I'm looking for a list of characters that are not allowable (or that
cause problems) for passwords if any under a standard Debian GNU/Linux
install (using md5).
AFAIK, there aren't any. You may run into limitations in particular
programs, but there shouldn't be any limits on the input to the h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm looking for a list of characters that are not allowable (or that cause
problems) for passwords if any under a standard Debian GNU/Linux install
(using md5). I've checked the packages docs and done a quick google search
with no luck.
thank
I'm looking for a list of characters that are not allowable (or that
cause problems) for passwords if any under a standard Debian GNU/Linux
install (using md5).
AFAIK, there aren't any. You may run into limitations in particular
programs, but there shouldn't be any limits on the input to the hash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm looking for a list of characters that are not allowable (or that cause
problems) for passwords if any under a standard Debian GNU/Linux install
(using md5). I've checked the packages docs and done a quick google search
with no luck.
thank
Please respect my Mail-Followup-To header and the Debian mailing list
guidelines, and do not CC me on replies.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:06:15PM +0100, Roman Medina wrote:
> My opinion is that if a security bug is discovered it should be fixed
> ASAP. It's really simple. The argument: "We believ
Sorry, I missunderstood your answer. I thought you were redirecting me
to the other ml. I've also read the answer sent by Matthew Wilcox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to this same thread (amongst other related messages
and likes).
My opinion is that if a security bug is discovered it should be fixed
ASAP.
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 08:53, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Our bridged/fw was running 160 day with code from there. Now I have
> installed a new kernel (2.4.22) with the current ebtables code
> (ebtables.sf.net) which can do even more, although I don't need it. But
> ebtables is the code in 2.6 and ac
Please respect my Mail-Followup-To header and the Debian mailing list
guidelines, and do not CC me on replies.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 06:06:15PM +0100, Roman Medina wrote:
> My opinion is that if a security bug is discovered it should be fixed
> ASAP. It's really simple. The argument: "We believ
Sorry, I missunderstood your answer. I thought you were redirecting me
to the other ml. I've also read the answer sent by Matthew Wilcox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to this same thread (amongst other related messages
and likes).
My opinion is that if a security bug is discovered it should be fixed
ASAP.
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 08:53, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Our bridged/fw was running 160 day with code from there. Now I have
> installed a new kernel (2.4.22) with the current ebtables code
> (ebtables.sf.net) which can do even more, although I don't need it. But
> ebtables is the code in 2.6 and ac
Hey, morons, don't drop people from the CC. Otherwise they'll never
know what you're saying.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:07:26PM +0100, Lupe Christoph wrote:
> Quoting Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I believe your justification can be found:
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/b
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:07:57PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> I checked woody's apache source and I cannot find any patches
> for mod_alias.c in apache-1.3.26/debian/patches directory.
> So I guess debian's apache is effected by this vulnerability.
>
> Do I misunderstand this? Does apache
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe your justification can be found:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218188
> I'm not saying I agree fully with it...but I do understand it...
Given that some of the affected directives can be used in .htaccess
files, th
Hey, morons, don't drop people from the CC. Otherwise they'll never
know what you're saying.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:07:26PM +0100, Lupe Christoph wrote:
> Quoting Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I believe your justification can be found:
>
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/b
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:07:57PM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> I checked woody's apache source and I cannot find any patches
> for mod_alias.c in apache-1.3.26/debian/patches directory.
> So I guess debian's apache is effected by this vulnerability.
>
> Do I misunderstand this? Does apache
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe your justification can be found:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218188
> I'm not saying I agree fully with it...but I do understand it...
Given that some of the affected directives can be used in .htaccess
files, th
Hi,
>> >> Do you know about apache security issue?
>> >
>> >Yes. According to the Apache maintainers, woody does not require an update.
>>
>> Really? mod_alias is so much old(*), I think all of apache
>> would be effected by this vulnerability.
>
>Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I checked woody's
Hi,
>> >> Do you know about apache security issue?
>> >
>> >Yes. According to the Apache maintainers, woody does not require an update.
>>
>> Really? mod_alias is so much old(*), I think all of apache
>> would be effected by this vulnerability.
>
>Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I checked woody's
18 matches
Mail list logo
