23:16PM -0700, Linux Advocate wrote: > > > > Hell,

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Linux Advocate
> > > some google foo shows this is a WINDOWS exploit not a linux one. > > http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/analyzing-apache-logs-174552/ > ___ yes, william, i saw those links when i googledi too did no think it related to

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread William Warren
John R. Dennison wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:23:16PM -0700, Linux Advocate wrote: > >> Hell, has my centos 5.3 box been hacked??? Help !! >> > > Yes. Reinstall; fully update components; restore *data* > from backups (you have backups, right?) and review what >

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread William Warren
John R. Dennison wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:23:16PM -0700, Linux Advocate wrote: > >> Hell, has my centos 5.3 box been hacked??? Help !! >> > > Yes. Reinstall; fully update components; restore *data* > from backups (you have backups, right?) and review what >

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:23:16PM -0700, Linux Advocate wrote: > > Hell, has my centos 5.3 box been hacked??? Help !! Yes. Reinstall; fully update components; restore *data* from backups (you have backups, right?) and review what web packages you have installed

Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Linux Advocate
sorry typos amended Guys, apache's cpu usage is hitting 100% sometimes ( to such an extent that its very noticeable) on a box ( 2gb ram) with just 8 users or so. This newver happended before. i m getting this when i run 'top'. The worrying thing is seeing the word 'atack' under c

[CentOS] Centos 5.3 -> Apache - Under Attack ? Oh hell....

2009-06-02 Thread Linux Advocate
Guys, apache cpus usage is hitting 100% sometimes ( to such an extent that its very noticeable) on a box with just 8 users or so. i m getting this when i run 'top'. The worrying thing is seeing the work 'atack' under command PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND

Re: [CentOS] Not received any E-MAIl from listserve???

2009-06-02 Thread Bart Schaefer
Yahoo has been having internal problems with a recent change to their spam filter. It's randomly [*] reporting IP addresses as being listed on the Spamhaus blocklist (when those IPs are not listed), and therefore incorrectly rejecting mail in unpredictable ways. This has been going on for almost

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Christopher Chan
John R Pierce wrote: > Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > >>> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time, >>> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. >>> >>> >>> >> Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid c

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Christopher Chan
nate wrote: > Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > >> Complete bollocks. The bottleneck is not the drives themselves as >> whether it is SATA/PATA disk drive performance has not changed much >> which is why 15k RPM disks are still king. The bottleneck is the bus be >> it PCI-X or PCIe 16x/8x/4x

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread nate
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > Complete bollocks. The bottleneck is not the drives themselves as > whether it is SATA/PATA disk drive performance has not changed much > which is why 15k RPM disks are still king. The bottleneck is the bus be > it PCI-X or PCIe 16x/8x/4x or at least the latenci

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread jim
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: >> AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?! > > For CentOS: Yes. > > For Upstream: Ask Red Hat. > > Ralph > I have asked RHT repeatedly to walk me through the life of a package version. Not

Re: [CentOS] Local Host Routing

2009-06-02 Thread Stephen Harris
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:31:11PM -0700, Al Sparks wrote: > $ route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse > Iface > 10.7.13.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 > 10.254.214.00.0.0.0

[CentOS] Local Host Routing

2009-06-02 Thread Al Sparks
I have, a machine running RHEL ES 4.7 with 2 physical interfaces. eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:14:22:1C:B4:EA inet addr:10.7.13.61 Bcast:10.7.13.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::214:22ff:fe1c:b4ea/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MUL

Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Les Mikesell
Frank Cox wrote: > >> So, I'm trying todo everything I can, from my side, via SSH to see if >> I can figure it out. > > If it's a hardware-related issue, as Scott suggested, you can spend all the > time you want fiddling around with the software and you'll never solve the > problem. Yes, you'll

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread John R Pierce
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: >> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time, >> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. >> >> > Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid can perform > better or the same if you are

Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Scott Silva
on 6-2-2009 2:46 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: > On 6/2/09, Scott Silva wrote: >> on 6-2-2009 2:30 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> One of our CentOS 5.3 randomly reboots, at different times of the day, >>> and I can't see why it's doing it. >>> >>> I have looked throu

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Chan Chung Hang Christopher
> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time, > kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. > Let me define 'most cases' for you. Linux software raid can perform better or the same if you are using raid0/raid1/raid1+0 arrays. If you are usi

Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Frank Cox
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:46:39 +0200 Rudi Ahlers wrote: > So, I'm trying todo everything I can, from my side, via SSH to see if > I can figure it out. If it's a hardware-related issue, as Scott suggested, you can spend all the time you want fiddling around with the software and you'll never solve t

Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Rudi Ahlers
On 6/2/09, Scott Silva wrote: > on 6-2-2009 2:30 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: >> Hi all, >> >> One of our CentOS 5.3 randomly reboots, at different times of the day, >> and I can't see why it's doing it. >> >> I have looked through the logs, but don't see any thing in there that >> shows me

Re: [CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Scott Silva
on 6-2-2009 2:30 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: > Hi all, > > One of our CentOS 5.3 randomly reboots, at different times of the day, > and I can't see why it's doing it. > > I have looked through the logs, but don't see any thing in there that > shows me why it has rebooted. How can I debug

[CentOS] how to debug random server reboots

2009-06-02 Thread Rudi Ahlers
Hi all, One of our CentOS 5.3 randomly reboots, at different times of the day, and I can't see why it's doing it. I have looked through the logs, but don't see any thing in there that shows me why it has rebooted. How can I debug this? Here's a snipped from the log, around the time of the reboot

Re: [CentOS] Dovecot under brute force attack - nice attacker

2009-06-02 Thread Scott Silva
on 6-2-2009 5:51 AM henry ritzlmayr spake the following: > Hi List, > > optimizing the configuration on one of our servers (which was > hit by a brute force attack on dovecot) showed an odd behavior. > > The short story: > On one of our servers an attacker did a brute force > attack on dovecot

Re: [CentOS] Rhel mysql Vs Mysql Community Edition

2009-06-02 Thread Robert Heller
At Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:21:15 +0200 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > Hi :) > > Sorry for my bad english i'm a frenchi... > > I have a little question about mysql. > > What is the difference between mysql-server in centos vs the rpm build > by Sun ( Mysql community edition) > > RedHat apply homem

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Scott Silva
on 6-2-2009 1:53 PM Radu-Cristian FOTESCU spake the following: > --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers > wrote: > >> Communication problems are usually caused by both sides. > > Agreed. > >> Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released >> to the public, so you need those expensive entitleme

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Ross Walker
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/01/2009 07:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: >> >> I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time, >> kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. > > There are certainly a lot of people who

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Radu-Cristian FOTESCU
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers wrote: > Communication problems are usually caused by both sides. Agreed. > Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released > to the public, so you need those expensive entitlements > to be able to rebuild them. Eek. Never knew that. This looks more like

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Pulse - The Bi-weekly CentOS Newsletter #0901

2009-06-02 Thread Dag Wieers
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Lanny Marcus wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > >> I am pleased to announce the first edition of the bi-weekly CentOS >> newsletter which we dubbed "CentOS Pulse". > > > Dag: I read the first issue. Great idea! Please post here, each time > you post

Re: [CentOS] Not received any E-MAIl from listserve???

2009-06-02 Thread Ralph Angenendt
mcclnx mcc wrote: > > > I have been a while did NOT received E-MAIL from "centos" listserv. > Any problem on CENTOS listserv? No. I would be interested if you get this mail, though :) Ralph pgpw5vXmC7FDR.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailin

Re: [CentOS] Not received any E-MAIl from listserve???

