On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 05:38:07PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
I'm pretty new to the list. Is this sort of question generally the type
that's discussed on this list?
Well, we usually hope that the users do their homework (i.e. RTFM)
before asking questions with such well documented
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:17:35AM -0500, Gary MacDougall wrote:
In the kernel (ok, stand up you kernel guru's!), when a
segmentation fault is raised, I don't care where, doesn't the
kernel get some sort of notification event?
Of course the kernel knows. The kernel is why seg faults can
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:05:07AM +0300, Igor L. Balusov wrote:
Hi!
I scanned my debian 2.2 and find
port 765/tcp - webster
I look thru my system files(xinetd, inetd) and didnt find the service
webster.
What is it?
webster is an old dictionary program. We actually run websterd
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:18:09PM +0100, J. Paul Bruns-Bielkowicz wrote:
Hi,
I disabled all but a few ports in /etc/services, but I have
tcp0 0 pa237.olsztyn.sdi.t:111 80.116.215.37:1064
/etc/services does not enable or disable ports. It is merely a database
mapping commonly
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:05:07AM +0300, Igor L. Balusov wrote:
Hi!
I scanned my debian 2.2 and find
port 765/tcp - webster
I look thru my system files(xinetd, inetd) and didnt find the service
webster.
What is it?
webster is an old dictionary program. We actually run websterd
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:29:22PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
On Saturday 24 November 2001 03:28 am, Johannes Weiss wrote:
So, because of this my question is: Is 3des secure enough??
The putty website (search for it on google) has something to say about
the security of des algorithm,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:04:59AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
While this may be whipping a greasy stain on the road, it is true that
3DES was created by the government back when private cryptology was
difficult or unknown. I believe it is prudent to consider that it was
allowed to be
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:29:22PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
On Saturday 24 November 2001 03:28 am, Johannes Weiss wrote:
So, because of this my question is: Is 3des secure enough??
The putty website (search for it on google) has something to say about
the security of des algorithm,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:04:59AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
While this may be whipping a greasy stain on the road, it is true that
3DES was created by the government back when private cryptology was
difficult or unknown. I believe it is prudent to consider that it was
allowed to be used
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:28:56AM +0100, Johannes Weiss wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
UNfortunately, WIN-SSH is very buggy, it only works if I take the 3des
algorithm, if I take one of the others (blowfish,...) it crashed.
What is unfortunate about that? From my experience,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:49:02AM -0600, orly-fu wrote:
First of all nmap does not scan only the services listed in /etc/services, if
you were to have bothered reading the manual before answering you would have
read, and I quote:
The default is to scan all ports between 1 and 1024
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:02:53PM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote:
Is it ok to have your GPG fingerprint publicly available?
It is not only OK, but encouraged. If one can confirm that your
fingerprint is valid (i.e. by calling you and saying is foo really
your fingerprint?), then it's a safe bet
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:45:57PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
i think all this started because i auto-reply to micro$oft users,
telling them about www.vcnet.com/bms and www.unix-vs-nt.org and he
didn't like that :)
Please don't do that. That's an incredibly rude practice. The people
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:45:57PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
i think all this started because i auto-reply to micro$oft users,
telling them about www.vcnet.com/bms and www.unix-vs-nt.org and he
didn't like that :)
Please don't do that. That's an incredibly rude practice. The people
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:01:54PM -0400, Dan Hutchinson wrote:
I have an old Sparc 20 Workstation and wonder if Linux can run on
it?
Debian will happily run on a SPARC 20. I've got it running on one right
now. You may wish to browse the archives of the debian-sparc mailing
list to see if
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:01:54PM -0400, Dan Hutchinson wrote:
I have an old Sparc 20 Workstation and wonder if Linux can run on
it?
Debian will happily run on a SPARC 20. I've got it running on one right
now. You may wish to browse the archives of the debian-sparc mailing
list to see if
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
if ya wrote a script... was thinking..wouldnt it be funny
to redirect that incoming attack with the cgi script to
redirect it back to the incoming machine ???
It wouldn't get you anything exciting. The source machine has already
been
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:17:26PM -0400, Brian Rectanus wrote:
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [19/Jul/2001:14:28:23 -0400] GET
/default.ida?NNN
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:17:26PM -0400, Brian Rectanus wrote:
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [19/Jul/2001:14:28:23 -0400] GET
/default.ida?NNN
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:18:56AM -0400, hpknight wrote:
-rwxr-xr-x2 root root20092 Jun 2 17:05 /usr/bin/test
looks like someone might have copied/renamed it on accident in a shell
script.
No, it is supposed to be there. It lets you do things like
[ foo ]
on the command
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:18:56AM -0400, hpknight wrote:
-rwxr-xr-x2 root root20092 Jun 2 17:05 /usr/bin/test
looks like someone might have copied/renamed it on accident in a shell
script.
No, it is supposed to be there. It lets you do things like
[ foo ]
on the command
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:30:56AM -0700, Pat Moffitt wrote:
My real concern is for people like me. I know a lot about computers (over
20 years of experience). But, I don't have much experience with security.
I don't know a lot about many of the packages in Linux.
That's partly why I don't
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:47:47AM -0700, Jamie Heilman wrote:
No, you can't if you're plan is to uninstall inetd, the package structure is
broken and won't allow it due to $@)!ed up dependancies. I've been trying
to do it for ages. Then, when I found equivs I danced a jig. Its pretty
much
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:56:51AM -0400, Stuart Krivis wrote:
Why not? You've not given any reason at all. Do you know of any
malicious behavior that is made possible by leaving the services turned
on? The potential exists to use the chargen feature as a part of a DoS
That's
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:30:56AM -0700, Pat Moffitt wrote:
My real concern is for people like me. I know a lot about computers (over
20 years of experience). But, I don't have much experience with security.
I don't know a lot about many of the packages in Linux.
That's partly why I don't
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:47:47AM -0700, Jamie Heilman wrote:
No, you can't if you're plan is to uninstall inetd, the package structure is
broken and won't allow it due to $@)!ed up dependancies. I've been trying
to do it for ages. Then, when I found equivs I danced a jig. Its pretty
much
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:08:49AM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
The argument below is pretty bad. Have you ever heard of anybody
actually getting impaled by holding a sword poised at his belly and
walking into grand central station at 5:00pm going 'scuse me, pardon
me, 'scuse me, pardon
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:25:37PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
But that said, I gather leaking one's timestamp is not a good thing
(leaking *anything* is not really any good). I'm no Kerberos user, but I
heard you can do time-dependent auth in that a given ticket is good until
whenever. I
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:08:49AM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
The argument below is pretty bad. Have you ever heard of anybody
actually getting impaled by holding a sword poised at his belly and
walking into grand central station at 5:00pm going 'scuse me, pardon
me, 'scuse me, pardon
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:25:37PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
But that said, I gather leaking one's timestamp is not a good thing
(leaking *anything* is not really any good). I'm no Kerberos user, but I
heard you can do time-dependent auth in that a given ticket is good until
whenever. I
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:01:07AM -0400, Dan Hutchinson wrote:
TCP: Hash tables configured(established 16384 bind 16384)
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/smp for Linux NET4.0
ds: no socket drivers loaded
request-module[block-major-8]: Root fs not mounted.
VFS: Cannot open root device 801 or
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:34:01AM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
OpenBSD ships with rstatd and ruserd enabled by default and according to
http://www.openbsd.org/
Four years without a remote hole in the default install!
Which begs the question, especially since the *BSD's release their
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:53:46PM +0300, Juha Jäykkä wrote:
I am a little concerned about XFree86+wdm keeping a bunch of
processes listening on port 32768. (wdm is the windowmaker xdm
Hi. I am the wdm maintainer for Debian. I haven't been maintaining
this package for too long, and I'm not
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:34:01AM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
OpenBSD ships with rstatd and ruserd enabled by default and according to
http://www.openbsd.org/
Four years without a remote hole in the default install!
Which begs the question, especially since the *BSD's release their
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:50:45PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenSSL version mismatch. Built against 90600f, you have 90601f
I fixed this problem by fetching the source packages for ssh and
building them locally ('apt-get source -b ssh').
noah, who still wishes the *open*ssh packages
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:15:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tried installing libssl0.9.6_0.9.6-2, no luck. Same errors.
Trying to build from source package, but this depends on gnome libs.
Yes, just edit debian/rules in the ssh source and remove the
'--with-gnome' or whatever it is
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:50:45PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OpenSSL version mismatch. Built against 90600f, you have 90601f
I fixed this problem by fetching the source packages for ssh and
building them locally ('apt-get source -b ssh').
noah, who still wishes the *open*ssh packages
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:15:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tried installing libssl0.9.6_0.9.6-2, no luck. Same errors.
Trying to build from source package, but this depends on gnome libs.
Yes, just edit debian/rules in the ssh source and remove the
'--with-gnome' or whatever it is from
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:13:52PM +0200, Vaclav Hula wrote:
Ask yourself this: *Why* should ICMP be filtered? What are you gaining?
What are you gaining by responding to them?
RFC compliancy isn't enough? IMHO should be.
There's no RFC that states that you need to reply to echo
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:13:52PM +0200, Vaclav Hula wrote:
Ask yourself this: *Why* should ICMP be filtered? What are you gaining?
What are you gaining by responding to them?
RFC compliancy isn't enough? IMHO should be.
There's no RFC that states that you need to reply to echo
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:05:18PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
How should ICMP packets be filtered? I'm was blocking them all, but I was
getting a lot of traffic in my logs like:
kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth1 PROTO=1 216.242.53.162:3 x.y.z.82:3 L=56
S=0x00 I=25760 F=0x T=243 (#27)
This was logged by one of my servers the other day (potato, upgraded
with the necessary packages to run kernel 2.4.2):
Mar 31 08:40:48 debian kernel: TCP: peer xxx.xx.xx.xx:41760/20 shrinks
window 3735214707:8280:3735227987. Bad, what else can I say?
The IP address, obviously, has been replaced
This was logged by one of my servers the other day (potato, upgraded
with the necessary packages to run kernel 2.4.2):
Mar 31 08:40:48 debian kernel: TCP: peer xxx.xx.xx.xx:41760/20 shrinks
window 3735214707:8280:3735227987. Bad, what else can I say?
The IP address, obviously, has been replaced
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 02:21:03PM -0500, Lindsey Simon wrote:
"Duh" .. hmm, nice. If I wanted to know what the service was I might
not have asked what was the EXPLOIT that prompts the script kiddiez to
try it. Further, really all I mean is if anyone has an example of an
exploit handy or a
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:14:31PM -0500, Bud Rogers wrote:
On Wednesday 04 April 2001 22:24, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
It would appear that every supported Debian version is currently
vulnerable... Note that I've not tested this myself, but our version of
ntp is definitely supposed
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:26:42AM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
Yes. The fix has been made in the FreeBSD CVS repository. I'm going to
see about integrating it with our sources now. If I get a safe copy
built I'll make a signed .deb available. I'm not a member of the
official Debian
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Lindsey Simon wrote:
I've been wondering why I get so many probes on port 53, what's the
popular exploit on it?
Bind (DNS) listens on that port. Even if there weren't any current
exploits for bind, there are enough historical ones that people will
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 02:21:03PM -0500, Lindsey Simon wrote:
Duh .. hmm, nice. If I wanted to know what the service was I might
not have asked what was the EXPLOIT that prompts the script kiddiez to
try it. Further, really all I mean is if anyone has an example of an
exploit handy or a
It would appear that every supported Debian version is currently
vulnerable... Note that I've not tested this myself, but our version of
ntp is definitely supposed to be vulnerable.
noah
- Forwarded message from Przemyslaw Frasunek [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:14:31PM -0500, Bud Rogers wrote:
On Wednesday 04 April 2001 22:24, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
It would appear that every supported Debian version is currently
vulnerable... Note that I've not tested this myself, but our version of
ntp is definitely supposed
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:26:42AM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
Yes. The fix has been made in the FreeBSD CVS repository. I'm going to
see about integrating it with our sources now. If I get a safe copy
built I'll make a signed .deb available. I'm not a member of the
official Debian
It would appear that every supported Debian version is currently
vulnerable... Note that I've not tested this myself, but our version of
ntp is definitely supposed to be vulnerable.
noah
- Forwarded message from Przemyslaw Frasunek [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:23:34PM -0500, Patrick Maheral wrote:
Why bother even trying to modify the file to have the same checksum.
