unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:06:07PM -0800, Dale Southard wrote:
Eduardo J. Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all.
Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
ssh server script
but I need the IP
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering. I can't
seem to get a straight answer from online documentation for Socks, and
I know Squid is not inherently secure, but I have a fairly
straight-forward
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
No, it is still vulnerable. I have confirmed for myself that the fix
applied in the DSA did not
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
masquerading = IP layer NAT.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
No, it is still vulnerable.
[ The quoted email is dated last December... I hope nobody minds me ]
[ reviving the conversation. I'm catching up on a few mail groups. ]
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:17, Jor-el wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:26:16PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
glibc has been patched for glob problems too.
There is a not too old thread about the same subject...
I am very well aware of that, however the fixes are clearly not
effective as proftpd is still vulnerable. I have
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
connections to my
Simon Murcott wrote:
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
Josh Frick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Something to be aware of is that having two firewalls of the same flavour
will not buy you any more security. If a crack/exploit works on one then
it will work on the other. Try replacing one of them with another OS and
firewall solution.
Eventually,
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was reading. Whats' the deal? It's been around for some
time now, and
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was
as always, security update may be troublesome with testing distribution.
stable is much easier
Mo
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Xeno Campanoli
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
On Wed, Mar
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was
why not ssmtp (small smtp) ?
does it fullfill the requierements?
-Original Message-
From: Corey Halpin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: March 5, 2002 17:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Unidentified subject! [MTA for Firewall System]
B Beck, 2002-Mar-05 13:18
Hi All,
I'm experiencing delays of around 1 - 1.5 minutes during/right after the
authentication stage of ipop3d on a debian stable system. Everything works
fine if i check mail locally (through the eth0 interface, or localhost).
However if any external machines go to check their mail, they
unsubscribe
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:06:07PM -0800, Dale Southard wrote:
Eduardo J. Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all.
Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
ssh server script
but I need the IP
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering. I can't
seem to get a straight answer from online documentation for Socks, and
I know Squid is not inherently secure, but I have a fairly
straight-forward
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
No, it is still vulnerable. I have confirmed for myself that the fix
applied in the DSA did not
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
masquerading = IP layer NAT.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:36:03AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
potato version is not exploitable (patched with a backported hack many
months ago). See old DSA on www.debian.org.
No, it is still vulnerable.
[ The quoted email is dated last December... I hope nobody minds me ]
[ reviving the conversation. I'm catching up on a few mail groups. ]
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:17, Jor-el wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:26:16PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
glibc has been patched for glob problems too.
There is a not too old thread about the same subject...
I am very well aware of that, however the fixes are clearly not
effective as proftpd is still vulnerable. I have
Berend De Schouwer wrote:
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:21, Josh Frick wrote:
I've just added a Dante/Squid proxy to my network, and I'd like to know
if this is significantly more secure than packet filtering.
You can view the separate services as:
packet filtering = IP layer filtering.
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
connections to my
Simon Murcott wrote:
On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 11:06, Josh Frick wrote:
Thank you. That's what I had suspected. NAT is NAT, right? I'm
trying to build a multi-layered approach. Currenlty it's two Coyote
(IPchains) Firewalls in front of Squid/Socks. This does prevent direct
Josh Frick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Something to be aware of is that having two firewalls of the same flavour
will not buy you any more security. If a crack/exploit works on one then
it will work on the other. Try replacing one of them with another OS and
firewall solution.
Eventually,
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was reading. Whats' the deal? It's been around for some
time now, and
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was
as always, security update may be troublesome with testing distribution.
stable is much easier
Mo
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fedyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Xeno Campanoli
Cc: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Say, wheres 2.2.20?
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:43:23PM -0800, Xeno Campanoli wrote:
Say, stable doesn't seem to have 2.2.20 available to it yet, and yet
that's supposed to be the most stable 2.2.* kernel out according to (I
think it was the HOWTO on E-Infomax I read it, but they're down right
now) a howto I was
why not ssmtp (small smtp) ?
does it fullfill the requierements?
-Original Message-
From: Corey Halpin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 5, 2002 17:56 PM
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject:Re: Unidentified subject! [MTA for Firewall System]
B Beck,
36 matches
Mail list logo
