* Shane Machon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030917 06:50]:
> On a more general note, is potato still supported by the Security Team?
No. There was a notice sometimes ago.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
* Shane Machon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030917 06:50]:
> On a more general note, is potato still supported by the Security Team?
No. There was a notice sometimes ago.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9
Hi Guys,
This might be a longshot, but is there an update for potato? Is it
vulnerable?
I unfortunately still have a few clients running potato boxes. :(
I didnt see anything about potato in the DSA.
On a more general note, is potato still supported by the Security Team?
If not then I will
Hi Guys,
This might be a longshot, but is there an update for potato? Is it
vulnerable?
I unfortunately still have a few clients running potato boxes. :(
I didnt see anything about potato in the DSA.
On a more general note, is potato still supported by the Security Team?
If not then I will
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:41:21PM +0200, Robert Varga wrote:
> Are potato php4 packages (4.0.3pl1-0potato4) affected by the sechole
> warned about in the recent DSA-351-1?
>
> If they are, will there be fixes for potato as well, or should we upgrade
> to woody?
potato is no l
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:41:21PM +0200, Robert Varga wrote:
> Are potato php4 packages (4.0.3pl1-0potato4) affected by the sechole
> warned about in the recent DSA-351-1?
>
> If they are, will there be fixes for potato as well, or should we upgrade
> to woody?
potato is no l
Hello All,
Are potato php4 packages (4.0.3pl1-0potato4) affected by the sechole
warned about in the recent DSA-351-1?
If they are, will there be fixes for potato as well, or should we upgrade
to woody?
Regards,
Robert Varga
Hello All,
Are potato php4 packages (4.0.3pl1-0potato4) affected by the sechole
warned about in the recent DSA-351-1?
If they are, will there be fixes for potato as well, or should we upgrade
to woody?
Regards,
Robert Varga
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hello,
I applied the patch on Sendmail's web page to the sendmail
sources for potato (8.9.3). I put the compiled package
here:
http://www.sci.fi/~pfp/sendmail-deb-ca-2003-07/
I haven't tested this (does an exploit exist yet?),
other than confirming that sendmail itself works...
--
p
Hello,
I applied the patch on Sendmail's web page to the sendmail
sources for potato (8.9.3). I put the compiled package
here:
http://www.sci.fi/~pfp/sendmail-deb-ca-2003-07/
I haven't tested this (does an exploit exist yet?),
other than confirming that sendmail itself works...
--
p f
ike it a lot. But I also found the *real* problem...
Whenever I did a chmod 000 `which ssh-keygen`, I was just making sure
this had the desired effect...
ls -l `which ssh-keygen`
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 11 Nov 15 1999 /usr/local/bin/ssh-keygen ->
ssh-keygen1
I thought that was kin
Simon Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:10:16AM -0400, don wrote:
>>
>> if its a local machine you could dpkg --purg the old ssh then just do
>> your install
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> I could do that, and it would probably work. In fact, this is most likely
> what I'll end
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:10:16AM -0400, don wrote:
>
> if its a local machine you could dpkg --purg
> the old ssh then just do your install
Yes indeed.
I could do that, and it would probably work. In fact, this is most
likely what I'll end up doing - but first I'd really like to know what
the
Hi all,
I know this query is a little out of date, but I was wondering if anyone
had seen this before.
I'm trying to upgrade ssh on one of my potato machines. But I always get
this:
# dpkg -i ssh_1%3a3.4p1-0.0potato1_i386.deb
> (Reading database ... 35706 files and directories c
like it a lot. But I also found the *real* problem...
Whenever I did a chmod 000 `which ssh-keygen`, I was just making sure
this had the desired effect...
ls -l `which ssh-keygen`
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 11 Nov 15 1999 /usr/local/bin/ssh-keygen ->
ssh-keygen1
I thought that was kin
Simon Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:10:16AM -0400, don wrote:
>>
>> if its a local machine you could dpkg --purg the old ssh then just do
>> your install
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> I could do that, and it would probably work. In fact, this is most likely
> what I'll end
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 10:10:16AM -0400, don wrote:
>
> if its a local machine you could dpkg --purg
> the old ssh then just do your install
Yes indeed.
I could do that, and it would probably work. In fact, this is most
likely what I'll end up doing - but first I'd really like to know what
th
Hi all,
I know this query is a little out of date, but I was wondering if anyone
had seen this before.
I'm trying to upgrade ssh on one of my potato machines. But I always get
this:
# dpkg -i ssh_1%3a3.4p1-0.0potato1_i386.deb
> (Reading database ... 35706 files and directories c
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:34:08AM +0100, John Winters wrote:
> Sorry - I think what I just wrote about updates was complete balls.
Yup. security.d.o is outside the US, so it has the updates for non-US
mixed in with everything else.
Moreover, security.d.o _is_ non-us.d.o:
llama]~$ host non-us.
Sorry - I think what I just wrote about updates was complete balls.
John
--
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
Evolution is now exciting.
On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 22:14, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 12:42:04PM +0100, John Winters wrote:
> > Can anyone clarify this please? Have the relevant fixes from openssl
> > 0.9.6e been back-ported into openssl-0.9.6c-0.potato.2?
>
> The problem is that
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 12:42:04PM +0100, John Winters wrote:
> Can anyone clarify this please? Have the relevant fixes from openssl
> 0.9.6e been back-ported into openssl-0.9.6c-0.potato.2?
The problem is that potato has more than one version of openssl. The
security team had to p
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 12:42:04PM +0100, John Winters wrote:
> [...]
> Can anyone clarify this please? Have the relevant fixes from openssl
> 0.9.6e been back-ported into openssl-0.9.6c-0.potato.2?
Did you look into the doc/openssl/changelog(.Debian)?.gz?
HTH
Siggy
In the light of the recent reports of an exploit in OpenSSL I've been
reviewing my servers. Some of them are still running Potato and the
status of the updates to Potato seem unclear.
The announcement on Debian Security Announce dated 30th July says that
no fix for Potato is available.
Hi,
DSA-136 for potato seems not be available so far, even though
more than one week has gone since DSA-136 was released.
http://www.debian.org/security/2002/dsa-136
DSA-138 and DSA-140 don't mention potato at all. It doesn't
mention even whether potato is affected or not.
So I see that the openssl, libssl-dev, libssl0.9.6 packages in potato
have been fixed for DSA-136-1. I'm wondering if the libssl09 packages
are also vulnerable to this exploit? If it is, is a fixed package going
to be out soon, or should I be expending the effort to back port wo
Previously Jens Hafner wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. Will there be an official announcement on this
> list about how long you will be supporting potato?
This week I hope. First we need to sort out a few technical issues
related to the woody releas
I couldn't agree more. Will there be an official announcement on this
list about how long you will be supporting potato?
-Original Message-
From: martin f krafft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:08 AM
To: 'debian-security@lists.debian.org'
Subje
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 08:54:17AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> I can't upgrade, it would require restarting and that would blow my
> record on necraft.com
Why would you need to restart? Today I wanted to upgrade a busy server
(busy with apache & proftp). I put apache & proftp on hold in
/var
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 at 01:08:29AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > least as usable and stable, and until potato->woody is guaranteed to
> > progress without any problems...
> >
> Problems? What problems? Just A LOT of tweaks
I can't upgrade, it would r
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 at 01:08:29AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> least as usable and stable, and until potato->woody is guaranteed to
> progress without any problems...
>
Problems? What problems? Just A LOT of tweaks
--
Phil
PGP/GPG Key:
http://www.zionlth.org/~plhof
to's
maintenance to be, roughly and on average? I've had loads of users ask
if potato was to be continued because it just perfectly suits their
needs and they don't want new stuff. It might just be worth it. The
occasional security fix here and there, other than that it's not
rea
Previously Desai, Jason wrote:
> Does anybody know how long Debian will officially be supporting Potato and
> providing security updates for it?
Currently we're thinking of at least 3 months full support and somewhat
longer for remote exploits. We haven't made any decisions yet
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:24:51PM -0400, Desai, Jason wrote:
> Does anybody know how long Debian will officially be supporting Potato and
> providing security updates for it?
We haven't yet announced anything officially. We do want to continue to
support it for a longer time than w
Does anybody know how long Debian will officially be supporting Potato and
providing security updates for it?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > For a truly stable Debian system, drop
> > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
>
> I wouldn't recom
-Original Message-
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:05:10 +0200
Subject: Re: sources.list for potato
> Previously Pavel Minev Penev wrote:
> > And there is no
> >
> > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-security unstable/
Previously Pavel Minev Penev wrote:
> And there is no
>
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-security unstable/updates main
> contrib non-free
>
> , is it?
No, and there never will be.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:22:32AM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Mike Dresser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hate to beat a dead horse, but
> >
> >
> > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free
> > deb http://http.us.debia
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > For a truly stable Debian system, drop
> > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
>
> I wouldn't recommend that, on occasion a package makes it into
> proposed-upda
Previously Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> For a truly stable Debian system, drop
>
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
I wouldn't recommend that, on occasion a package makes it into
proposed-updates that really should not be installed on a potato r
Mike Dresser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For a truly stable Debian system, drop
> >
> > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
> >
> > (wait for official release updates) and then just s/potato/stable/g.
> > Note that
Geoff Crompton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oops! I confused the "crypto in main" issue with non-US being phased
> > out. Of course, the patented bits will stay in non-US so it will not
> > disappear in the foreseeable future.
>
> What is the 'cypto in main' issue? (Or better, have you got
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:36, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Geoff Crompton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:22, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > > (wait for official release updates) and then just s/potato/stable/g.
> > > Note that non-US is being phased o
Geoff Crompton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:22, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > (wait for official release updates) and then just s/potato/stable/g.
> > Note that non-US is being phased out.
>
> Can you point me to the mail-archive thread tha
> For a truly stable Debian system, drop
>
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
>
> (wait for official release updates) and then just s/potato/stable/g.
> Note that non-US is being phased out.
I've seen way too many packages that take too
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:22, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> (wait for official release updates) and then just s/potato/stable/g.
> Note that non-US is being phased out.
Can you point me to the mail-archive thread that discusses this?(I haven't
been following debian lists for very long)
Mike Dresser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hate to beat a dead horse, but
>
>
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
>
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
Hate to beat a dead horse, but
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/potato-proposed-updates/
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US potato/non-US main contrib
non-free
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-security potato
Hi,
In March the 25th, I wrote a line about a security problem with
PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with Potato, due to character encoding. The
security team judged it wasn't a security problem, so I suppose I can
publish details about the problem.
apache 1.3.9-14
php3 3
Hi,
In March the 25th, I wrote a line about a security problem with
PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with Potato, due to character encoding. The
security team judged it wasn't a security problem, so I suppose I can
publish details about the problem.
apache 1.3.9-14
php3 3
This is, to put it politely, incredibly old news. Let's face it, if you give
a user a shell acount, with no restrictions on CPU time or memory usage,
yes, they will be able to suck up as much resources as the computer can
spare (this is, among other reasons why "nice" exists). I advise you place
li
This is, to put it politely, incredibly old news. Let's face it, if you give
a user a shell acount, with no restrictions on CPU time or memory usage,
yes, they will be able to suck up as much resources as the computer can
spare (this is, among other reasons why "nice" exists). I advise you place
l
also sprach Alun Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.04.0445 +0200]:
> > DenyFilter \*.*/
>
> Just as a quick question, why not deny the string "/../" (you may have to
> deny the regex "/\.\./", depending how the filter in question works)?
quick answer: because i merely copied the fix from the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Also tested, and vulnerable on:
FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE #0: Mon Jan 28 14:31:56 GMT 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC i386
Tested using the shells bash, csh, ksh, zsh.
Chip
- -
Chip McClure
Sr. Unix Administra
also sprach Alun Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.04.0445 +0200]:
> > DenyFilter \*.*/
>
> Just as a quick question, why not deny the string "/../" (you may have to
> deny the regex "/\.\./", depending how the filter in question works)?
quick answer: because i merely copied the fix from the
On 3/29/02 3:40 PM martin f krafft said...
>dear bugtraq'ers,
>
>i must confess that the information i provided wrt the acclaimed DoS
>exploit in Debian potato's proftpd package (1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1) was
>not fully accurate. the package *does in fact contain a buggy daemon*
>despite having been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Also tested, and vulnerable on:
FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE #0: Mon Jan 28 14:31:56 GMT 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC i386
Tested using the shells bash, csh, ksh, zsh.
Chip
- -
Chip McClure
Sr. Unix Administr
On 3/29/02 3:40 PM martin f krafft said...
>dear bugtraq'ers,
>
>i must confess that the information i provided wrt the acclaimed DoS
>exploit in Debian potato's proftpd package (1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1) was
>not fully accurate. the package *does in fact contain a buggy daemon*
>despite having been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello All,
I can confirm that the ls strings dos' slackware 8.0. Causes shell process of
that user (user or root) to chew up the cpu until the shell terminates on sig
11.
Works on any shell the user is using, csh, ksh, bash
Tested on:
Linux 2.2.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello All,
I can confirm that the ls strings dos' slackware 8.0. Causes shell process of that
user (user or root) to chew up the cpu until the shell terminates on sig 11.
Works on any shell the user is using, csh, ksh, bash
Tested on:
Linux 2.2.1
At 03:40 PM 3/29/2002, martin f krafft wrote:
ls */../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*
...
DenyFilter \*.*/
Just as a quick question, why not deny the string "/../" (you may have to
deny the regex "/\.\./", depending how the filter in question works)?
As far a
At 03:40 PM 3/29/2002, martin f krafft wrote:
> ls */../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*/../*
...
> DenyFilter \*.*/
Just as a quick question, why not deny the string "/../" (you may have to
deny the regex "/\.\./", depending how the filter in question works)?
As far as
dear bugtraq'ers,
i must confess that the information i provided wrt the acclaimed DoS
exploit in Debian potato's proftpd package (1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1) was
not fully accurate. the package *does in fact contain a buggy daemon*
despite having been fixed, according to the changelog:
proftpd (1.2
dear bugtraq'ers,
i must confess that the information i provided wrt the acclaimed DoS
exploit in Debian potato's proftpd package (1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1) was
not fully accurate. the package *does in fact contain a buggy daemon*
despite having been fixed, according to the changelog:
proftpd (1.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:37:59 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> (please fix your line wraps!)
>
> security.debian.org has proftpd_1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1 which does not
> contain this bug, at least not on i386 systems:
>
> fishbowl:~> ncftp lapse.home.madduck.net
> NcFT
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:37:59 +0100
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> (please fix your line wraps!)
>
> security.debian.org has proftpd_1.2.0pre10-2.0potato1 which does not
> contain this bug, at least not on i386 systems:
>
> fishbowl:~> ncftp lapse.home.madduck.net
> NcF
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:37:59AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joe Dollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.03.25.2114 +0100]:
Hi,
> > The version of proftp that is in debian potato (1.2.0pre10 as
> > reported by running 'proftpd -v ') is vulnerab
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:37:59AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joe Dollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.03.25.2114 +0100]:
Hi,
> > The version of proftp that is in debian potato (1.2.0pre10 as
> > reported by running 'proftpd -v ') is vulnerab
also sprach Joe Dollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.03.25.2114 +0100]:
> The version of proftp that is in debian potato (1.2.0pre10 as
> reported by running 'proftpd -v ') is vulnerable to a glob DoS
> attack, as discovered on the 15th March 2001. You can v
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:54:37PM +0100, Beno?t Sibaud wrote:
> I think I found a security problem in PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with
> Potato.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following code should support any $var.
> If you uncomment the client_encoding line, I&#
also sprach Joe Dollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.03.25.2114 +0100]:
> The version of proftp that is in debian potato (1.2.0pre10 as
> reported by running 'proftpd -v ') is vulnerable to a glob DoS
> attack, as discovered on the 15th March 2001. You ca
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:54:37PM +0100, Beno?t Sibaud wrote:
> I think I found a security problem in PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with
> Potato.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following code should support any $var.
> If you uncomment the client_encoding line, I&#
> > What's the normal way to make a security bug report?
> apt-get install bug
The 'bug' package is for "normal" bugs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be
the good place to report security problems. Sorry for my previous post.
--
Benoît Sibaud
R&D Engineer - France Telecom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
-Original Message-
From: Benoît Sibaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 4:55 PM
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Security problem in PHP3+Postgres with Potato?
> What's the normal way to make a security bug report?
apt-get ins
Hi,
I think I found a security problem in PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with
Potato.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following code should support any $var.
If you uncomment the client_encoding line, I'm able to execute any
request I want with the
> > What's the normal way to make a security bug report?
> apt-get install bug
The 'bug' package is for "normal" bugs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be
the good place to report security problems. Sorry for my previous post.
--
Benoît Sibaud
R&D Engineer - France Telecom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
-Original Message-
From: Benoît Sibaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 4:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Security problem in PHP3+Postgres with Potato?
> What's the normal way to make a security bug report?
apt-get ins
Hi,
I think I found a security problem in PHP3+postgres+apache shipped with
Potato.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following code should support any $var.
If you uncomment the client_encoding line, I'm able to execute any
request I want with the
Hello,
Is there an PHP exploit in Potato?
I really don't know, below message in Dshield mailing
lists claims so:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I finally got my hands on an exploit that will provide a
remote shell (not root) for php < 4.0.6. It claims to expl
Hello,
Is there an PHP exploit in Potato?
I really don't know, below message in Dshield mailing
lists claims so:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I finally got my hands on an exploit that will provide a
> remote shell (not root) for ph
Read this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-changes/2001/debian-changes-200111/msg00085.html
> What is the status with the wu-ftpd updated potato packages?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I just signed up with the debian-security mailing list so I am not up to speed
with all the discussions.
What is the status with the wu-ftpd updated potato packages?
I could find no mention of it on the debian main or security web pages
Read this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-changes/2001/debian-changes-200111/msg00085.html
> What is the status with the wu-ftpd updated potato packages?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I just signed up with the debian-security mailing list so I am not up to speed
with all the discussions.
What is the status with the wu-ftpd updated potato packages?
I could find no mention of it on the debian main or security web pages
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:18:52AM +, Martin WHEELER wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> > kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
>> > yourself:
>> That's not quite true -- should you recom
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:18:52AM +, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
> > yourself:
>
> That's not quite true -- should you recompile your own kernel, and for
> whatever reason, NOT give
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:18:52AM +, Martin WHEELER wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> > kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
>> > yourself:
>> That's not quite true -- should you reco
sense if you have a lot of
boxes that are very similar in hardware.
-nicole
At 19:09 on Oct 23, eim combined all the right letters to say:
> Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
> I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powers the system is
> still 2.2.18
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:18:52AM +, Martin WHEELER wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
> > yourself:
>
> That's not quite true -- should you recompile your own kernel, and for
> whatever reason, NOT give
sense if you have a lot of
boxes that are very similar in hardware.
-nicole
At 19:09 on Oct 23, eim combined all the right letters to say:
> Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
> I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powers the system is
> still 2.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
> yourself:
That's not quite true -- should you recompile your own kernel, and for
whatever reason, NOT give that new kernel a debian-style name which
conforms *exactly* to the debian nam
kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
yourself:
apt-get install kernel-image-2.2.19
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 07:09:43PM +0200, eim wrote:
> Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
> I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powe
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
> yourself:
That's not quite true -- should you recompile your own kernel, and for
whatever reason, NOT give that new kernel a debian-style name which
conforms *exactly* to the debian na
kernels are never upgraded automatically by apt, you have to do it
yourself:
apt-get install kernel-image-2.2.19
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 07:09:43PM +0200, eim wrote:
> Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
> I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powe
Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powers the system is
still 2.2.18pre21 while for the 2.2r3 Release of Potato it should
be version 2.2.19
So, correct me if I'm wrong but Debian Potato 2.2r3 comes out
with Kerne
Actually I'm runnning Potato 2.2r2 on some Debian Boxes which
I've upgraded to 2.2r3, the Kernel which powers the system is
still 2.2.18pre21 while for the 2.2r3 Release of Potato it should
be version 2.2.19
So, correct me if I'm wrong but Debian Potato 2.2r3 comes out
with Kerne
Hello,
--- Shane Machon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont have to have 1.81 of snort (would be nice
> though!), just db
> support (1.7 or above)
>
> Any success stories?
I used compiled from sources snort for 2 month. Then,
I decide to add db support and try to recompile it.
But it depends on
Compiled and ran fine for me with libpcap 0.4a6.
--sjk
On 4 Sep, Shane Machon wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Anyone had success compiling snort 1.81 on a stable potato box?
>
> Looking at the snort website, there is a question regarding libpcap <
> 0.5 under Redhat that will
Hello,
--- Shane Machon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont have to have 1.81 of snort (would be nice
> though!), just db
> support (1.7 or above)
>
> Any success stories?
I used compiled from sources snort for 2 month. Then,
I decide to add db support and try to recompile it.
But it depends on
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
