Some of you might find this one interesting.
In a world where IT security sometimes means keeping services out of
sight. Both Harvard and MIT advertise everything they have up and
running.
If I was a cracker running a DOS, I could use this information to
monitor the machines I knocked of the
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:03, Theodore J. Knab wrote:
Some of you might find this one interesting.
In a world where IT security sometimes means keeping services out of
sight. Both Harvard and MIT advertise everything they have up and
running.
I don't think that letting people know which servers
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably better to
force the system to reboot so you can restore service ASAP.
..even for raid-1 disks??? _Is_ there a combination of raid-1 and
journalling fs'es for linux
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Coker) [2003.09.10 20:16]:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations
such as find /
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:22, Cameron Moore wrote:
Having a file system decide to panic the kernel because your mount
options instructed it to (ext3) is one thing. Having the file system
driver corrupt random kernel memory and cause an Oops (Reiser) is
another. The ReiserFS team's response
5 matches
Mail list logo
