> Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
> NIS for critical and secure systems.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
--
Drew
"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
--Marie Curie
___
CentOS mailing li
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Serwe wrote:
> After dealing with a couple of issues with OpenLDAP, I'd say it beats the
> piss out of NIS all day long. NIS is ancient and decrepit.
Agreed.
> Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
> NIS for critical and secure s
After dealing with a couple of issues with OpenLDAP, I'd say it beats the
piss out of NIS all day long. NIS is ancient and decrepit.
Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
NIS for critical and secure systems.
Peter
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM, John R.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
> We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
> initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
>
> It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
> restart.
>
> It behaves as ind
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:51:24AM +1300, Clint Dilks wrote:
> How is your /etc/yp.conf defined. NIS failover works flawlessly here if
> we have /etc/yp.conf like
> ypserver nis2
> ypserver nis
You also need to ensure you can resolve "nis" and "nis2" without using
NIS, so you may also need to th
Jason Pyeron wrote:
> We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
> initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
>
> It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
> restart.
We've been using NIS like this for years - failover wo
Jason Pyeron wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
>> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 14:37
>> To: 'CentOS mailing list'
>> S
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 14:37
> To: 'CentOS mailing list'
> Subject: [CentOS] NIS failover
>
> We just updated our c
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:50:16PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
> Out of curiousity, can you point me to writeups of known working
> exploits against current yp-family versions on CentOS?
The problem isn't an exploit of the specific tools; the whole mechanism
is insecure, unless you
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
> security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
NIS+ is a dead product. Even Sun gave up pushing it. (Funny; in 1995 the
Solaris training co
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:50:16PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> >
> > Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
> > security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
>
> Out of
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
> security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
Out of curiousity, can you point me to writeups of known working
exploits a
> We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
> initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
>
> It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
> restart.
>
> It behaves as indicated in
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind restart.
It behaves as indicated in
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id
14 matches
Mail list logo