On 23 Oct 2004, Jan LÃhr wrote:
> Am Freitag, 22. Oktober 2004 14:02 schrieb Daniel Pittman:
>> On 22 Oct 2004, Jan LÃhr wrote:
>>> because of the recent xpdf issues I tested the access restrictions of
>>> some users like lp, mail, etc. with default settings in sarge. I noticed
>>> that, by default
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Jan Lühr wrote:
Of course, providing security on that level is not the best way to ensure the
system's integrity and safety.
But why do you think, that security on filesystem level is doomed to failure
if it's part of a security concept?
Because you haven
==
(BVIRUS GUARD and CHECK SERVICE for E-Mail Powerd by SYMANTEC Scan Engine.
(B
$B$"$J$?$,Aw$C$?%a!<%k$K%&%#%k%9$rH/8+$7$^$7$?!#(B
$B8!CN$5$l$?%&[EMAIL PROTECTED];_$N0Y!"%a!<%k$r:o=|CW$7$^$7$?!#(B
$B%a!<%k$rAw?.$7$h$&[
Greetings,
Am Freitag, 22. Oktober 2004 14:02 schrieb Daniel Pittman:
> On 22 Oct 2004, Jan LÃhr wrote:
> > because of the recent xpdf issues I tested the access restrictions of
> > some users like lp, mail, etc. with default settings in sarge. I noticed
> > that, by default, no acl were used to p
R e finance before Election when the r a tes will rise!
It is your last chance
http://www.nokhika.com/
You are already approv e d with 3.0 point
Thank you.
Heath L. Pace
---
Nwasteland I duffy bakery. skyhook
it a are spatial are itinerary
not Ybundy us with gum. plaintiff
veto prisma
Quoting tomasz abramowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what
> my internet provider is talking about?
> No problem, spam is always interesting to look at (well, at least
> for me ;).
> But when I see that they use SBL/XBL yet they still pas
On 22 Oct 2004, Jan LÃhr wrote:
> because of the recent xpdf issues I tested the access restrictions of some
> users like lp, mail, etc. with default settings in sarge. I noticed that, by
> default, no acl were used to prevent access to vital system commands, the
> user shouldn't have. For instan
sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what
my internet provider is talking about?
t.
>> Original Message
>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>[...]
>
>>Received: from peacefulaction.com (unknown [222.64.190.9]) by
>>murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with SMTP
Greetings,
because of the recent xpdf issues I tested the access restrictions of some
users like lp, mail, etc. with default settings in sarge. I noticed that, by
default, no acl were used to prevent access to vital system commands, the
user shouldn't have. For instance: lp could mount a vfat p
9 matches
Mail list logo
