On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:46, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:40]:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > It's a pity that the devel
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:43, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There will be support in RPM for packages that contain SE Linux policy.
> > For Debian such support will come later (if at all) as the plan is to
> > centrally manage all policy for free software, and it's not difficult to
> >
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:46, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:40]:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > It's a pity that the devel
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:43, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There will be support in RPM for packages that contain SE Linux policy.
> > For Debian such support will come later (if at all) as the plan is to
> > centrally manage all policy for free software, and it's not difficult to
> >
You may find that the internal web server is sending its reply IP
packets directly to the internal client, instead of via the firewall.
This can occur if the internal client and the internal web server have
the same subnet mask. The internal web server sends the packets straight
back to the in
You may find that the internal web server is sending its reply IP
packets directly to the internal client, instead of via the firewall.
This can occur if the internal client and the internal web server have
the same subnet mask. The internal web server sends the packets straight
back to the in
Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
Haim Ashkenazi écrivait:
> François TOURDE wrote:
>
>> Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
>> Andrew Pollock écrivait:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> BTW: i recommend you disable CAD
Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
Haim Ashkenazi écrivait:
> François TOURDE wrote:
>
>> Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
>> Andrew Pollock écrivait:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> BTW: i recommend you disable CAD
François TOURDE wrote:
> Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
> Andrew Pollock écrivait:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
>>> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > BTW: i recommend you disable CAD :)
>>> I would but that is the only way I can let them safely reboo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> it returned this:
>
> runlevel (to lvl 2) 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:28 - 00:48 (3+02:19)
> reboot system boot 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:28 (3+02:19)
> shutdown system down 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:26 - 00:48 (3+02:21)
> runl
Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
Andrew Pollock écrivait:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
>> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > BTW: i recommend you disable CAD :)
>> I would but that is the only way I can let them safely reboot the machine
>> (If I'll need them
François TOURDE wrote:
> Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
> Andrew Pollock écrivait:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
>>> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > BTW: i recommend you disable CAD :)
>>> I would but that is the only way I can let them safely reboo
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:23:18AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > > involved, it wo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> it returned this:
>
> runlevel (to lvl 2) 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:28 - 00:48 (3+02:19)
> reboot system boot 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:28 (3+02:19)
> shutdown system down 2.4.20-ns-system Wed Nov 26 22:26 - 00:48 (3+02:21)
> runl
Le 12386ième jour après Epoch,
Andrew Pollock écrivait:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
>> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > BTW: i recommend you disable CAD :)
>> I would but that is the only way I can let them safely reboot the machine
>> (If I'll need them
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:40]:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > > involved, it would be good
Hi,
thanks for your fast reply. Just a few more questions:
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:10]:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible for me as a package maintainer to specifiy the needed
> > rights for "my" programms in a way that
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:23:18AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > > involved, it wo
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > involved, it would be good to have a choice of LIDS, HP's system, DTE,
> > and others
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:40]:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > > involved, it would be good
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible for me as a package maintainer to specifiy the needed
> rights for "my" programms in a way that as much systems as possible
> can use these without the need for a sysadmin to change anything? Or
> would each LSM-bas
Hi,
thanks for your fast reply. Just a few more questions:
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031130 21:10]:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible for me as a package maintainer to specifiy the needed
> > rights for "my" programms in a way that
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10, "Milan P. Stanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> > involved, it would be good to have a choice of LIDS, HP's system, DTE,
> > and others
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible for me as a package maintainer to specifiy the needed
> rights for "my" programms in a way that as much systems as possible
> can use these without the need for a sysadmin to change anything? Or
> would each LSM-bas
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 11:10:56AM +0200, Camillo Särs wrote:
Yes, I did note that "there are many wrinkles to iron out". That's not the
point I am trying to make. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to
think apt-secure provides "total security".
What would be foolish is thinking th
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> involved, it would be good to have a choice of LIDS, HP's system, DTE, and
> others in the standard kernel.
LIDS uses LSM in 2.5/2.6 kernel series, IIRC.
Hi,
well, if this mail seems to be silly for persons with good knowledge
of LSM-based systems, I'm sorry. But I can't give me the answers
myself, so I'm asking here.
The last time (and especially the last days) have IMHO shown that it
would be good for any Linux machine to run with more security
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 11:10:56AM +0200, Camillo Särs wrote:
Yes, I did note that "there are many wrinkles to iron out". That's not the
point I am trying to make. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to
think apt-secure provides "total security".
What would be foolish is thinking that
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:24:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's a pity that the developers of other security systems didn't get
> involved, it would be good to have a choice of LIDS, HP's system, DTE, and
> others in the standard kernel.
LIDS uses LSM in 2.5/2.6 kernel series, IIRC.
--
Hi,
well, if this mail seems to be silly for persons with good knowledge
of LSM-based systems, I'm sorry. But I can't give me the answers
myself, so I'm asking here.
The last time (and especially the last days) have IMHO shown that it
would be good for any Linux machine to run with more security
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> I need to configure a IPTABLES-based Linux-Box with a Woody installed. Has
> anyone a example of a such script to help me ?
Hi Luc,
You might find my page on setting up iptables helpful. You can find it
at
http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/devries/security/i
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> I need to configure a IPTABLES-based Linux-Box with a Woody installed. Has
> anyone a example of a such script to help me ?
Hi Luc,
You might find my page on setting up iptables helpful. You can find it
at
http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/devries/security/i
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:33, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-11-29 21:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It's not a question of how difficult it is to get the grsec patch to
> > apply and work correctly on a Debian kernel. It's a question of whether
> > anyone is prepared to do it.
Hi together!
On 2003-11-29 21:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's not a question of how difficult it is to get the grsec patch to apply
> and
> work correctly on a Debian kernel. It's a question of whether anyone is
> prepared to do it.
If using a Debian-patched kernel is a requirement th
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:33, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-11-29 21:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It's not a question of how difficult it is to get the grsec patch to
> > apply and work correctly on a Debian kernel. It's a question of whether
> > anyone is prepared to do it.
Hi together!
On 2003-11-29 21:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> It's not a question of how difficult it is to get the grsec patch to apply and
> work correctly on a Debian kernel. It's a question of whether anyone is
> prepared to do it.
If using a Debian-patched kernel is a requirement then
On Sunday 30 November 2003 06:42, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've always avoided the # character, because I read in a book way
> back when I first got into Unix that you shouldn't use this
> character. Recently, a friend had issues logging in via KDM using a
> password with a # in it, that
On Sunday 30 November 2003 06:42, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've always avoided the # character, because I read in a book way
> back when I first got into Unix that you shouldn't use this
> character. Recently, a friend had issues logging in via KDM using a
> password with a # in it, that
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:51:45AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> >
> > BTW: i recommend you disable CAD :)
> I would but that is the only way I can let them safely reboot the machine
> (If I'll need them to) without giving the root password (although I know
> that it o
39 matches
Mail list logo
