Lars Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All this talk about reasons for using `/hurd' got me wondering: Do there
> exist potential problems when a translator that translates a certain
> directory is itself located somewhere inside that directory?
There aren't any such problems (hidden ones, at l
Anthony Towns writes:
> Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
>
> Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
>
> Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
I think that it is foolish to insist on this. Router firewalling
tools, for example, a
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:29:24PM +0200, Lars Weber wrote:
> All this talk about reasons for using `/hurd' got me wondering: Do there
> exist potential problems when a translator that translates a certain
> directory is itself located somewhere inside that directory?
No, because if you exec a fil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
[...]
> There are more, but this is a brief list of some of the ones that have
> come up with so far.
All this talk about reasons for using `/hurd' got me wondering: Do there
exist potential problems when a translator that translates a certain
direct
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 03:06:57PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:42:25AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On 30 years old operating systems like unix it might be. Modern
> > operating systems like GNU/Hurd don't need a firewall. It even gives
> > everybody a login shel
On Ter, 2002-05-21 at 20:10, Wolfgang Jährling wrote:
> Manuel A. Fernández Montecelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Ter, 2002-05-21 at 18:51, Niels Möller wrote:
> > > I hope there will be a sensible list of release criteria, prepared
> > > with input from both the release manager the hurd folk
Manuel A. Fernández Montecelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Ter, 2002-05-21 at 18:51, Niels Möller wrote:
> > I hope there will be a sensible list of release criteria, prepared
> > with input from both the release manager the hurd folks, when Debian
> > GNU/Hurd gets closer to release, and puttin
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:16:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Let me spell it out in simple terms.
>
> Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
>
> [If] Firewalling tools are not available for Debian [PORT X,]
>
> Debian [PORT X] will not be released until they are available.
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:34:48PM +0200, SpyderMan wrote:
>
> ... in an ideal world, of course, I would
> consider firewalling to be a complete waste of time. However, those holes
> that "shouldn't be there" often, unfortunately, are, and experience has
> shown that one of the ways of reducing
On Ter, 2002-05-21 at 18:51, Niels Möller wrote:
> "Manuel A." Fernández Montecelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > try "-nolisten TCP" in the script launching X server ;)
>
> I'll try to remember that next time a restart the X server (which
> probably happens when I can upgrade to a released an
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:51:11PM +0200, Niels M?ller wrote:
> But my point was that, *by default*, the X server listens to tcp
> connections from anywhere.
My gdm did not, BTW (It starts X itself). I had to enable it.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
One of the great things about books is sometimes
th
Niklas Höglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So people that don't use GNU tools but GNOME and Nautilus should maybe
> call it Eazel/Linux :)(ugh)
Another reason for calling it GNU/Linux is to remind yourself that the
most basic idea of the system is to give freedom to its users. Eazel
does not
"Manuel A." Fernández Montecelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> try "-nolisten TCP" in the script launching X server ;)
I'll try to remember that next time a restart the X server (which
probably happens when I can upgrade to a released and stable
woody...).
But my point was that, *by default*, the
On Ter, 2002-05-21 at 13:44, Niels Möller wrote:
> "John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Debian (using a linux, bsd, or gnumach/l4 (micro)kernel) should be
> > ``Secure by default.'' if this means that no firewalling -> no debian
> > release, then so be it.
>
> Strictly speakin
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:33:09AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Jails are kind of like the translators. They're a kernel-specifc (or
whatever the Hurd is supposed to be) add-on.
[stuff deleted]
A jail is not anything like a translator, but a translator can be like a
jail.
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> He's out of date WRT current practice. And some networks have more than
> one gateway, in which case it can be desirable to administer on the
> hosts with the relevent services.
Wouldn't it be more secure to use two (or at least o
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:33:09AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Jails are kind of like the translators. They're a kernel-specifc (or
> whatever the Hurd is supposed to be) add-on.
Just to illuminate this a bit more.
The Hurd is not really an extension to something. The Hurd is the system.
