On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, green wrote:
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:19:54 -0600
From: green
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Security Support for Debian 4.0 to be terminated
Bret Busby wrote at 2010-01-23 00:03 -0600:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
1: http
Bret Busby wrote at 2010-01-23 00:03 -0600:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > 1: http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/releasenotes
>
> In trying to follow the [...] instructions for
> the [...] upgrade, [...]
> I am [...] prevented from performing
> the required upgrade f
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:04:24 +0100
From: Alexander Reichle-Schmehl
To: debian-annou...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Security Support for Debian 4.0 to be terminated
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:04:41 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-annou
Hi, Matus:
On Thursday 17 September 2009 17:46:56 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Monday 20 July 2009 17:09:57 Soren Orel wrote:
> > > So is Debian Squeeze not up-to-date by security fixes? wow. :S:S
>
> On 21.07.09 03:39, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> > Why should it? It's "testing", after all:
> On Monday 20 July 2009 17:09:57 Soren Orel wrote:
> > So is Debian Squeeze not up-to-date by security fixes? wow. :S:S
On 21.07.09 03:39, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> Why should it? It's "testing", after all: too much work for too short a
> benefit.
because some time ago security support was pro
On 26.06.09 10:35, Jesus arteche wrote:
> I'm working with proftpd, it works right, the users make login and access to
> the directories with the right permmission, but when they access to their
> directoris they can also see the others directories from other users. How
> can i do to make them just
Hi:
On Monday 20 July 2009 17:09:57 Soren Orel wrote:
> So is Debian Squeeze not up-to-date by security fixes? wow. :S:S
Why should it? It's "testing", after all: too much work for too short a
benefit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
So is Debian Squeeze not up-to-date by security fixes? wow. :S:S
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Soren Orel wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianSqueeze
> Is it still actual?
> thank you
>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 16:11 +0200, Soren Orel wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianSqueeze
> Is it still actual?
I wondered about that as well and was told on #debian-security (OFTC)
yesterday that security support for squeeze is still suspended. I am not sure
about the reasons for that though
On Fri,26.Jun.09, 10:35:25, Jesus arteche wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working with proftpd, it works right, the users make login and access to
> the directories with the right permmission, but when they access to their
> directoris they can also see the others directories from other
> users.
And how
On Tue,24.Mar.09, 10:05:06, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> For how long have I been running a (knowingly) insecure Iceweasel?
It seems to me as you haven't. I searched through my archive of
debian-security-announce and I don't see any other related message.
Did you try searching the archives of deb
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:57:11PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun,22.Mar.09, 18:35:21, wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm running Etch, and use Iceweasel. I'm concerned about this security
> > advisory. It says that the Etch release notes said that the Mozilla
> > products would have to b
On Sun,22.Mar.09, 18:35:21, wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm running Etch, and use Iceweasel. I'm concerned about this security
> advisory. It says that the Etch release notes said that the Mozilla
> products would have to be stopped prior to the end of the Etch support
> period. I don't see this.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM,
wrote:
>
> Did anyone hear that Iceweasel has stopped getting security updates in
> Etch?
>
The closest I could come in a few minutes of Googling was this announcement
from Mozilla:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html
This terminated support for F
Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Hooking file-roller into gksu and dpkg wouldn't be that hard.
>>>
>>> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't already the case.
>>>
>>
>> I think Ubuntu does it.
>
> Why am I *not* surprised?
me neither :x
tried kubuntu for about 3 months :x - never ever
regar
H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
> it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad intentioned
> debs or rpms on the internet. If Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora were to become
> sufficiently popular, the claim is that it would be
On 02/16/2009 06:55 PM, JoeHill wrote:
[snip]
No, popularity has very little to do with it. Windows is compromised a lot
because it is trivial to do so. Linux could have twice the market share as
Windows, and it would still be less prone to invasion, simply because it is
more difficult to do so.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:05:27 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/16/2009 03:55 PM, H.S. wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> Sure. The keylogger would have to add itself to the "autostart folder",
> >> but that's no mean feat.
> >>
> >
> > I am sorry, what is an auto start folder in relation to
H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
> it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad intentioned
> debs or rpms on the internet. If Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora were to become
> sufficiently popular, the claim is that it would b
sudo rm -rf /
is trapped and subject to special handling. At least, it should be,
IMHO.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it. Show us!
>>
>> Ron, why don't you try to command and see for yourself? Its easy
>> enough to do it. I just don't have the time. Cough. Cough.
>
> Boyd(?) asserted the
On 02/16/2009 06:11 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 2009-02-16_10:29:02, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/16/2009 08:26 AM, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 2009-02-15_17:26:23, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
[W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
On 2009-02-16_10:29:02, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/16/2009 08:26 AM, Paul E Condon wrote:
>> On 2009-02-15_17:26:23, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
[W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
$ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittan
Dave Ewart wrote the following on 02/16/2009 10:42 AM:
On Monday, 16.02.2009 at 16:37 +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
I don't believe it. Show us!
In the interests of satisfying my curiosity:
vm-linux2:/# rm -rf /
rm: cannot remove root directory `/'
vm-linux2:/#
That's ra
On 02/16/2009 03:55 PM, H.S. wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Sure. The keylogger would have to add itself to the "autostart folder",
but that's no mean feat.
I am sorry, what is an auto start folder in relation to Debian or Ubuntu?
The same people who would install NakedBrittany.deb are the sam
Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> Sure. The keylogger would have to add itself to the "autostart folder",
> but that's no mean feat.
>
I am sorry, what is an auto start folder in relation to Debian or Ubuntu?
I would expect it to put a line in .bashrc to start automatically when
user logs in or perhaps
On 02/16/2009 12:40 PM, H.S. wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/16/2009 04:30 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:22:37PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
But neither of these help in case a stupid user receives an e-mail
saying:
Run 'sudo dpkg -i FreePornPics.deb to see 's
se
> In the interests of satisfying my curiosity:
>
> vm-linux2:/# rm -rf /
Here I hold my breath!
> rm: cannot remove root directory `/'
> vm-linux2:/#
>
Here I sigh and change my pants. And of course, the ob:
http://xkcd.com/242/
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/16/2009 04:30 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:22:37PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>> But neither of these help in case a stupid user receives an e-mail
>>> saying:
>>>
>>> Run 'sudo dpkg -i FreePornPics.deb to see 's
>>> secret sex tape'.
>
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:42:18PM +, Dave Ewart wrote:
> On Monday, 16.02.2009 at 16:37 +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>
> > In the interests of satisfying my curiosity:
> >
> > vm-linux2:/# rm -rf /
> > rm: cannot remove root directory `/'
> > vm-linux2:/#
>
> That's rather annoying. If I wan
On Monday, 16.02.2009 at 16:37 +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe it. Show us!
>>
>
> In the interests of satisfying my curiosity:
>
> vm-linux2:/# rm -rf /
> rm: cannot remove root directory `/'
> vm-linux2:/#
That's rather annoying. If I want to shoot mysel
On 02/15/2009 11:39 PM, T o n g wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:48:37 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Anyway, twice in the past few years, Debian servers have been
compromised. One time it was thru a weak DD user password,
You implication seems to be "Debian is not secure enough",
"Debian" can be
Ron Johnson wrote:
I don't believe it. Show us!
In the interests of satisfying my curiosity:
vm-linux2:/# rm -rf /
rm: cannot remove root directory `/'
vm-linux2:/#
--
--
Avi Greenbury
http://aviswebsite.co.uk ;)
http://aviswebsite.co.uk/asking-questions
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
On 02/16/2009 08:26 AM, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 2009-02-15_17:26:23, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
[W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
$ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittany.deb
What's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
sudo rm -rf
On 02/16/2009 04:30 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:22:37PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
But neither of these help in case a stupid user receives an e-mail saying:
Run 'sudo dpkg -i FreePornPics.deb to see 's
secret sex tape'.
