-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi -security,
I would like your help with regards to #372721:
On 06/11/2006 07:09 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Severity: important
>
>
> http://www.debian.org/security/faq#testing
>
> refers to http://secure-testing-
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:06:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> > Why isn't kernel-image-2.[4, 6]-[386, 686...] installed by the
> > installer, since it is required for kernel security support?
>
> We didn't think to do that until too late for sarge.
Is it too late or too much
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.15.2208 +0200]:
> I need to set up an audit trail for all commands run on machines. I
> know that the auth.log records who logs in and when, and that each
> user's .bash_history has a history of their commands. But is there some
> other w
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:08:37PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I need to set up an audit trail for all commands run on machines. I
> know that the auth.log records who logs in and when, and that each
> user's .bash_history has a history of their commands. But is there some
> other way to c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
you can run snoopy which will log all commands issued into auth.log
- - Ceers, Peter
On 15.06.2006, at 22:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to set up an audit trail for all commands run on machines. I
know that the auth.log records who logs in
On 6/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I need to set up an audit trail for all commands run on machines. I
know that the auth.log records who logs in and when, and that each
user's .bash_history has a history of their commands. But is there some
other way to create a log for
I need to set up an audit trail for all commands run on machines. I
know that the auth.log records who logs in and when, and that each
user's .bash_history has a history of their commands. But is there some
other way to create a log for all commands run on a system?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> Why isn't kernel-image-2.[4, 6]-[386, 686...] installed by the
> installer, since it is required for kernel security support?
We didn't think to do that until too late for sarge.
> If this is just a sarge thing, could linux-image-2.6-[386...] be
> installed by default in etc
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:04:30PM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> For the record I've installed the meta package manually since can't remember
> when but it is not mentioned in Installation Guide, Installer
> Errata, Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 -- Errata, kernel related advisories...
We should be noting th
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:18:12PM +0200, Willi Mann wrote:
> The kernel ABI changed, so the change was needed. Install the
> kernel-image-2.4-686 (or whatever you need) package.
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelABIChanges
Ok, I'll ask the dumb question which has been on my mind for too lo
Hendrik Naumann schrieb:
Hi
The recent (today and 24.03.06) kernel upgrade leaves a bit confused.
The version sarge was released with is kernel-image-2.4.27-2-XXX, the
latest security packages are released for kernel-image-2.4.27-3-XXX.
What is the rational behind this name change, that brea
Hi
The recent (today and 24.03.06) kernel upgrade leaves a bit confused.
The version sarge was released with is kernel-image-2.4.27-2-XXX, the
latest security packages are released for kernel-image-2.4.27-3-XXX.
What is the rational behind this name change, that breaks the
automatic upgrade pa
12 matches
Mail list logo
