Re: stupid ?!? question : how secure is...

2001-02-28 Thread Nathan Dabney
I suggest using ipchains/iptables to block any other input to the machine itself (except for of course for the port you want forwarded.) Remember, attacks can still get to the web server that the packets are getting forwarded to. (granted, via cgi cuts down on allot of the standard hack-in-th

Re: Wrong DNS configuration. Which?

2001-02-28 Thread Jamie Heilman
Romanenko M.A. wrote: > Am I right, that sendmail's check_mail rejects connection because there > are no A-record for tgngu.tyumen.ru in other side DNS configuration? Yes, now if you believe this is a desirable configuration or not is another matter, but that is probably what is happening. It m

Wrong DNS configuration. Which?

2001-02-28 Thread Romanenko M.A.
Someone has been failing to connect to my sendmail for several days. My syslog is full with error messages: [...] Mar 1 08:29:08 lee sendmail[1042]: f213T8o01042: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=server.tgngu.tyumen.ru [194.67.48.89] (may be forged), reject=451 4.1.8 <[EMAIL

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Ethan Benson
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:13:14AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp]% echo '-help' > .joerc > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp]% joe foo > Processing '.joerc'...done > zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped) joe foo heh > I wonder what's the best fix for this bug... check ownership of ./.j

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:13:14AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:20:39PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Package: joe > > Version: 2.8-18 > > Severity: grave > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>echo "this is not a valid .joerc, I'll bet!" > .joerc > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>joe foo

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:20:39PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Package: joe > Version: 2.8-18 > Severity: grave > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>echo "this is not a valid .joerc, I'll bet!" > .joerc > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>joe foo > Processing '.joerc'... > .joerc 1: No context selected for macro to key-

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Ethan Benson
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:13:14AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > [joy@pork:/tmp]% echo '-help' > .joerc > [joy@pork:/tmp]% joe foo > Processing '.joerc'...done > zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped) joe foo heh > I wonder what's the best fix for this bug... check ownership of ./.joerc > file bef

stupid ?!? question : how secure is...

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Schnebel
having a router with no services running on it... using the "standard" masquerading that comes in the debian networking skript ( the "rusty" three-liner ) and forwarding port 80 to the internal network... i wonder if i should start dealing with proxies or firewalls ( with ipchains policies ) and

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:13:14AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:20:39PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Package: joe > > Version: 2.8-18 > > Severity: grave > > > > joey@kite:/tmp>echo "this is not a valid .joerc, I'll bet!" > .joerc > > joey@kite:/tmp>joe foo > > Processing

Re: Bug#88055: security hole in joe

2001-02-28 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:20:39PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > Package: joe > Version: 2.8-18 > Severity: grave > > joey@kite:/tmp>echo "this is not a valid .joerc, I'll bet!" > .joerc > joey@kite:/tmp>joe foo > Processing '.joerc'... > .joerc 1: No context selected for macro to key-sequence bindin

stupid ?!? question : how secure is...

2001-02-28 Thread Peter Schnebel
having a router with no services running on it... using the "standard" masquerading that comes in the debian networking skript ( the "rusty" three-liner ) and forwarding port 80 to the internal network... i wonder if i should start dealing with proxies or firewalls ( with ipchains policies ) an