mutt security update

2002-01-02 Thread Patrick Hsieh
Hello, There is a security announcement of mutt at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=100991780311807w=2 Is there new mutt update .deb package available? -- Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: mutt security update

2002-01-02 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 02, Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a security announcement of mutt at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=100991780311807w=2 Is there new mutt update .deb package available? Yes. Next time please at least look at incoming before bothering hundred of

More security for screensavers

2002-01-02 Thread Benoît Sibaud
Hi, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any security level configuration for both xscreensaver or xlockmore. What I mean is a way to choose something like a class of screensavers, like 'secure' or 'fun' or both: all screensavers save the screen, but they don't all protect privacy; some

Re: mounting /tmp noexec

2002-01-02 Thread David Wright
Quoting Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so surely, if nothing needs to be executed, it is better to mount noexec? noexec has no good purpose, really. But it's intention was for networked filesystems in certain environments, not a generalized

Re: mounting /tmp noexec

2002-01-02 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Quoting Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so surely, if nothing needs to be executed, it is better to mount noexec? noexec has no good purpose, really. But it's intention was for networked filesystems

Re: More security for screensavers

2002-01-02 Thread Ted Cabeen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Ben= o=3DEEt?=3D = Sibaud writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any security level configuration for

Re: mutt security update

2002-01-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jan 02, Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a security announcement of mutt at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=100991780311807w=2 Is there new mutt update .deb package available? Yes. Next time

Re: mounting /tmp noexec

2002-01-02 Thread Alexey Vyskubov
noexec has no good purpose, really. But it's intention was for networked filesystems in certain environments, not a generalized security tool. It's very useful for mounting filesystems like vfat, where otherwise all the files are marked executable which makes mc a PITA to use for

mutt security update

2002-01-02 Thread Patrick Hsieh
Hello, There is a security announcement of mutt at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=100991780311807w=2 Is there new mutt update .deb package available? -- Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg

More security for screensavers

2002-01-02 Thread Benoît Sibaud
Hi, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any security level configuration for both xscreensaver or xlockmore. What I mean is a way to choose something like a class of screensavers, like 'secure' or 'fun' or both: all screensavers save the screen, but they don't all protect privacy; some

Re: mounting /tmp noexec

2002-01-02 Thread David Wright
Quoting Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so surely, if nothing needs to be executed, it is better to mount noexec? noexec has no good purpose, really. But it's intention was for networked filesystems in certain environments, not a generalized

strange proftpd segfault and conntrack_ftp messages

2002-01-02 Thread Christian Hammers
Hello Does anybody know a security bug for which this could be a hint? (hostname and ip's faked for obvious reasons) The server runs: kernel 2.4.11-pre6 xined_2.1.8.8p3-1.1.deb proftpd_1.2.4-2.deb Except from that the IP only did some normal web browsing without any

Re: mounting /tmp noexec

2002-01-02 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Quoting Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so surely, if nothing needs to be executed, it is better to mount noexec? noexec has no good purpose, really. But it's intention was for networked filesystems in

Re: More security for screensavers

2002-01-02 Thread Ted Cabeen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Ben= o=3DEEt?=3D = Sibaud writes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see any security level configuration for

Re: mutt security update

2002-01-02 Thread Colin Watson
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jan 02, Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a security announcement of mutt at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-usersm=100991780311807w=2 Is there new mutt update .deb package available? Yes. Next time