Th
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:33:09AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Jails are kind of like the translators. They're a kernel-specifc (or
whatever the Hurd is supposed to be) add-on. They're useful, but more of
a nice-to-have add-on than an essential feature for an operating sy
Thus spoke SpyderMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2002-05-21 17:29:52:
> >My experience shows that one can live
> >happily without firewalling support
>
> And you consider your experience representative of many users needs, which
> of course it is if the Hurd is to be used by people linking 2 laptops
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:07:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And yes, I consider requiring Debian operating systems to have firewalling
> tools available to be in aid of that goal. That's not something new
> I've just thought up to be annoying to the Hurd people because it's the
> flamewar du j
Firewalling serves the purpose only of covering holes that shouldn't
be there in the first place.
i would agree with you on that, and in an ideal world, of course, I would consider
firewalling to be a complete waste of time. However, those holes that "shouldn't be
there" often, unfortunately, ar
My experience shows that one can live
happily without firewalling support
And you consider your experience representative of many users needs, which
of course it is if the Hurd is to be used by people linking 2 laptops together
at home using PLIP. I, however, had hoped for bigger things.
--
To
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:33:09AM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> Jails are kind of like the translators. They're a kernel-specifc (or
> whatever the Hurd is supposed to be) add-on. They're useful, but more of
> a nice-to-have add-on than an essential feature for an operating system.
> Complete
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:17:16PM +0200, SpyderMan wrote:
> >So, here am I, seriously considering firewalling tools less than
> >essential.
> Great, another compelling reason to ditch firewalling support.
Not at all, but someone who thinks that firewalling provides any
reasonable measure of sec
> >To be honest, the only kind of "firewalling" I do at home is NAT, and I
> >could live without that.
> >
> >So, here am I, seriously considering firewalling tools less than
> >essential.
>
> Great, another compelling reason to ditch firewalling support.
Did I say ditch anywhere? I expressed my
To be honest, the only kind of "firewalling" I do at home is NAT, and I
could live without that.
So, here am I, seriously considering firewalling tools less than
essential.
Great, another compelling reason to ditch firewalling support.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > First you say that we should say "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux",
>
> That's because the "user-space" functionality is that of GNU (ok, that
> can be debated elsewhere, but that's the motivation for the
> "
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:09:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:16:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
> > Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
> Then you should get consensus to have tha
> >Perhaps Thomas wants to say that firewalling tools are not so
> >important, while you want to say the opposite. Then, I'd suggest that
> >it might be more constructive for you to point out why you think tb is
> >wrong.
>
> This is ridiculous. I don't see how anyone could seriously consider
> f
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
At Tue, 21 May 2002 17:16:23 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
That sounds like "Debian GNU/Linux has
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:45:30PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> 1. 0.1 could be released for the Hurd and *BSD and not compromise the
> high standard of the GNU/Linux releases.
Just a tidbit of fact, GNU 0.2, and the GNU Hurd 0.2, were released in 1997.
Subsequent releases where not done, becau
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:42:25AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On 30 years old operating systems like unix it might be. Modern
> operating systems like GNU/Hurd don't need a firewall. It even gives
> everybody a login shell when they telnet in without any problems.
Uh, well, with the problem of
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian (using a linux, bsd, or gnumach/l4 (micro)kernel) should be
> ``Secure by default.'' if this means that no firewalling -> no debian
> release, then so be it.
Strictly speaking FW-ing increases security somewhat only if you are
running vu
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 05:16:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
>
> Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
Then you should get consensus to have that in policy or step down as
release manager. It is entirely unreaso
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're being massively inconsistent.
Not really.
> First you say that we should say "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux",
That's because the "user-space" functionality is that of GNU (ok, that
can be debated elsewhere, but that's the motivation for the
"
At Tue, 21 May 2002 17:16:23 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Firewalling tools are provided with the Debian system.
>
> Firewalling tools are not available for Debian GNU/Hurd.
>
> Debian GNU/Hurd will not be released until they are available.
That sounds like "Debian GNU/Linux has firewalling too
* [Jeroen Dekkers]
> It would have been better if you have a port 80 cabability and could
> give that to apache. Then apache could be running without uids.
This is a sound idea, but for Linux, you will have to give it the
"listen on ports under 1024" capability (CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE), and run
a
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 06:33:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Firewalling" on a single host is mostly a way to cheaply fix a bunch
> of problems rather than fixing them one at a time. It's not
> inherently necessary if the other things don't already have gobs of
> bugs.
*sigh*
Stop ta
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 11:33, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In that case, he can block ports which are commonly used to violate
> badly configured machines behind his network.
Or, he can block all ports from all hosts from all directions and come
up with a totally secure network connection .
This
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:34:01PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Now if you want to point out that FHS doesn't mention /hurd and so
> > > using it is in vio
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:23:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:49:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > > It's also correct, from a certain point of view. There is a
> > > > school of thought that firewalls are only useful if you are trying to
> > > > protect network
41 matches
Mail list logo