All the rootkit must do is keep the original file around, and either
select the compromised file or original depending on whether it is being
openned for
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:19:24AM -0800, Pat Moffitt wrote:
It is more than possible. There are people that have figured out how to pad
a file to make the checksums the same. They don't have to worry about the
fact that your checksums cannot be changed because they will fake theirs to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:23:34PM -0500, Patrick Maheral wrote:
Why bother even trying to modify the file to have the same checksum.
All the rootkit must do is keep the original file around, and either
select the compromised file or original depending on whether it is being
openned for
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:04:47PM -0500, S . Salman Ahmed wrote:
I get the same behaviour from ifconfig on another sid machine (this one
is behind my firewall, and the firewall is the sid machine I wrote about
in my earlier email).
I'm definitely not seeing this behavior on my sid machine
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:32:03AM -0500, S . Salman Ahmed wrote:
Any other ways I can try and detect this rootkit on my systems ?
Knark can't function if you have disabled module loading. It is a
module, so it can't do anything if it can't be run.
Did you say that the kernel logs a
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:04:47PM -0500, S . Salman Ahmed wrote:
I get the same behaviour from ifconfig on another sid machine (this one
is behind my firewall, and the firewall is the sid machine I wrote about
in my earlier email).
I'm definitely not seeing this behavior on my sid machine
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:32:03AM -0500, S . Salman Ahmed wrote:
Any other ways I can try and detect this rootkit on my systems ?
Knark can't function if you have disabled module loading. It is a
module, so it can't do anything if it can't be run.
Did you say that the kernel logs a
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:27:25AM +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
I've seen via iplog that someone had tried to access to my server. How can I
know who he is knowing his IP address ?
Well, you can do a 'whois -h whois.arin.net IP' which will tell you
who own the netblock containing his IP.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:27:25AM +0100, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
I've seen via iplog that someone had tried to access to my server. How can I
know who he is knowing his IP address ?
Well, you can do a 'whois -h whois.arin.net IP' which will tell you
who own the netblock containing his IP.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 05:40:03PM -0500, Robert Mognet wrote:
Anyone know where I can find a kernel patch that restricts users so..
'who' shows only the user himself
who is not a kernel function, it's a system utility.
That doesn't mean a kernel patch can't modify its behavior. Have you
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:18:20AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -DMODULE -DLINUX -DEXPORT_SYMTAB -D__NO_VERSION__
-I/usr/include -I. -O2 -pipe -DCONFIG_PROC_FS -DIANS -DIANS_BASE_VLAN_TAGGING
^^
That should probably be -I/usr/src/linux/include. You need to
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:32:19AM +0100, Runar Bell wrote:
1) I noticed that somebody had logged in to my computer using my username.
I can't see how they could have discovered my password (7 letters,
snip
2) When inspecting /var/log/messages I noticed quite a lot of attempts to
send a
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:03:53PM -0700, Ray Percival wrote:
To solve this issue with Woody I just leave the line for the
stable security updates in my sources file. I get the security
updates before they are in Woody. Is there any reason this would
not be a good idea?
Yeah. It doesn't
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:58:27AM -0500, Steve Rudd wrote:
I have been told by a Mac-head that the Mac is the most secure server and
that it is significantly more secure than any unix system, including Linux.
Believe it or not the U.S. military made such a claim about 18 months or
so back.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Steve Rudd wrote:
1. How secure is it checking email with eudora pro, given they have not yet
got ssh or any other system that is secure? Since outlook has ssh, is it
worth switching for that? I use a separate user and password for mail and ftp.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Steve Rudd wrote:
1. How secure is it checking email with eudora pro, given they have not yet
got ssh or any other system that is secure? Since outlook has ssh, is it
worth switching for that? I use a separate user and password for mail and ftp.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:41:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
Are there any gpl or similar anti-virus programs for linux ?
If you mean filters that can scan incoming email and search for Windows
or maybe Mac viruses, then yes, they exist, but I don't know of any
released under the GPL.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:41:02PM +1300, Matthew Sherborne wrote:
Are there any gpl or similar anti-virus programs for linux ?