No, but it still wouldn't get far becau
Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 2009-02-16_09:37:55, H.S. wrote:
>> Paul E Condon wrote:
>>> unaware. I suspect that the security is pretty good. Early on, there
>>> were powerful organizations that would have benefitted handsomely if
>>> Debian had been disrupted, and it wasn't disrupted. But there is
>
On 2009-02-16_09:37:55, H.S. wrote:
> Paul E Condon wrote:
> > unaware. I suspect that the security is pretty good. Early on, there
> > were powerful organizations that would have benefitted handsomely if
> > Debian had been disrupted, and it wasn't disrupted. But there is
>
> Interesting. Care to
Paul E Condon wrote:
> unaware. I suspect that the security is pretty good. Early on, there
> were powerful organizations that would have benefitted handsomely if
> Debian had been disrupted, and it wasn't disrupted. But there is
Interesting. Care to elaborate a bit?
Thanks.
--
Please reply
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 07:26:38AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> And, without testing it, I'm pretty sure that
>
> sudo rm -rf /
>
> is trapped and subject to special handling. At least, it should be,
> IMHO.
Only one way to find out whether it is or not... Try it! *evil grin*
(Well, OK, you
On 2009-02-15_17:26:23, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
> > [W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
> >
> > $ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittany.deb
>
> What's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
> sudo rm -rf The Great American Novell / M
On 2009-02-15_19:51:11, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:33:53PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> > Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > A Debian user should not be expected to install just any .deb file.
> > >
> >
> > Ideally speaking, I'd say this holds for any OS: Users should not
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:22:37PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> But neither of these help in case a stupid user receives an e-mail saying:
>
> Run 'sudo dpkg -i FreePornPics.deb to see 's
> secret sex tape'.
No, but it still wouldn't get far because, unlike all the major Windows
malware t
T o n g wrote:
> You implication seems to be "Debian is not secure enough", but my conclusion
> from above incident is quite the opposite from yours -- Debian is *amazingly*
> secure.
>
> If a Windoze PC is taken over by someone or some new malware that no
> existing anti-virus software can detec
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:48:37 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Anyway, twice in the past few years, Debian servers have been
> compromised. One time it was thru a weak DD user password,
You implication seems to be "Debian is not secure enough", but my conclusion
from above incident is quite the opposi
Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> *Maybe* not on Debian, since Debian users *tend* to be more
Yup, I agree.
> sophisticated, but what's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
>
> $ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittany.deb
This is more likely since some of the present day popular packages are
commonly downloaded
On 02/15/2009 05:26 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
[W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
$ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittany.deb
What's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
sudo rm -rf The Great American Novell / Movie
Neither i
On Sunday 15 February 2009 15:48:37 Ron Johnson wrote:
> [W]hat's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
>
> $ sudo dpkg -i NakedBrittany.deb
What's to stop Joe Wannabe from doing this?
sudo rm -rf The Great American Novell / Movie
Neither is an actual security issue.
> and the
> other thru a
On 02/15/2009 01:11 PM, T o n g wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:25:35 -0500, H.S. wrote:
In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad intentioned
debs or rpms on the internet. If Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora were to
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:33:53PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > A Debian user should not be expected to install just any .deb file.
> >
>
> Ideally speaking, I'd say this holds for any OS: Users should not just
> install (or click, or run) everything they see.
>
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> A Debian user should not be expected to install just any .deb file.
>
Ideally speaking, I'd say this holds for any OS: Users should not just
install (or click, or run) everything they see.
In practice things happen differently, especially in the Windows world.
--
A la
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 04:22:37PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> T o n g wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:25:35 -0500, H.S. wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
> >> it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad inten
T o n g wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:25:35 -0500, H.S. wrote:
>
>
>> In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
>> it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad intentioned
>> debs or rpms on the internet. If Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora were to become
>>
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:25:35 -0500, H.S. wrote:
> In the last some weeks I recall reading in one of the mailing lists that
> it is just a matter of popularity that we are not seeing bad intentioned
> debs or rpms on the internet. If Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora were to become
> sufficiently popular, the c
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 02:26:46AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
>
> http://www.itworld.com/security/57285/once-thought-safe-wpa-wi-fi-encryption-cracked
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/wpa-cracked.ars
"The reports e
On 10/21/08 12:10, Paul Johnson wrote:
Bogdan wrote:
This is stupid! Any decent web developer would make his app work at
least with IE, Firefox and Safari ( my opinion )!
That's stupid. Nobody should ever be coding with only specific browsers
in mind. Get it to validate on http://validator
2008/10/18 Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One other possibility: install virtualbox-ose, and run an occasional Windows
> session inside Debian when you need to bank. That's what I do with some
> specific software I need for my job.
>
What software is that, Carl?
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is
2008/10/18 Bogdan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hey,
>
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet Banking
> that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I want to
> check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I know that IE
> can be installed
Bogdan wrote:
> This is stupid! Any decent web developer would make his app work at
> least with IE, Firefox and Safari ( my opinion )!
That's stupid. Nobody should ever be coding with only specific browsers
in mind. Get it to validate on http://validator.w3.org/ Then if it
doesn't work, it's
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 08:12:53PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>>>
Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
Banking that works only under Internet
Bogdan wrote:
> Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
>> Bogdan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>
>
>
>> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with o
On 10/19/08 06:02, Bogdan wrote:
[snip]
This is stupid! Any decent web developer would make his app work at
least with IE, Firefox and Safari ( my opinion )! I really don't
understand why these, let's face it, hugely funded internet banking
applications restrict you to the weakest browser in
On Sun,19.Oct.08, 14:02:11, Bogdan wrote:
> Andrei, I didn't know that Unicredit Tiriac works with Firefox, I was
> meaning ING :D.
There might be others as well. You could search the archives of rlug
(offtopic), as this subject comes up regularly.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it s
Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>
>> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
>> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
>> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows
Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
Bogdan wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So,
Bogdan wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>>>
>>>
Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if
Bogdan wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I
> know that IE can be installed through wine but no one
On Sat,18.Oct.08, 20:12:53, Bogdan wrote:
> Thanks for your answers!
> Although i really like my bank, I considered switching because of this
> reason, but as far as I can tell, there is only one bank in Romania that
> offers Internet Banking with Firefox :(, and I don't like it.
Unicredit Țiri
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I
> know that IE c
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I
> know th
On 10/18/08 11:51, Bogdan wrote:
Hey,
Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I
know that IE can be installed through wine
Paul Johnson wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
want to check out my account I see myself
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
>
>> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
>> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
>> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Wi
Bogdan wrote:
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer.
Time to switch banks, and tell them why.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 07:51:38PM +0300, Bogdan wrote:
> Although I don't like it, the bank i work with only offers Internet
> Banking that works only under Internet Explorer. So, unfortunately, if I
> want to check out my account I see myself obliged to boot Windows :(. I
> know that IE can be
Paul Dufresne wrote:
> 2008/8/30 Thomas Weinbrenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, it is more than just a name. man inetd says:
> "inetd should be run at boot time by /etc/rc (see rc(8)). It then
> listens
> for connections on certain internet sockets. When a connection is found
>
Forgot to add, if it wasn't clear enough:
man inetd doesn't necessarily have _anything_ to do with
/etc/services, totally depends on which inetd you use and wether your
inetd even cares about information in /etc/services (netstat can use
this information as someone else already told you).
/martin
Hi,
2008/8/30 Paul Dufresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/8/30 Thomas Weinbrenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, it is more than just a name. man inetd says:
It's simply the information that says:
smtp is on port 25
ssh is on port ...
...
nothing more nothing less.
It depends on inetd (and only in
2008/8/30 Thomas Weinbrenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Paul Dufresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>>> From: Paul Dufresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looking to /etc/services, I found that Debian seems to like to have a
very big file with all known services rather than just add the
services nee
Paul Dufresne wrote:
> Yes, I know. But as I see it, each mapping is like a *possible* door
> to the Internet.
> When there is so much, it become too hard to look at each door to see
> if there is a program behind,
> and if it does what it should.
>
> Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inetd
Paul Dufresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> From: Paul Dufresne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Looking to /etc/services, I found that Debian seems to like to have a
>>> very big file with all known services rather than just add the
>>> services needed. I don't even knows if other distributions does just
On May 2, 8:20 pm, ChadDavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like some advice from the admins. I'm a developer who admins my own
> environment in a home office. I get things done, but perhaps not in the
> best fashion.
>
> For instance, I just installed the tomcat server via the debian
> reposit
2008/5/2 ChadDavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd like some advice from the admins. I'm a developer who admins my own
> environment in a home office. I get things done, but perhaps not in the
> best fashion.
>
> For instance, I just installed the tomcat server via the debian
> repositories. By defau
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 08:49:04 -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> On 18:09 Sun 09 Mar , Mike Bird wrote:
[...]
