Re: OpenSSH in Woody

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:34:53AM +0300, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > When is there going to be a patched version of OpenSSH for stable? Sid > got the fixed one (3.6.1p2-9), but there's no fixed version for Stable > on security.debian.org. I've rolled my own version of th

Re: OpenSSH in Woody

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:34:53AM +0300, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > When is there going to be a patched version of OpenSSH for stable? Sid > got the fixed one (3.6.1p2-9), but there's no fixed version for Stable > on security.debian.org. I've rolled my own version of th

OpenSSH in Woody

shouldn't the changelog.Debian list which vulnerabilities have been addressed? -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgp3B7wognh9q.pgp Description: PGP signature

OpenSSH in Woody

shouldn't the changelog.Debian list which vulnerabilities have been addressed? -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [d-security] Re: ssh vulnerability in the wild

rg, for Woody. -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgpl5xM3j0rlI.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [d-security] Re: ssh vulnerability in the wild

rg, for Woody. -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [d-security] Re: ssh vulnerability in the wild

on on security.debian.org right now is _STILL_ vulnerable. I'm not a security expert, nor do I have time to actually see if that's true, so, I'm asking the list if anyone can confirm/deny that. -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgpu1uixft7Pe.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [d-security] Re: ssh vulnerability in the wild

on on security.debian.org right now is _STILL_ vulnerable. I'm not a security expert, nor do I have time to actually see if that's true, so, I'm asking the list if anyone can confirm/deny that. -- Regards Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: ptrace exploit

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 10:52:47AM +0200, Maurizio Lemmo - Tannoiser wrote: > On sabato 12 aprile 2003, alle 06:45, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > > This might be a stupid question, I know, but, why isn't there a patch > > for the ptrace exploit, for the Woody kernel-source?

ptrace exploit

d, specifically, these: http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/kernel-source-2.4.18.html) I know there's a patch for sarge/sid, but the majority of really important installs are woody (read mission critical). -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp5Ej66UoenR.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

#x27;s about the principle of least astonishment... -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0ABBDzqMgX.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

is more likely to occur. How many administrators actually use the directory structure you suggested? (which, imho, is not FHS compliant, so it can't really constitute an argument in 755's favour...) -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp4502loiZ6Q.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

#x27;s about the principle of least astonishment... -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

up to transfer it to > another machine. > * Sometimes I override an existing binary living in /usr/local/bin. > Since /root/bin is earlier in my path that's possible. > > Maybe you can tell me which other directory is better suited for > that than /root? Yes. Your reg

Re: Permissions on /root/

essages that go to console). > No. It'll probably just get rejected anyway. I won't submit if there's a strong opposition against my idea. Even if I do, it's not mere mortals like me who decide these kinds of things so it's a moot point. -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgpbls0OMLyli.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

is more likely to occur. How many administrators actually use the directory structure you suggested? (which, imho, is not FHS compliant, so it can't really constitute an argument in 755's favour...) -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

#x27;t be used for storing any dangerous information doesn't mean it's not being used for that. What I am asking, in case my original mail wasn't clear enough, is why _shouldn't_ it be 750 or 700 by default? -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgpCb9a4naU56.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

Sigh. I specifically said use the original CC: and reply to the list, not reply to the list and CC:. On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:37:53AM -0500, bda wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > > Back to the issue at hand, the default permissions

Re: Permissions on /root/

up to transfer it to > another machine. > * Sometimes I override an existing binary living in /usr/local/bin. > Since /root/bin is earlier in my path that's possible. > > Maybe you can tell me which other directory is better suited for > that than /root? Yes. You

Re: Permissions on /root/

essages that go to console). > No. It'll probably just get rejected anyway. I won't submit if there's a strong opposition against my idea. Even if I do, it's not mere mortals like me who decide these kinds of things so it's a moot point. -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

#x27;t be used for storing any dangerous information doesn't mean it's not being used for that. What I am asking, in case my original mail wasn't clear enough, is why _shouldn't_ it be 750 or 700 by default? -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Permissions on /root/

Sigh. I specifically said use the original CC: and reply to the list, not reply to the list and CC:. On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:37:53AM -0500, bda wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > > Back to the issue at hand, the default permissions

Permissions on /root/

o fix it. That being said, should I file a bug against base-files? P.S. Please preserve the CC: on the replies sent to the list. Thank you. -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgpju4JezEChb.pgp Description: PGP signature

Permissions on /root/

o fix it. That being said, should I file a bug against base-files? P.S. Please preserve the CC: on the replies sent to the list. Thank you. -- Regards, Birzan George Cristian pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature