> Once again I ask, please do not use procmail or any other automated
> system to report mail to razor that comes from a Debian list!!!
>
> From: Andris Kalnozols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SNORT not adding entries to snort/portscan ???
> To: debian-security@list
> Once again I ask, please do not use procmail or any other automated
> system to report mail to razor that comes from a Debian list!!!
>
> From: Andris Kalnozols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SNORT not adding entries to snort/portscan ???
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Once again I ask, please do not use procmail or any other automated
system to report mail to razor that comes from a Debian list!!!
From: Andris Kalnozols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SNORT not adding entries to snort/portscan ???
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2
Perhaps what I'm suggesting is an idea for the package people
to consider. Instead of Required: being univalued, perhaps
have a minimum useable version required and a preferred version.
Default to the prefered but give the user via dselect and
apt a means of pinning to the "minimum" instead.
Tha
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 06:25:47PM -0800, Andris Kalnozols wrote:
> Is this an example of what you mean?
>
> /usr/sbin/sendmail: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found
> (required by /usr/sbin/sendmail)
>
> After `apt-get' upgraded sendmail to 8.12.6, this error appea
Once again I ask, please do not use procmail or any other automated
system to report mail to razor that comes from a Debian list!!!
From: Andris Kalnozols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SNORT not adding entries to snort/portscan ???
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:25:
Perhaps what I'm suggesting is an idea for the package people
to consider. Instead of Required: being univalued, perhaps
have a minimum useable version required and a preferred version.
Default to the prefered but give the user via dselect and
apt a means of pinning to the "minimum" instead.
Tha
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 06:25:47PM -0800, Andris Kalnozols wrote:
> Is this an example of what you mean?
>
> /usr/sbin/sendmail: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found
> (required by /usr/sbin/sendmail)
>
> After `apt-get' upgraded sendmail to 8.12.6, this error appea
> Perhaps I did not state this clearly enough. The majority of cases
> I run across are caused by an entirely unnecessary dependancy to
> a version of libc6 which isn't in any way required for the package
> in question. Yes, one can fix this manually. Every time, for every
> package. Which naturall
> Perhaps I did not state this clearly enough. The majority of cases
> I run across are caused by an entirely unnecessary dependancy to
> a version of libc6 which isn't in any way required for the package
> in question. Yes, one can fix this manually. Every time, for every
> package. Which naturall
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Adrian Phillips wrote:
> > "Dale" == Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dale> I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
> Dale> tools I'd like to install but most packages specify >= a
> Dale> version of libc6 even when th
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Adrian Phillips wrote:
> > "Dale" == Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dale> I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
> Dale> tools I'd like to install but most packages specify >= a
> Dale> version of libc6 even when th
> "Dale" == Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
Dale> tools I'd like to install but most packages specify >= a
Dale> version of libc6 even when the package would basically run
Dale> with any libc that ever existed.
> "Dale" == Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
Dale> tools I'd like to install but most packages specify >= a
Dale> version of libc6 even when the package would basically run
Dale> with any libc that ever existed.
Here it goes!
I attach the snort.conf, but I only changed this part:
--
#=
# Include all relevant rulesets here
#
# shellcode, policy, info, ba
Please do send the file. I have put 1.9 in manaully its rocking!
Alfonso Federico Simó wrote:
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Any thoughts?
Hi!
Now I *have* my snort reporting scans in the portscan.log in Version
1.8.4-beta1 (Bui
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Any thoughts?
Hi!
Now I *have* my snort reporting scans in the portscan.log in Version
1.8.4-beta1 (Build 91). Because of this message, I started playing with
my snort.conf. When I uncommented the rul
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:16PM +0100, Marcel Weber wrote:
> What about considering outdated security tools as hazardous to the
> system's security? Taking this point of view, why not distributing
> updated versions via debian-security?
>
I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
| My driver is a tulip for a linksys card
|
| The snort list told me that the version in woody is known to be broken
| so I downloaded snort 1.9 and manually installed it.. yuk!
|
| FYI: when run from the command line, the BETA in
My driver is a tulip for a linksys card
The snort list told me that the version in woody is known to be broken
so I downloaded snort 1.9 and manually installed it.. yuk!
FYI: when run from the command line, the BETA in woody was saying
something about exhausting trees.
REQUEST! can 1.9 be p
Here it goes!
I attach the snort.conf, but I only changed this part:
--
#=
# Include all relevant rulesets here
#
# shellcode, policy, info, bac
Please do send the file. I have put 1.9 in manaully its rocking!
Alfonso Federico Simó wrote:
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Any thoughts?
Hi!
Now I *have* my snort reporting scans in the portscan.log in Version
1.8.4-beta1 (Buil
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Any thoughts?
Hi!
Now I *have* my snort reporting scans in the portscan.log in Version
1.8.4-beta1 (Build 91). Because of this message, I started playing with
my snort.conf. When I uncommented the rule
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:01:26PM +0100, Marcel Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hanasaki JiJi schrieb:
> | 1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
> |
> | It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
> |
>
>
> This also happens to my setup. I'm restarting snort every
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:16PM +0100, Marcel Weber wrote:
> What about considering outdated security tools as hazardous to the
> system's security? Taking this point of view, why not distributing
> updated versions via debian-security?
>
I've a general issue along those lines. There are often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
| My driver is a tulip for a linksys card
|
| The snort list told me that the version in woody is known to be broken
| so I downloaded snort 1.9 and manually installed it.. yuk!
|
| FYI: when run from the command line, the BETA in
My driver is a tulip for a linksys card
The snort list told me that the version in woody is known to be broken
so I downloaded snort 1.9 and manually installed it.. yuk!
FYI: when run from the command line, the BETA in woody was saying
something about exhausting trees.
REQUEST! can 1.9 be put
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:01:26PM +0100, Marcel Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hanasaki JiJi schrieb:
> | 1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
> |
> | It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
> |
>
>
> This also happens to my setup. I'm restarting snort every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanasaki JiJi schrieb:
| 1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
|
| It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
|
This also happens to my setup. I'm restarting snort every night now.
Marcel
- --
Marcel Weber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP/GPG Key: http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanasaki JiJi schrieb:
| 1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
|
| It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
|
This also happens to my setup. I'm restarting snort every night now.
Marcel
- --
Marcel Weber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP/GPG Key: http://w
1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:19:24 -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Which version? AFAIK the version in woody still has wrong
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:19:24 -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
> Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Which version? AFAIK the version in woody still has wrong log rotation
causing it to log to a file descriptor corresponding to an already deleted
file (#158042).
HTH,
1.8.4-Beta1 Build 91
It also seems to be dying without any reports to syslog
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:19:24 -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Which version? AFAIK the version in woody still has wrong l
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:19:24 -0600, Hanasaki JiJi wrote:
> Snort is reporting scans in the alert.log but not the portscan.log
Which version? AFAIK the version in woody still has wrong log rotation
causing it to log to a file descriptor corresponding to an already deleted
file (#158042).
HTH,
34 matches
Mail list logo