> > Sorry Mitchell, there was a slight mistake in the advice given to you.
> > You should not install linux-image-2.6 but rather linux-image-2.6-486
> > or linux-image-2.6-686 (or one o
On 18:09 Sun 09 Mar , Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun March 9 2008 11:40:57 Mitchell Laks wrote:
> > On 13:57 Sun 09 Mar , Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > > Do you have the linus-image-2.6 meta-package installed? If you only
> > > have an actual linux-image deb installed, it will never be upgraded.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:01:50PM -0400, "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:52:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Every time I see that kind of message, I just pick the "real" base
> > package that I want.
>
> So does this mean that those metapa
On Sun March 9 2008 11:40:57 Mitchell Laks wrote:
> On 13:57 Sun 09 Mar , Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > Do you have the linus-image-2.6 meta-package installed? If you only
> > have an actual linux-image deb installed, it will never be upgraded.
> > The meta-package will always depend on the most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/08 17:01, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:52:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 03/09/08 13:40, Mitchell Laks wrote:
>
>>> I use apt not aptitude ( :( ). I am used to it.
>>> When I try to do
>>> apt-get install linux
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:52:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 03/09/08 13:40, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> > I use apt not aptitude ( :( ). I am used to it.
> > When I try to do
> > apt-get install linux-image-2.6 it tell me that it is a virtual package
> > provided by (the long list of packages).
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 02:40:57PM -0400, Mitchell Laks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On 13:57 Sun 09 Mar , Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > Do you have the linus-image-2.6 meta-package installed? If you only
> > have an actual linux-image deb installed, it will never be upgraded.
> > Th
On 13:52 Sun 09 Mar , Ron Johnson wrote:
> Every time I see that kind of message, I just pick the "real" base
> package that I want.
>
I agree Ron, I would like to select it myself also. However,
I kind of thought that when you do
apt-get dist-upgrade against security
and there is a major k
On 18:37 Sun 09 Mar , Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Do you actually have packages from contrib / non-free?
>
> If not, remove those sources and save a few seconds on each update. If
> you do, you better have non-free updates as well.
>
Tzafrir,
Thank you. You have sharp eyes.
On this, hopefully s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/08 13:40, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> On 13:57 Sun 09 Mar , Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>> Do you have the linus-image-2.6 meta-package installed? If you only
>> have an actual linux-image deb installed, it will never be upgraded.
>> The meta-pack
On 13:57 Sun 09 Mar , Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> Do you have the linus-image-2.6 meta-package installed? If you only
> have an actual linux-image deb installed, it will never be upgraded.
> The meta-package will always depend on the most recent version and will
> be updated at the time that the
Unrelated comment:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:08:00PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running a minimal install debian machine as a firewall and I would
> like to keep it secure and up to date.
>
> I included
>
> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free
> deb http:/
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:08:00PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> I am running a minimal install debian machine as a firewall and I
> would like to keep it secure and up to date.
>
> I included
>
> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free deb
> http://security.debian.org etch/upd
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 13:08:00 -0400
Mitchell Laks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running a minimal install debian machine as a firewall and I
> would like to keep it secure and up to date.
>
> I included
>
> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free
> deb http://securi
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 03:56:35PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:14:37PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
> > This may a bit off topic, but I am talking about a debian base network, and
> > I sense that many of the people on this list have admin expertise.
> >
> > I have
* ChadDavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080207 21:42]:
>
> You could place an old machine on the "dmz" port of your
> firewall/router (you DO have a firewall, don't you?), and copy client
> software to that machine, for access by your clients.
>
> I don't have a firewall software, but i have
> You could place an old machine on the "dmz" port of your
> firewall/router (you DO have a firewall, don't you?), and copy client
> software to that machine, for access by your clients.
>
I don't have a firewall software, but i have the DSL router and
nothing comes through unless i port forward.
i ended up doing the routine described at:
http://debian-multimedia.org/
tom arnall
arcata
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tom arnall:
>
> W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following
> signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available:
> NO_PUBKEY 07DC563D1F41B907
> W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems
These messages are not very helpfu
401 - 500 of 982 matches
Mail list logo
