Re: Questions

Hi all, For openscap, you can also check these pages: https://wiki.debian.org/SCAPGuide https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSCAP Cheers, Le 5 décembre 2018 00:32:49 GMT+01:00, "Bardot Jérôme" a écrit : >Le 04/12/2018 à 21:32, Ruslanas Gžibovskis a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> Jerome, I would say that

Re: Questions

On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 21:34 +0100, Ruslanas Gžibovskis wrote: > Paul Wise, what help is needed? I would like to commit, but not sure > how, never done that, but would LOVE TO! Could you guide? Check the pages I mentioned and look through each of them, there should be enough documentation there

Re: Questions

Le 04/12/2018 à 21:32, Ruslanas Gžibovskis a écrit : > Hi all, > > Jerome, I would say that most 'users' will go to pop choice, like only > some hardcore lovers would listen to "Tsjuder" but most of the people > would go with "Lady Gaga". Same here, if you do not want to learn, you > use *buntu or

Re: Questions

Me too. Le 04/12/2018 à 21:34, Ruslanas Gžibovskis a écrit : > Paul Wise, what help is needed? I would like to commit, but not sure > how, never done that, but would LOVE TO! Could you guide? > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 02:46 Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at

Re: Questions

Paul Wise, what help is needed? I would like to commit, but not sure how, never done that, but would LOVE TO! Could you guide? On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 02:46 Paul Wise On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 7:10 PM Jérôme Bardot wrote: > > > Why debian is not more harden by default ? > > We need more people who are

Re: Questions

Hi all, Jerome, I would say that most 'users' will go to pop choice, like only some hardcore lovers would listen to "Tsjuder" but most of the people would go with "Lady Gaga". Same here, if you do not want to learn, you use *buntu or any "*" made of, else if you wanna learn and use stable and

Re: Questions

Idézem/Quoting Jérôme Bardot : Agree about some hardening only are usefull in certain use case. But some of them should be set as default i guess because they are usefull for most of the case and case not include require skills and in this skill are include change an option in some not all the

Re: Questions

Agree about some hardening only are usefull in certain use case. But some of them should be set as default i guess because they are usefull for most of the case and case not include require skills and in this skill are include change an option in some not all the day open conf file. Maybe i’m

Re: Questions

On 2018-12-03 05:10, Jérôme Bardot wrote: Why debian is not more harden by default ? Debian's hardening is adequate for most users, who are typically behind some sort of protection such as a router/firewall. If you actually need a hardened system, it's far better for you to do the

Re: Questions

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 7:10 PM Jérôme Bardot wrote: > Why debian is not more harden by default ? We need more people who are interested in working on this topic, some links for anyone who is interested in contributing: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/data/report

Re: Questions

Thx, Why debian is not more harden by default ? I try to set up openvas but it’s look like there more to do than a apt, i will look deeper when i have the time. Le mer. 28 nov. 2018 à 22:26, qmi a écrit : > > Hi > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Jérôme Bardot wrote: > > Hello i try to

Re: Questions

Hi On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Jérôme Bardot wrote: > Hello i try to harden my debian server. You are welcome to do so. > I want do understand all of this «warning». > If they are false positive maybe this part should be update because > it’s debian related ? On Debian by default

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:43:28PM +0100, J.J. van Gorkum wrote: Maybe I'm too much an old school admin but 'they' allways told me to move all the libraries into the chroot environment (no symlinks watsoever) and even (if possible) move the whole chroot environment onto an special

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

Hello, Bind has the built in ability to chroot itself (-t). then all that needs to be done is altering the bind init script(/etc/init.d/bind), which contains the OPTS variable. Add '-u [username] -t [chroot_dir]' into that variable and you should be ok. I've done this with Bind 8, and now upgraded

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 18:40, Sean McAvoy wrote: Hello, Bind has the built in ability to chroot itself (-t). then all that needs to be done is altering the bind init script(/etc/init.d/bind), which contains the OPTS variable. Add '-u [username] -t [chroot_dir]' into that variable and you

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

Yes it is true that it's making use of the systems libs, but they can't be touched by the process as it has been chrooted. In order for someone to overwrite those files, they would first have to break of the chroot. I'm not sure of the real security implications of using the system libs are vs.

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 22:15, Sean McAvoy wrote: Yes it is true that it's making use of the systems libs, but they can't be touched by the process as it has been chrooted. In order for someone to overwrite those files, they would first have to break of the chroot. I'm not sure of the real

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

Hi1 Please try not to wrap long lines in command output. On Tuesday, 2002-10-29 at 23:35:42 +0100, J.J. van Gorkum wrote: Hi, I have a question about chrooting bind 8.3.3 I have used the setup as described in http://people.debian.org/~pzn/howto/chroot-bind.sh.txt ... but when I then start

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

Hello, Bind has the built in ability to chroot itself (-t). then all that needs to be done is altering the bind init script(/etc/init.d/bind), which contains the OPTS variable. Add '-u [username] -t [chroot_dir]' into that variable and you should be ok. I've done this with Bind 8, and now upgraded

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 18:40, Sean McAvoy wrote: Hello, Bind has the built in ability to chroot itself (-t). then all that needs to be done is altering the bind init script(/etc/init.d/bind), which contains the OPTS variable. Add '-u [username] -t [chroot_dir]' into that variable and you

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

Yes it is true that it's making use of the systems libs, but they can't be touched by the process as it has been chrooted. In order for someone to overwrite those files, they would first have to break of the chroot. I'm not sure of the real security implications of using the system libs are vs.

Re: questions about chrooting bind 8.3.3

On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 22:15, Sean McAvoy wrote: Yes it is true that it's making use of the systems libs, but they can't be touched by the process as it has been chrooted. In order for someone to overwrite those files, they would first have to break of the chroot. I'm not sure of the real

Re: Questions on Sysloging with a DMZ

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:13:09AM -0400, Mike Dresser wrote: I've done some looking around on the web, and haven't really found an answer to the following question. How do you securely handle syslogging when you have servers in the DMZ, and

Re: Questions on Sysloging with a DMZ

Mike Dresser wrote: I was thinking of using a digiboard on the syslog machine, and connecting a serial link to each server. However, that doesn't help me on stuff like cisco's and jetdirect boxes that can only output syslog over ethernet. logging console level should get what you need on

Re: Questions on Sysloging with a DMZ

logging console level should get what you need on a cisco. Might have to set that serial port to no password, which brings up an additional home if physical security is a concern. --Rich What about the cisco that's 35 miles away? I'm thinking with what these cisco's do, and actually log,

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up? Reasonableness cannot be applied to concepts that

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up?

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support. It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my suggestion. You decided it should be a big Federal case. I'll make

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling this position, haven't you? Regards, Joey -- This is

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling this position, haven't

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed anarchist or extreme left revolutionary, some kind of luddite the

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jason Thomas wrote: only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages twice, and yes they have different

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier? It's an extra

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up? Reasonableness cannot be applied to concepts

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They aren't reasonable things to add at the last minute. The search happened, AFAICT there is a candidate, yet you had to object now. If it was so reasonable, why didn't you mention it when it came up?

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support. It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my suggestion. You decided it should be a big Federal case. I'll make

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole problem here is they DIDN'T ask you. You threw in your two cents worth without a corresponding pledge of support. It's a public mailing list, and I was simply contributing my suggestion. You

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Hi, Quoting Colin Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. The barriers to becoming a developer are mainly

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time, thus it could even be

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages twice, and yes they have different message id's. On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:43:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier? It's an extra qualification. It's one that until you

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team.

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling this position, haven't you? Regards, Joey -- This is

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people filling this position, haven't

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: John Galt wrote: It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. Err... you have noticed that there are already two people

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:23:24AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote: The barriers to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the project and to the social contract, both of which should be requirements for any security secretary. It doesn't imply package

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed anarchist or extreme left revolutionary, some kind of luddite the

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:40:45AM +0300, Lauri Tischler wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the security secretary, if we have one, should be a Debian developer. We have two of them, and they are both card-carrying developers. Unnghhh... 'Card-carrying' sounds like fiery-eyed

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time, thus it could even be

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team.

