Goodday!
It is with hope that I write to seek your help in this context.
I am Mrs. Victoria Guei wife of the former Head Of State of Cote'd
Ivoire,Late General Robert Guei who was assassinated on the19th of
September 2002 in a military uprising in my country.
I got your email address from
yes this is so true, but would you really give root to someone who does
not follow the rules to begin with? if i ever saw that they did that in
the logs, the would never have root again...
xbud wrote:
Hi,
good point, but this is not entirely true.
In the case where a user simply does a
Hi
Does anybody knows about this?,
http://www.secunia.com/advisories/8786/
Bye
--
Haim
Hi there,
I'm knew to the program called logchecker and today i got following
message:
kai-router 2003/05/15 23:02 ACTIVE SYSTEM ATTACK!
Cleaned rules files exist in /var/lib/logcheck/cleaned directory that
cannot be removed. This may be an attempt to spoof the log checker.
i don't understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My advise for long term interoperability and expandability would be to
use FreeSWan, IPSec is quickly becoming THE cross-platform standard for
VPNs.
Using FreeSWan with the X509 patch would allow you to connect two sites
together using dyndns.org of
Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
My advise for long term interoperability and expandability would be to
use FreeSWan, IPSec is quickly becoming THE cross-platform standard for
VPNs.
Will FreeS/WAN's user-mode part (aka pluto) be ported to Linux 2.6
IPSec? Otherwise FreeS/WAN is a dead end, while
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Andre Grueneberg wrote:
Will FreeS/WAN's user-mode part (aka pluto) be ported to Linux 2.6
IPSec? Otherwise FreeS/WAN is a dead end, while IPSec is the standard.
No. The FreeSWAN team has made it pretty clean that they do not want to
even risk any possible problem with the
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Does anybody knows about this?,
http://www.secunia.com/advisories/8786/
It has been fixed for two weeks both in 2.4 and 2.5.
See http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bit,
adam
--
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Andreas Vitz wrote:
May 15 09:37:07 kai-router pppoe[180]: Bogus PPPoE length field (111)
May 15 09:47:18 kai-router pppoe[180]: Bogus PPPoE length field (172)
i get them day by day, since a week or so.
I use a adsl connection.
so my final question have i been hacked
Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 May 2003 at 02:31:22PM +0200, Torbjorn Pettersson wrote:
Compare this with a secure, locked down root password in a
sealed letter in a safe somewhere that only you now what it is,
but
On Fri, 16 May 2003 at 03:58:23PM +0200, Torbjorn Pettersson wrote:
The idea was that noone is ever going to use the root password
unless the boxen in the serverroom are so broken that they will
not get past fsck, and if you have physical access to the server
room no root password in the
On Fri, 16 May 2003 at 03:25:40PM +0200, Andre Grueneberg wrote:
Will FreeS/WAN's user-mode part (aka pluto) be ported to Linux 2.6
IPSec? Otherwise FreeS/WAN is a dead end, while IPSec is the standard.
FreeSWan is a OpenSource project under active development. I expect
when the 2.5 branch is
On Fri, 16 May 2003 at 02:30:09PM +0200, Andreas Vitz wrote:
May 15 09:25:46 kai-router pppoe[180]: Bogus PPPoE length field (1262)
May 15 09:27:25 kai-router pppoe[180]: Bogus PPPoE length field (111)
May 15 09:27:33 kai-router pppoe[180]: Bogus PPPoE length field (111)
May 15 09:27:33
From what I've read on the lists, there is work started on doing just
that.
-Sean
On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 09:25, Andre Grueneberg wrote:
Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
My advise for long term interoperability and expandability would be to
use FreeSWan, IPSec is quickly becoming THE cross-platform
On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:54:57 +0200
Adam ENDRODI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Does anybody knows about this?,
http://www.secunia.com/advisories/8786/
It has been fixed for two weeks both in 2.4 and 2.5.
See
Interesting. That mail has overcome spamassassin without any hits:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0
tests=none
version=2.53-lists.debian.org_2003_04_28
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-lists.debian.org_2003_04_28
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Any options to get it?
Goodday!
It is with hope that I write to seek your help in this context.
I am Mrs. Victoria Guei wife of the former Head Of State of Cote'd
Ivoire,Late General Robert Guei who was assassinated on the19th of
September 2002 in a military uprising in my country.
I got your email address from
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Giacomo Mulas wrote:
Will FreeS/WAN's user-mode part (aka pluto) be ported to Linux 2.6
IPSec? Otherwise FreeS/WAN is a dead end, while IPSec is the standard.
No.
Umm. It already has been ported to
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Giacomo Mulas wrote:
Will FreeS/WAN's user-mode part (aka pluto) be ported to Linux 2.6
IPSec? Otherwise FreeS/WAN is a dead end, while IPSec is the standard.
No.
Umm. It already has been ported to Linux 2.5:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:35:37PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:54:57 +0200
Adam ENDRODI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Does anybody knows about this?,
http://www.secunia.com/advisories/8786/
It
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:50:46AM -0500, lemuel typhair wrote:
xbud wrote:
good point, but this is not entirely true.
In the case where a user simply does a
sudo su -
or a
sudo sh
only the first command will be logged.
yes this is so true, but would you really give root to someone who
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
I don't think it's possible to *need* opportunistic encryption. By its
very nature it's unreliable. You have no guarantee that you've got an
IPsec session with a given host, so you really can't rely on
opportunistic encryption to provide you with
Hi!
I have found a nice HOSTS list for windows (similar to the /etc/hosts file
in linux) which matches some bad sites to localhost, so your pc won't access
them! With windows this works very nice, but how can I do this with Debian?
I already thought about just using it just like the usual hosts
Hi, Daniel...
I have found a nice HOSTS list for windows (similar to the /etc/hosts file
in linux) which matches some bad sites to localhost, so your pc won't access
them! With windows this works very nice, but how can I do this with Debian?
This works only when resolving names from the local
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:19:39AM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
Have multiple copies on multiple shares on multiple systems. If you
really are concerned about them all puking, print the ASCII armors
version of the encrypted output. Putting a password in a seal envelope
(though a heavily
On Fri, 16 May 2003 17:53:08 +0200
Adam ENDRODI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:35:37PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2003 15:54:57 +0200
Adam ENDRODI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:04:09PM +0300, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
What is the best way?
hmm... I've found a tool that spoofs dns replys basing on a config file
- you can make it return YOUR answers instead the original ones - it's
like having the /etc/hosts file accessible to all machines on the net.
check it out at:
27 matches
Mail list logo