If you mean filters that can scan incoming email and search for Windows
or maybe Mac viruses, then yes, they exist, but I don't know of any
released under the GPL.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:46:26PM -0600, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote:
Getting on dselect and removing all that ssh related stuff. Downloaded
OpenSSL and compiled it and installed. Did the same for OpenSSH and now
everything is great. I am never depending on Debian packaging. Period.
The please,
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:46:26PM -0600, Mohammed Elzubeir wrote:
Getting on dselect and removing all that ssh related stuff. Downloaded
OpenSSL and compiled it and installed. Did the same for OpenSSH and now
everything is great. I am never depending on Debian packaging. Period.
The please,
I wish to mirror security.debian.org using rsync, but I can't find any
documentation on rsync sources or other mirrors. It's not mentioned on
http://www.debian.org/mirror/mirrors_full. There's also no mention of
it on http://www.debian.org/mirror/ftpmirror. Where can I find the info
I need?
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:41:18AM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
I go to great lengths to ensure that they don't expose any known
weeknesses to the world.
This is the problem. They do not expose any known weakness. What about
unknown weaknesses? New ones are being discovered every
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:41:18AM -0500, Bradley M Alexander wrote:
I go to great lengths to ensure that they don't expose any known
weeknesses to the world.
This is the problem. They do not expose any known weakness. What about
unknown weaknesses? New ones are being discovered every day.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
snip
a thing. Is port-scanning considered vandalism? Should I report the
addresses to somewhere?
This is a subject of debate in security circles. Some believe that
portscanning is an indication of malicious intent and
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
snip
a thing. Is port-scanning considered vandalism? Should I report the
addresses to somewhere?
This is a subject of debate in security circles. Some believe that
portscanning is an indication of malicious intent and
This was discussed briefly on debian-devel. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0012/msg02192.html for the start of
the thread.
One of the problems with "porting" the NSA stuff to Debian is that they
actually implemented entirely new system calls. So there distribution
is completely
This was discussed briefly on debian-devel. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0012/msg02192.html for the start of
the thread.
One of the problems with porting the NSA stuff to Debian is that they
actually implemented entirely new system calls. So there distribution
is completely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 06:44:48PM -0300, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
I'm trying to do something like this...
ROUTER Linux --
||
Real_IP || Internal_IP
||
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey all. I'm seeing odd results when I portscan my server from a remote
host. nmap is indicating that port 98 (the dreaded linuxconf port) is
in a filtered state. I have never ever ever installed linuxconf. I
know my ipchains rules have nothing
Err, that was supposed to read "shouldn't be"...
^^^
oh well.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:59:28PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
There should *be* a firewall between me and the host, but as you and
another poster pointed out, it must be tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey all. I'm seeing odd results when I portscan my server from a remote
host. nmap is indicating that port 98 (the dreaded linuxconf port) is
in a filtered state. I have never ever ever installed linuxconf. I
know my ipchains rules have nothing to
:
A firewall before your machine is filtering that port?
-mike
Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey all. I'm seeing odd results when I portscan my server from a remote
host. nmap is indicating that port 98 (the dreaded linuxconf port) is
in a filtered state. I have never
Err, that was supposed to read shouldn't be...
^^^
oh well.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:59:28PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
There should *be* a firewall between me and the host, but as you and
another poster pointed out, it must be that a router
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Alan KF LAU wrote:
Just a question. I've tried it on my own server which is Debian 2.2.17
woody(unstable) version. I got the following message when trying 2:
./troffrc:1: can't open `/etc/passwd' for appending: Permission denied
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Christian Pernegger wrote:
What they are saying is that a machine *should* never recieve a packet that
has originated from outside the machine, yet claims (by way of the source
IP) to have originated from that machine?
Exactly. A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
debian-security is not the most appropriate forum for this request, as
your request is neither Debian related nor security related. Additionaly,
you attached your scripts is MS Word format, rendering them pretty much
unreadable to the Linux users whose help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
debian-security is not the most appropriate forum for this request, as
your request is neither Debian related nor security related. Additionaly,
you attached your scripts is MS Word format, rendering them pretty much
unreadable to the Linux users whose help you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Nick Jennings wrote:
Can anyone on the list recommend a good book, online or in paper
form, that goes in depth on Linux Security? Prevention Detection etc.
You should check out the security white papers published by Lance
201 - 290 of 290 matches
Mail list logo