2009-06-02 Thread Bo Lynch
On Tue, June 2, 2009 1:48 pm, mcclnx mcc wrote: > > > I have been a while did NOT received E-MAIL from "centos" listserv. Any > problem on CENTOS listserv? > > > No Prob here. Been recieving mail. Might want to check spam filter. Bo Lynch ___ Cen

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Pulse - The Bi-weekly CentOS Newsletter #0901

2009-06-02 Thread Lanny Marcus
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > I am pleased to announce the first edition of the bi-weekly CentOS > newsletter which we dubbed "CentOS Pulse". Dag: I read the first issue. Great idea! Please post here, each time you post a new edition. Lanny __

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Gordon Messmer
On 06/01/2009 07:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: > > I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in time, > kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. There are certainly a lot of people who feel that way. It depends on what your priorities are. Hardw

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 52, Issue 1

2009-06-02 Thread centos-announce-request
lable Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20090602/13dc3c5b/attachment-0001.bin -- ___ CentOS-announce mailing list cento

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Ross Walker
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: > -=- starting as new thread as it is off topic from controller thread -=- > > Ross Walker wrote: > >  > >  > The real key is the controller though. Get one that can do hardware >  > RAID1/10, 5/50, 6/60, if it can do both SATA and SAS even

Re: [CentOS] Harware vs Kernel RAID (was Re: External SATA enclosures: SiI3124 and CentOS 5?)

2009-06-02 Thread Chris Boyd
On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: > I've read a lot of different reports that suggest at this point in > time, > kernel software raid is in most cases better than controller raid. I manage systems with both. I like hardware RAID controllers. Yes, they do cost money up fron

Re: [CentOS] Dovecot under brute force attack - nice attacker

2009-06-02 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Henry ritzlmayr wrote on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:51:23 +0200: > ->Only the last try gets logged. can't reproduce this. The following was done in one connection to localhost. Jun 2 17:09:10 d01 dovecot-auth: pam_unix(dovecot:auth): check pass; user unknown Jun 2 17:09:10 d01 dovecot-auth: pam_uni

[CentOS] Rhel mysql Vs Mysql Community Edition

2009-06-02 Thread Thomas Beugin
Hi :) Sorry for my bad english i'm a frenchi... I have a little question about mysql. What is the difference between mysql-server in centos vs the rpm build by Sun ( Mysql community edition) RedHat apply homemade patch or they only backport Sun patch? Cordialement, Beugin Thomas ___

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Dag Wieers
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: >> For CentOS: Yes. > > But Karanbir says I seem "quite confused about what should and should not > exist." How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an > confused ignorant? > >> For Upstream: Ask Red Hat. > > I was hoping *y

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Radu-Cristian FOTESCU
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > > For CentOS: Yes. But Karanbir says I seem "quite confused about what should and should not exist." How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an confused ignorant? > For Upstream: Ask Red Hat. I was hoping *you* (some of y

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Radu-Cristian FOTESCU
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Karanbir Singh wrote: > > > > So there *should* have existed: > > * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2; > > * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3; > > etc. > > go back and reread the entire list of comments. > You seem quite confused > about what should and should

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Karanbir Singh
On 06/02/2009 02:27 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: > So there *should* have existed: > * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2; > * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3; > etc. go back and reread the entire list of comments. You seem quite confused about what should and should not exist. -

[CentOS] CentOS Pulse - The Bi-weekly CentOS Newsletter #0901

2009-06-02 Thread Dag Wieers
Hi, I am pleased to announce the first edition of the bi-weekly CentOS newsletter which we dubbed "CentOS Pulse". This first issue centers around improving communication within the CentOS community and how that relates to the CentOS Promo SIG. We also look at the recent announcements regardin

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Ralph Angenendt
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: > AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?! For CentOS: Yes. For Upstream: Ask Red Hat. Ralph pgpvVtxZUcKsC.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://l

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Radu-Cristian FOTESCU
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Point releases are just freezes in time. There are no > "special" updates for point releases, only for the > "current" release. This is what we all *believe* we know (e.g. "5"-current is now "5.3"+updates). However, TUV seems to have had a different o

[CentOS] Dovecot under brute force attack - nice attacker

2009-06-02 Thread henry ritzlmayr
Hi List, optimizing the configuration on one of our servers (which was hit by a brute force attack on dovecot) showed an odd behavior. The short story: On one of our servers an attacker did a brute force attack on dovecot (pop3). Since the attacker closed and reopened the connection after ev

Re: [CentOS] how to disable lots of auditd messages?