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On 21 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Hi, Quoting Colin Phipps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:12:57AM -0600, John Galt wrote: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. The barriers to becoming a developer are mainly

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier?

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:23:24AM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Colin Phipps wrote: The barriers to becoming a developer are mainly commitment to the project and to the social contract, both of which should be requirements for any security secretary. It doesn't imply package

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages twice, and yes they have different message id's. On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:43:05AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier? It's an extra qualification. It's one that until you

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

It really didn't need to go to -devel in the first place: this is internal to debian-security until there's a candidate. Folloups redirected. On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jason Thomas wrote: only one thing, does this have to go to both lists, I'm alot of messages twice, and yes they have different

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 22 Oct 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take it then that you volunteer. If not, shut up. Throwing artifical barriers at this office isn't going to add volunteers. How is it a barrier? It's an extra

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time, thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer since

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of time, thus it could even be helpful not being a Debian developer since

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in the team. Working on security can cost a lot of

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: Is a requirement being a Debian developer? No. It is my understanding that it would be good to have fresh blood in

Re: Questions regarding the Security Secretary Position

Are they both around 20 years of age and steaming hot ? - like the ones we all hope wish we had as receptionists in our corps ? =) -xbud On Sunday 21 October 2001 04:52 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:23:03AM -0700, Thomas

Re: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:43:27AM -0700, Josh M. McKee wrote: How is this related to Debian security? It's been a long day ... I am really sorry! This one should go to debian-legal ... Josh -Original Message- From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday,

RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules

I would be nice if pressure could be put on IBM to walk the walk. Peace, Love and Linux? yeah right. IBM needs to release these as source... I don't know what would need to happen to convince them that this would be a good thing. I suspect most of the community doesn't know that IBM has these

RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules

How is this related to Debian security? Josh -Original Message- From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:42 AM To: debian-security@lists.debian.org Cc: debian-s390@lists.debian.org Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules Hi, I

Re: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:43:27AM -0700, Josh M. McKee wrote: How is this related to Debian security? It's been a long day ... I am really sorry! This one should go to debian-legal ... Josh -Original Message- From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,

RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules

I would be nice if pressure could be put on IBM to walk the walk. Peace, Love and Linux? yeah right. IBM needs to release these as source... I don't know what would need to happen to convince them that this would be a good thing. I suspect most of the community doesn't know that IBM has these

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

Kevin van Haaren wrote: Postfix question I have a laptop user that travels around and I'd like to let them send mail through postfix using authenticated smtp from anywhere on the internet (I like this better than the pop authentication == smtp authentication, as it seems more

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

On 00-12-17 Kevin van Haaren wrote: Ident questions Going through the Securing Debian HOW-TO I don't see a specific mention either for or against running the ident service (either through inetd or standalone.) Is there a consensus about if this service is particularly

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 10:36:03AM -0600, Kevin van Haaren wrote: Is there another way to securely provide authenticated smtp? you can use TLS insteed. but you must read the documentation for bring it to work bastian -- No more blah, blah, blah!

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

On 00-12-17 Kevin van Haaren wrote: Ident questions Going through the Securing Debian HOW-TO I don't see a specific mention either for or against running the ident service (either through inetd or standalone.) Is there a consensus about if this service is particularly useful

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

I've got a server setup to provide e-mail, web, ftp services on the internet. I also run a masquerading/firewall box to protect an internal network (these are separate boxes). Both run Debian Woody (one is intel box, the other is a powerpc box.) Why are you running an unstable

Re: questions on ident, postfix proftp

On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 10:36:03AM -0600, Kevin van Haaren wrote: Is there another way to securely provide authenticated smtp? you can use TLS insteed. but you must read the documentation for bring it to work bastian -- No more blah, blah, blah! --