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
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
shouldn't
the changelog.Debian list which vulnerabilities have been addressed?
--
Regards
Birzan George Cristian
pgp3B7wognh9q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
shouldn't
the changelog.Debian list which vulnerabilities have been addressed?
--
Regards
Birzan George Cristian
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rg, for Woody.
--
Regards
Birzan George Cristian
pgpl5xM3j0rlI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rg, for Woody.
--
Regards
Birzan George Cristian
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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
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?
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
#x27;s about the principle of least
astonishment...
--
Regards,
Birzan George Cristian
pgp0ABBDzqMgX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
#x27;s about the principle of least
astonishment...
--
Regards,
Birzan George Cristian
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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
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
#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
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
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
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
#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
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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo