On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:00:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze imagined:
> --
> Debian Security Advisory DSA 253-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
> F
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:11:43AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 11:06, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
> > Bidder wrote:
> > > Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem st
I find with freeswan the cpu hit is very high, on a ppro 200 with 64 meg of
ram a load factor of 1.7 I get around 1.2~1.2~1.5 meg a second across a LAN.
thing
-Original Message-
From: Dale Amon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 11:41
To: debian-security
Subject: R
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:00:47PM +0100, Martin Schulze imagined:
> --
> Debian Security Advisory DSA 253-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
> F
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote:
> I'm actually considering to switch the VPN from tunnelv to freeswan if
> this could increase the network performance.
>
> Any suggestions or pointers for this kind of problem?
All I can say is, I'm running a 486 firewall machine
with f
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:11:43AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 11:06, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
> > wrote:
> > > Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem sti
I find with freeswan the cpu hit is very high, on a ppro 200 with 64 meg of
ram a load factor of 1.7 I get around 1.2~1.2~1.5 meg a second across a LAN.
thing
-Original Message-
From: Dale Amon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2003 11:41
To: debian-security
Subject: R
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Ivo Marino wrote:
> I'm actually considering to switch the VPN from tunnelv to freeswan if
> this could increase the network performance.
>
> Any suggestions or pointers for this kind of problem?
All I can say is, I'm running a 486 firewall machine
with f
On Monday, 24 February 2003, at 18:39:08 +0100,
Ivo Marino wrote:
> Now we've connected to this networks some voice over IP phones which we
> would like to use through the VPN, the connection works and is securely
> encrypted but network performance is quite low.
>
What is "low" in this context ?
Hello folks,
Some time ago I've configured two Debian servers as VPN endpoints, they
use the tunnelv package to route VPN traffic between two LANs.
Now we've connected to this networks some voice over IP phones which we
would like to use through the VPN, the connection works and is securely
encry
On Monday, 24 February 2003, at 18:39:08 +0100,
Ivo Marino wrote:
> Now we've connected to this networks some voice over IP phones which we
> would like to use through the VPN, the connection works and is securely
> encrypted but network performance is quite low.
>
What is "low" in this context ?
un bacio
Hello folks,
Some time ago I've configured two Debian servers as VPN endpoints, they
use the tunnelv package to route VPN traffic between two LANs.
Now we've connected to this networks some voice over IP phones which we
would like to use through the VPN, the connection works and is securely
encry
un bacio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 11:06, Peter Cordes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
> Bidder wrote:
> > Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem still unfixed.
> > Damn.
>
> File a bug on foo 1.4-1 so that can't happen until the bug is clos
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem still unfixed.
> Damn.
File a bug on foo 1.4-1 so that can't happen until the bug is closed?
Having stuff which introduces new known security holes mo
On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 19:25, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I don't see why people are worried about numbering for security patches
> for testing. Why wouldn't they be done in the same way that security
> patches are done at the moment? i.e 1.2.3-1.sarge.1 as the security fix
> for 1.2.3-1
Simple probl
Thanks for your patronising reply.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:25:17PM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:35:22AM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
[..]
> > It would however be nice to have security available for sarg
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 11:06, Peter Cordes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> > Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem still unfixed.
> > Damn.
>
> File a bug on foo 1.4-1 so that can't happen until the bug is closed?
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:13:57AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> Now, foo 1.4-1 moves to testing with the security problem still unfixed.
> Damn.
File a bug on foo 1.4-1 so that can't happen until the bug is closed?
Having stuff which introduces new known security holes mov
On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 19:25, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I don't see why people are worried about numbering for security patches
> for testing. Why wouldn't they be done in the same way that security
> patches are done at the moment? i.e 1.2.3-1.sarge.1 as the security fix
> for 1.2.3-1
Simple probl
Thanks for your patronising reply.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:09:10AM +0100, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:25:17PM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:35:22AM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
[..]
> > It would however be nice to have security available for sarg
22 matches
Mail list logo