2009-06-02 Thread Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
MontyRee wrote: > hello all. > > My system is centos 5.x and there is no module related auditd > there is no process(daemon) related auditd and selinux definately disabled. > > But I can see lots of auditd messages like below. > > Oct 20 02:01:01 linux kernel: type=1106 audit(1224435661.064

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Matthias Leopold wrote on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:56:47 +0200: > is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are > forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 -> > 5.2, etc)? is there a way and would it make sense to stay within one > particular release an

Re: [CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Renato de Oliveira Diogo
Hi The major release of CentOS/RHEL is from 5.x -> 6.x. The 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.2 ... is a update security, and all shared the same repository, and the line of version the packages is to update. In some package case is major update because of security update, eg. firefox 1.5 to 3.0. Mozilla a long tim

[CentOS] NetworkManager, Vpnc and Centos 5.3 Problem.

2009-06-02 Thread Abdullah Teke
Hi; I have Centos 5.3 on my labtop and have to vpn a cisco vpn server. So i installed vpnc on my box. Then i want to integrate with NetworkManager and vpnc so i also installed NetworkManager-vpnc 7.0. I configured vpn connection and tried to connect. It looks like it connected but when i try to log

[CentOS] release/update question

2009-06-02 Thread Matthias Leopold
hi, since i don't use centos very heavily i'm not too familiar with the centos/rhel release/update process (and i didn't do much research on this): is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.2, etc

[CentOS] how to disable lots of auditd messages?

2009-06-02 Thread MontyRee
hello all. My system is centos 5.x and there is no module related auditd there is no process(daemon) related auditd and selinux definately disabled. But I can see lots of auditd messages like below. Oct 20 02:01:01 linux kernel: type=1106 audit(1224435661.064:65210): user pid=25860 uid=0 a

Re: [CentOS] Changing a user's shell on CentOS Directory Server?

2009-06-02 Thread Ralph Angenendt
Matt Harrington wrote: > Should unprivileged users be able to change their shell with lchsh on > 5.3 and, if it matters, CentOS Directory Server? lchsh seems to > require more open permissions than those which come with a default > installation: > > Error initializing libuser: could not open

Re: [CentOS] Why yum-cron is only at x86_64 system?

2009-06-02 Thread Sebastian Szary
2009/6/2 Michael A. Peters > MontyRee wrote: > > Hello, all. > > > > > > I have operated centos 4.x and 5.x system. > > > > for 4.x system, I auto update using yum and for 5.x system, using > > yum-cron. > > > > but I can't find any yum-cron package (i386) like below. > > > > # yum search yum-cro

Re: [CentOS] Why yum-cron is only at x86_64 system?

2009-06-02 Thread Karanbir Singh
On 06/02/2009 09:19 AM, MontyRee wrote: > # yum search yum-cron(at i686, centox 5.3) > > Warning: No matches found for: yum-cron > No Matches found yum-cron has a bit of history really. But in a nutshell, do you need yumcron to do something that cant be done with yum-updatesd itself ? Make sure

Re: [CentOS] Why yum-cron is only at x86_64 system?

2009-06-02 Thread Michael A. Peters
MontyRee wrote: > Hello, all. > > > I have operated centos 4.x and 5.x system. > > for 4.x system, I auto update using yum and for 5.x system, using > yum-cron. > > but I can't find any yum-cron package (i386) like below. > > # yum search yum-cron(at i686, centox 5.3) > > Warning: No matches

[CentOS] Why yum-cron is only at x86_64 system?

2009-06-02 Thread MontyRee
Hello, all. I have operated centos 4.x and 5.x system. for 4.x system, I auto update using yum and for 5.x system, using yum-cron. but I can't find any yum-cron package (i386) like below. # yum search yum-cron(at i686, centox 5.3) Warning: No matches found for: yum-cron No Matches f