On 5 Jul 2005, Eloi Granado wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 de July de 2005 23:24, Paul Gear wrote:
>> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> It also tends to encourage "shortcuts" in the firewall, like accepting
>>> any RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets,
>>
>> Am i right in understanding that you consider accepting
>> RELATED
Many specialty drugs, including injectables commonly stocked and available.
http://mailbox.onlinepills4all.info/?Scotchmanxtvuyimprobabilityzvpalphabetics
It is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance.
Familiarity breeds contempt, while rarity wins admiration.
The illegal we do imm
Leonel Nunez wrote:
> http://www.squirrelmail.org/security/issue/2005-06-15
>
> there's a xss bug
> or Sarge is not vulnerable ?
It is, please see #314374.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferie / Vacation
Jeg er på ferie frem til mandag den 18. juli. Din mail vil ikke blive læst før.
Ved hastesager: Kontakt Sune Vestergaard([EMAIL PROTECTED]) eller Thomas
Lorenzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
I'm on vacation until monday 18th of July. Your e-mail will not be read before
that. On urgen
New Penis Enlargement Patches!
http://www.siratu.com/ss/
Laughter is the shortest distance between two people.
Rarely do great beauty and great virtue dwell together.
Cats and monkeys; monkeys and cats; all human life is there.
Conscience is the perfect interpreter of life.
T
Hello :
Is there any work in progress to patch SquirrelMail for sarge ?
according to :
http://www.squirrelmail.org/security/issue/2005-06-15
there's a xss bug
or Sarge is not vulnerable ?
Thank You
LEonel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone knows an easy way to log all invocations of a
particular system call in a Debian system (kernel 2.6).
My first ideia was to use SELinux but I haven't experience developing
new policies, has anybody done something similar with SELinux or any
other tool?
Thanks
--
On Sunday, 3 de July de 2005 23:24, Paul Gear wrote:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > It also tends to encourage "shortcuts" in the firewall, like accepting
> > any RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets,
>
> Am i right in understanding that you consider accepting
> RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets a bad thing?
It sim
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:45:47PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
>
>> I mustn't be understanding you here. Isn't the very definition of
>> RELATED/ESTABLISHED that the packet is part of an established connection
>> to a service actually used?
>
>
> RELATED and ESTABLISHED are t
On 4 Jul 2005, Paul Gear wrote:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> ...
>>> Am i right in understanding that you consider accepting
>>> RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets a bad thing?
>>
>>
>> No. Accepting *any* RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets is, though, if someone
>> finds an attack to generate entries in the connt
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:45:47PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
I mustn't be understanding you here. Isn't the very definition of
RELATED/ESTABLISHED that the packet is part of an established connection
to a service actually used?
RELATED and ESTABLISHED are two different things. You've defined
EST
Daniel Pittman wrote:
> ...
>>Am i right in understanding that you consider accepting
>>RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets a bad thing?
>
>
> No. Accepting *any* RELATED/ESTABLISHED packets is, though, if someone
> finds an attack to generate entries in the conntrack table. Like, say,
> the active FTP
12 matches
Mail list logo
