On Fri, 04 May 2001, Debian User wrote:
> Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > A secure (digital signature-based) system is being deployed right now in the
> > unstable distribution, but it is not fully integrated into our archive
> > structure yet.
>
> Where to find out mo
On Fri, 04 May 2001, Debian User wrote:
> Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > A secure (digital signature-based) system is being deployed right now in the
> > unstable distribution, but it is not fully integrated into our archive
> > structure yet.
>
> Where to find out mo
On Fri, 04 May 2001, a certain Debian user wrote:
> I remember Debian folks wher talking about some kind of checksums to
> integrate in package manager system (dpkg e.a.) some time ago. Is there
> any work in progress, where can i find out more about this? I took a
> look on Debian's documentation
On Fri, 04 May 2001, a certain Debian user wrote:
> I remember Debian folks wher talking about some kind of checksums to
> integrate in package manager system (dpkg e.a.) some time ago. Is there
> any work in progress, where can i find out more about this? I took a
> look on Debian's documentatio
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001, Christian Hammers wrote:
> > Currently it won't. :-\ You would have to get the packages yourself
> > and check the md5sums.
> Which were of course altered by the cracker. Bad idea.
Just subscribe to debian-devel-changes or debian-changes @lists.debian.org,
the .changes files
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001, Christian Hammers wrote:
> > Currently it won't. :-\ You would have to get the packages yourself
> > and check the md5sums.
> Which were of course altered by the cracker. Bad idea.
Just subscribe to debian-devel-changes or debian-changes @lists.debian.org,
the .changes file
The recent mgetty upload security fix, and an NMU upload (of mgetty) to
unstable yesterday reminded me of a serious issue we still have to address.
Sometimes, security patches made by the security team (and made available
through security.debian.org) are reverted on mistake by maintainers on the
n
The recent mgetty upload security fix, and an NMU upload (of mgetty) to
unstable yesterday reminded me of a serious issue we still have to address.
Sometimes, security patches made by the security team (and made available
through security.debian.org) are reverted on mistake by maintainers on the
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> files in there. Another small question: Is it better to have different .d
> directories (for ignore, violations, violations.ignore and hacking) or having
> one .d directory and using filename-postfixes (e.g. postfix.ignore,
> postfix.violations, postfix.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> files in there. Another small question: Is it better to have different .d
> directories (for ignore, violations, violations.ignore and hacking) or having
> one .d directory and using filename-postfixes (e.g. postfix.ignore,
> postfix.violations, postfix
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Well, the package is not orphaned, I have already fixed nearly all bug
> reports.
> The reason why the package has not been updated in a while is that I am in the
> NM queue for myself (since about 1,5 years). Now I am approved by an AM,
> but
> st
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Well, the package is not orphaned, I have already fixed nearly all bug reports.
> The reason why the package has not been updated in a while is that I am in the
> NM queue for myself (since about 1,5 years). Now I am approved by an AM, but
> still w
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
> meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
> new_network_daemon I want it to look at /etc/security/netw
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
> What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
> meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
> new_network_daemon I want it to look at /etc/security/net
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Thorsten Sideb0ard wrote:
> By a one time password system i am not referring to carrying round a sheet
> of paper, but rather something like the SecureID system, or some kind of
> automated otp generator, and i belive there is a good one for the Palm
> platform also.
Yeah, tho
> I can see the point,
> because a would be intruder could look over the shoulder of an authorised
> user, or someone with more priveleges than himself, and watch his password
> being entered. Then it doesnt matter whether the session is encrypted
> because the intruder knows the password.
>
> the
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Thorsten Sideb0ard wrote:
> By a one time password system i am not referring to carrying round a sheet
> of paper, but rather something like the SecureID system, or some kind of
> automated otp generator, and i belive there is a good one for the Palm
> platform also.
Yeah, th
> I can see the point,
> because a would be intruder could look over the shoulder of an authorised
> user, or someone with more priveleges than himself, and watch his password
> being entered. Then it doesnt matter whether the session is encrypted
> because the intruder knows the password.
>
> th
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Could somebody more familiar with vim than me please tell me
> (us) wheter this writes anything unencrypted onto disk? If not,
> shall I file a wishlist bug against vim-rt to include this?
Is your swap file (not VIM's, the OS') in an encripted partition? O
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Could somebody more familiar with vim than me please tell me
> (us) wheter this writes anything unencrypted onto disk? If not,
> shall I file a wishlist bug against vim-rt to include this?
Is your swap file (not VIM's, the OS') in an encripted partition?
20 matches
Mail list logo
