Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm
or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too.
which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported
Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm
or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too.
which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
Although it might sound stupid, my question is:
Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel
will be doable?
If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it
doesn't matter wether we use
Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi.
Although it might sound stupid, my question is:
Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel
will be doable?
If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it
doesn't matter wether
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm
or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too.
which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with
security updates.
--
Ethan Benson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
Although it might sound stupid, my question is:
Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel
will be doable?
If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it
doesn't matter wether we use
Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi.
Although it might sound stupid, my question is:
Will there ever come a time when making 1220 boot floppies with 2.4.x kernel
will be doable?
If I assume that it's the kernel size that makes it difficult, then it
doesn't matter wether we
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
People with such old hardware are probably better of with bo or hamm
or potato. They probably need the low-mem target too.
which are not (or will not in potato's case) be supported with
security updates.
--
Ethan Benson
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:54:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
my decision.
because 2.4 is not stable yet.
Hmmm... I think it will take some months before woody is released. Don't
you think 2.4 will have stabilized
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:02:46AM +0100, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:54:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
my decision.
because 2.4 is not stable yet.
Hmmm... I think it will take some
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 09:52, Ethan Benson wrote:
2.4 is also especially problematic on i386 since you have to fit it on
all these archaic 1.22MB floppies and such.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:54:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
my decision.
because 2.4 is not stable yet.
Hmmm... I think it will take some months before woody is released. Don't
you think 2.4 will have stabilized
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:02:46AM +0100, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:54:04PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
my decision.
because 2.4 is not stable yet.
Hmmm... I think it will take some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 09:52, Ethan Benson wrote:
2.4 is also especially problematic on i386 since you have to fit it on
all these archaic 1.22MB floppies and such.
Hmm, I thought the 2.4 kernel was quite compact, and sometimes smaller, when
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 01:09:46PM +0100, Jørgen Hermanrud Fjeld wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 09:52, Ethan Benson wrote:
2.4 is also especially problematic on i386 since you have to fit it on
all these archaic 1.22MB floppies and such.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:30:49AM +0100, Michal Kara wrote:
Hi there!
During this weekend, there has been paper posted to bugtraq named Analysis of
SSH crc32 compensation attack detector exploit. It talks about a recorded
successful exploit using overflow in CRC32 compensation attack
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
The tar file that contains the base Woody install, which is used as
the jumping off point for installation.
There isn't one, at least not for bootflopies. We use debootstrap to fetch
the most up-to-date packages of that distribution and install them,
topic no matter how interesting. Thanks to
everyone for their help and advice, we shall see.
Curt-
-Original Message-
From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 09:53
To: Howland, Curtis
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:10:10AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
I will gladly grant that the tar file may not exist for the boot
floppies, and that I do not have on hand the CD to check it. It also may
have been a Potato(e) phenominon, no longer in use. However, it did
exist.
yes releases
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 05:54:04PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:10:10AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
I will gladly grant that the tar file may not exist for the boot
floppies, and that I do not have on hand the CD to check it. It also
may
have been a Potato(e)
Hi there!
During this weekend, there has been paper posted to bugtraq named Analysis of
SSH crc32 compensation attack detector exploit. It talks about a recorded
successful exploit using overflow in CRC32 compensation attack detection code, a
hole, which was discovered in February this year.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:30:49AM +0100, Michal Kara wrote:
Hi there!
During this weekend, there has been paper posted to bugtraq named Analysis
of
SSH crc32 compensation attack detector exploit. It talks about a recorded
successful exploit using overflow in CRC32 compensation attack
Am Mon, 12. Nov 2001, 11:30:49 +0100 schrieb Michal Kara:
Hi there!
During this weekend, there has been paper posted to bugtraq named Analysis
of
SSH crc32 compensation attack detector exploit. It talks about a recorded
successful exploit using overflow in CRC32 compensation attack
* Michal Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02 11:35]:
Hi there!
Hi
During this weekend, there has been paper posted to bugtraq named
Analysis of SSH crc32 compensation attack detector exploit. It
talks about a recorded successful exploit using overflow in CRC32
compensation attack
Message-
From: Jo Fahlke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 19:45
To: Michal Kara
Cc: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Vulnerable SSH versions
Am Mon, 12. Nov 2001, 11:30:49 +0100 schrieb Michal Kara:
Hi there!
During this weekend, there has been paper
Previously Howland, Curtis wrote:
I have a remote server that I do not trust myself to upgrade from
Potato(e) to Woody, and such vulnerabilities do worry me a little. Is
there any general expectation that such back porting will continue
once Woody is released?
I expect only for a limited
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:02:56AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
A quick question concerning such things...
I have a remote server that I do not trust myself to upgrade from
Potato(e) to Woody, and such vulnerabilities do worry me a little. Is
there any general expectation that such back
Subject: Re: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:02:56AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
A quick question concerning such things...
I have a remote server that I do not trust myself to upgrade from
Potato(e) to Woody, and such vulnerabilities do worry me a little. Is
there any
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:25:29AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
Thanks.
I've been keeping it up to date weekly or so, but just to be sure I
changed the sources.list to be ... potato/... instead of ...
stable/... for when stable changes.
Even a blank-disk install of Woody wasn't straight
about version conflicts and missing modules.
Curt-
-Original Message-
From: Ethan Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 09:33
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:25:29AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
The tar file that contains the base Woody install, which is used as
the jumping off point for installation.
There isn't one, at least not for bootflopies. We use debootstrap to fetch
the most up-to-date packages of that distribution and install them,
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:41:54AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
The tar file that contains the base Woody install, which is used as
the jumping off point for installation.
there is no such thing.
The tar file has binary kernel, /boot, /proc and other directories, I'm
not sure exactly what
. Thanks to
everyone for their help and advice, we shall see.
Curt-
-Original Message-
From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 09:53
To: Howland, Curtis
Cc: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Vulnerable SSH versions
On Tue, 13
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:10:10AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
I will gladly grant that the tar file may not exist for the boot
floppies, and that I do not have on hand the CD to check it. It also may
have been a Potato(e) phenominon, no longer in use. However, it did
exist.
yes releases
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 05:54:04PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:10:10AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
I will gladly grant that the tar file may not exist for the boot
floppies, and that I do not have on hand the CD to check it. It also
may
have been a Potato(e)
On 2001-11-12 16:54 Ethan Benson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 10:10:10AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
CH Which makes me wonder, why ship Woody with 2.2.20 at all? Oh well, not
CH my decision.
EB because 2.4 is not stable yet.
*applause* I was hoping for that. Great decision. In fact the
36 matches
Mail list logo
