On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:59:44AM -0500, David wrote:
> In an attempt to learn more about the workings of gpg, I've been trying
> to verify emails from the command line.
>
> These signatures are not signed, but mutt reports a good signature, but,
> of course, warning that they are not signed..
>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:59:44AM -0500, David wrote:
> In an attempt to learn more about the workings of gpg, I've been trying
> to verify emails from the command line.
>
> These signatures are not signed, but mutt reports a good signature, but,
> of course, warning that they are not signed..
>
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:16:39PM +0200, Ramin Motakef wrote:
> Hi all,
> Todays nmap run shows me:
>
> Interesting ports on (xx):
> (The 59984 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
> Port State Service
> 21/tcp openftp
> 22/tcp
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 08:09:31AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From: "Karl E. Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: service enablement via mail and otp?
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:47:16 +0100
>
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:01:14
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 01:37:30PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For some time, I've been toying w/ the idea of putting together
> > something that would allow me to trigger the starting/stopping of
> > various ser
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:35:19PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read several times, including on this list, that password
> authentication with ssh does not send the password in clear text (it is
> sent in the encrypted tunnel). This is confirmed by the ssh(1) man page:
>
>
I have authored smash [1], which I hope at some point will make its way
to the Debian archves.
But... Security is not my speciality, and my code is bound to have bugs
and security holes etc in it. So I'm keen to have other people than
myself study the code and point out security flaws etc.
Can an
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:23:52AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:28:24 +0200 (MEST),
> Thomas Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I set up my server with aide and tiger to check it's integrity. The
> > reports are mailed to root which one is redirected to an other localad
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:53:02PM +0300, Daniel Fairhead wrote:
> > Secondly, with response to the original post, I think that there is
> > an unjustified level of paranoia by the network admin. High school
> > children are at best going to be script kiddies. Secondly, your
> > school should
>
>
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:53:02PM +0300, Daniel Fairhead wrote:
> > Secondly, with response to the original post, I think that there is
> > an unjustified level of paranoia by the network admin. High school
> > children are at best going to be script kiddies. Secondly, your
> > school should
>
>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:31:02AM +0000, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > The firewalling I have in place only allows incoming connections for
> > ssh. UDP is locked down so only DNS works there. And by mistake (fixed
&g
A while back logcheck alerted me to the entries in my syslog:
Unusual System Events
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
20:05:37 hawking dhcpd-2.2.x: Discarding packet with invalid hlen.
20:05:43 hawking dhcpd-2.2.x: Discarding packet with invalid hlen.
20:33:52 hawking sshd[26972]: scanned from xxx.xxx.130.196
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:00:51PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:31:02AM +0000, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > The firewalling I have in place only allows incoming connections for
> > ssh. UDP is locked down so only DNS works there. And by mistake (fixe
A while back logcheck alerted me to the entries in my syslog:
Unusual System Events
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
20:05:37 hawking dhcpd-2.2.x: Discarding packet with invalid hlen.
20:05:43 hawking dhcpd-2.2.x: Discarding packet with invalid hlen.
20:33:52 hawking sshd[26972]: scanned from xxx.xxx.130.19
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 05:35:13PM -0300, Eduardo J. Gargiulo wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
> a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
>
> ssh server script
>
> but I need the IP address i'm connecting from in the shell script an
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 05:35:13PM -0300, Eduardo J. Gargiulo wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Is there any way to obtain the IP address of a ssh client and use it on
> a shell script? I want to put a crontab like
>
> ssh server script
>
> but I need the IP address i'm connecting from in the shell script a
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:52:47PM +, Colin Phipps wrote:
> [...]
> Furthermore I think the mean is exactly the right measure of this: from
> the user point of view, the important figure is total exposure time,
> i.e. sum of time between vulnerability discovery and patch (for
> installed packag
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:52:47PM +, Colin Phipps wrote:
> [...]
> Furthermore I think the mean is exactly the right measure of this: from
> the user point of view, the important figure is total exposure time,
> i.e. sum of time between vulnerability discovery and patch (for
> installed packa
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 08:00:02PM +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my SSH connections don't go to the 'auth.log' file, but the sshd_config seems
> to be good. What can happen ?
Without much information to go on, I would have a stab at
/etc/syslog.conf... Do you currently have *anything* endi
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 08:00:02PM +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my SSH connections don't go to the 'auth.log' file, but the sshd_config seems
> to be good. What can happen ?
Without much information to go on, I would have a stab at
/etc/syslog.conf... Do you currently have *anything* end
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 11:45:28PM +0100, eim wrote:
> my Finger Daemon conclusion...
>
> First, Thanks for all the answers to my question.
>
> Well, so it really seems it's better to avoid using
> any finger daemon, security has always priority.
>
> Anyway I thought the finger daemon would be a
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 11:45:28PM +0100, eim wrote:
> my Finger Daemon conclusion...
>
> First, Thanks for all the answers to my question.
>
> Well, so it really seems it's better to avoid using
> any finger daemon, security has always priority.
>
> Anyway I thought the finger daemon would be
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 10:45:24PM +1000, Paul Haesler wrote:
> <>
> .
> Cc:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]> 2001-11-21 22:41:42 166Vl8-00017q-00 <=
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] U=paul P=local S=327
> 2001-11-21 22:41:42 166Vl8-00017q-00 Unable to get root to set
> uid and gid for local delivery to paul: uid
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 10:45:24PM +1000, Paul Haesler wrote:
> <>
> .
> Cc:
> [paul@marge sbin]> 2001-11-21 22:41:42 166Vl8-00017q-00 <=
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] U=paul P=local S=327
> 2001-11-21 22:41:42 166Vl8-00017q-00 Unable to get root to set
> uid and gid for local delivery to paul: uid=1000
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 02:08:40PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Karl E. Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doesn't this leave you open to DOS attacks? I'm thinking that source IP
> > addresses are relatively easy to forge, and hence an attacher can forge
>
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 02:08:40PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Karl E. Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doesn't this leave you open to DOS attacks? I'm thinking that source IP
> > addresses are relatively easy to forge, and hence an attacher can forge
>
Doesn't this leave you open to DOS attacks? I'm thinking that source IP
addresses are relatively easy to forge, and hence an attacher can forge
a nimda attach and cause you to block off legitimate IP addresses -
ie. your DNS server our default gateway...
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:37:58PM +0200, J
Doesn't this leave you open to DOS attacks? I'm thinking that source IP
addresses are relatively easy to forge, and hence an attacher can forge
a nimda attach and cause you to block off legitimate IP addresses -
ie. your DNS server our default gateway...
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:37:58PM +0200,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:58:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wan't to get some opinions on doing this:
>
> Making someone to be able to create unix users by an http method (from an
> http browser).
> Making someone to be able to restart a daemon under the identity
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:58:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wan't to get some opinions on doing this:
>
> Making someone to be able to create unix users by an http method (from an http
>browser).
> Making someone to be able to restart a daemon under the identity
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 10:50:07AM +0200, kjfsgjks ksjgkfhfd wrote:
> Hi,
kjfsgjks: You probably have a real name. Why not use it?
> I have a question which has been bothering me all along, with windows /
> linux / *bsd / etc. In this case, it's about Debian so I thought I'd post my
> question
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 10:50:07AM +0200, kjfsgjks ksjgkfhfd wrote:
> Hi,
kjfsgjks: You probably have a real name. Why not use it?
> I have a question which has been bothering me all along, with windows /
> linux / *bsd / etc. In this case, it's about Debian so I thought I'd post my
> questio
Recently, logcheck alerted me to the following in my logs (sorry
about the long lines):
May 17 17:06:48 localhost pppd[789]: pppd 2.4.1 started by karl, uid 1000
May 17 17:07:14 localhost pppd[789]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/modem
May 17 17:07:14 localhost pppd[789]: Serial connection established.
M
Recently, logcheck alerted me to the following in my logs (sorry
about the long lines):
May 17 17:06:48 localhost pppd[789]: pppd 2.4.1 started by karl, uid 1000
May 17 17:07:14 localhost pppd[789]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/modem
May 17 17:07:14 localhost pppd[789]: Serial connection established.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:57:51PM -0500, Vinh Truong wrote:
> * Karl E. Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010406 15:23]:
> >
> > Sounds like you need to talk to your firewall administrator. If you trust
> > him that is... How can you be sure that he's not snooping o
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:57:51PM -0500, Vinh Truong wrote:
> * Karl E. Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010406 15:23]:
> >
> > Sounds like you need to talk to your firewall administrator. If you trust
> > him that is... How can you be sure that he's not sn
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:31:27AM -0500, Vinh Truong wrote:
> I have sshd set up on my machine at home. Instead of the default port
> 22, I uninstalled telnetd and run sshd on 23. I do this mostly because
> I want to ssh into my machine from work where they don't open port 22 on
> the firewall.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:39:47AM -0700, Eric N. Valor wrote:
> Well, most folks like to connect to the Web, so port 80 is a must for that
> (it's 2-way on the same port). 53 is required only if you're running BIND
Is that true? I only block *incoming* port 80, but I'm still able to surf
the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:31:27AM -0500, Vinh Truong wrote:
> I have sshd set up on my machine at home. Instead of the default port
> 22, I uninstalled telnetd and run sshd on 23. I do this mostly because
> I want to ssh into my machine from work where they don't open port 22 on
> the firewall.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:39:47AM -0700, Eric N. Valor wrote:
> Well, most folks like to connect to the Web, so port 80 is a must for that
> (it's 2-way on the same port). 53 is required only if you're running BIND
Is that true? I only block *incoming* port 80, but I'm still able to surf
the
40 matches
Mail list logo
