Re: grub2 security problem

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:00 AM, David Christensen wrote: > > Another, additional, option is self-encrypting drives (SED), which are > operating system agnostic and protect the entire contents of drive with zero > CPU overhead. Emphasis on the word "additional" here.

Re: grub2 security problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Anders Andersson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:00 AM, David Christensen > wrote: > > > > Another, additional, option is self-encrypting drives (SED), which are > > operating

Re: grub2 security problem

On Sunday 20 December 2015 09:51:04 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Anders Andersson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:00 AM, David Christensen > > > > wrote: > > > Another, additional, option is self-encrypting drives (SED),

Re: grub2 security problem

David Christensen a écrit : > > A good defense against an attacker with physical access is LUKS > encryption on all partitions except /boot. Ecryption alone does not protect agains attack scenarios involving /boot tampering.

Re: grub2 security problem

Michael Fothergill <michael.fotherg...@googlemail.com> writes: > Dear Folks, > > I noticed some articles suggesting that there is a security problem in > grub2. > > E.g. > > http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-password.html > > ​

Re: grub2 security problem

On 12/19/2015 08:59 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: Michael Fothergill <michael.fotherg...@googlemail.com> writes: I noticed some articles suggesting that there is a security problem in grub2. E.g. http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-password.html ​Is there any substance to this?

Re: grub2 security problem

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:35:57 + Michael Fothergill <michael.fotherg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Dear Folks, > > I noticed some articles suggesting that there is a security problem in > grub2. > > E.g. > > http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-pa

Re: grub2 security problem

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:35:57 + Michael Fothergill wrote: Hello Michael, >​Is there any substance to this? ​ Yes, but it's been rectified. See for the full security announcement.

Re: grub2 security problem

On 19 December 2015 at 11:50, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:35:57 + > Michael Fothergill wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > >​Is there any substance to this? > ​ > Yes, but it's been rectified. See >

grub2 security problem

Dear Folks, I noticed some articles suggesting that there is a security problem in grub2. E.g. http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-password.html ​Is there any substance to this? Regards Michael Fothergill ​

Re: grub2 security problem

Michael Fothergill [2015-12-19 09:35:57Z] wrote: > I noticed some articles suggesting that there is a security problem in > grub2. > http://thehackernews.com/2015/12/hack-linux-grub-password.html > > ​Is there any substance to this? Didn't check myself but it seems so: https:/

Re: security problem with proftpd

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 to

security problem with proftpd

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. How can i do to make them just to see their directories? thanks.

Re: security problem with proftpd

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 is

Re: sudoer security problem on server

* zhang zhengquan zhang.zhengq...@gmail.com [2009 Mar 28 19:27 -0500]: I wonder if a sysadmin should keep the root privilege safe and not give sudo to anybody anybody else. and if there is more secure ways of enabling root privilege to normal users? I'm no security or sudo expert, but it

Re: sudoer security problem on server

* zhang zhengquan zhang.zhengq...@gmail.com [2009 Mar 28 19:27 -0500]: I wonder if a sysadmin should keep the root privilege safe and not give sudo to anybody anybody else. and if there is more secure ways of enabling root privilege to normal users? I'm no security or sudo expert, but it seems

Re: sudoer security problem on server

Nate Bargmann wrote: I'm no security or sudo expert, but it seems to me that the devs should only have access to the commands they need. For example if they need to install to /usr/local/ using `make install' you can enable that specific command. For example I did that for myself (single

Re: sudoer security problem on server

* Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br [2009 Mar 29 08:43 -0500]: %USER HOSTNAME=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/make I replace USER and HOSTNAME with my local values. The sudoers man page is quite extensive as well. This will allow them to run make as root. Not only they will be

Re: sudoer security problem on server

On Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:41:57 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: This will allow them to run make as root. Not only they will be able to install anywhere (not only under /usr/local), but they can run any command by creating a Makefile that does what they want to do. Indeed. If one wants

sudoer security problem on server

Hi, there, I am exposed to a sudoer security problem on a server. the server is running debian etch and every so often users on it would ask me for sudoer permissions. I would simply add username ALL=(ALL) ALL to the /etc/sudoers file. But now I am worried, it is a developement server that devs

Re: sudoer security problem on server

2009/3/29 zhang zhengquan zhang.zhengq...@gmail.com: Hi, there, I am exposed to a sudoer security problem on a server. the server is running debian etch and every so often users on it would ask me for sudoer permissions. I would simply add username ALL=(ALL) ALL user localhost

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

On 10/5/06, Jason Dunsmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On two different occasions over the past month, text from the console was sent to the printer. It prints 3-4 copies of 2-3 pages from the console. The text is printed out just like it's shown in the console, with both the commands and their

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

On 10/06/2006 12:00 AM, Lubos Vrbka wrote: Mumia W.. wrote: Hit Control-Shift, and urxvt (rxvt-unicode) goes into Unicode digit acquisition mode. Release Control, and it goes into keycap insertion mode. Jason, perhaps some keys you press in one of those modes cause ^P or something similar to

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

Mumia W.. wrote: There is no way to disable the special input modes. That's why Debian provides both rxvt-xpm (rxvt) and urxvt (rxvt-unicode). ok, good to know... maybe i should return back to uxterm :) BTW, I can input accented characters in rxvt using my Multi_key (Compose). I used xmodmap

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

On 10/6/06, Lubos Vrbka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mumia W.. wrote: There is no way to disable the special input modes. That's why Debian provides both rxvt-xpm (rxvt) and urxvt (rxvt-unicode). ok, good to know... maybe i should return back to uxterm :) BTW, I can input accented characters in

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

On 2006-10-05 17:58:54 -0700, Jason Dunsmore wrote: I'm running the latest Etch with 2.6.16-2-686-smp. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? Perhaps escape sequences sent to the terminal? I had this problem in the past

security problem: console text gets sent to printer

. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

typed before text started printing was xlock. I'm running the latest Etch with 2.6.16-2-686-smp. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? If this was CP/M, I'd say that someone has pressed ^P. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? If this was CP/M, I'd say that someone has pressed ^P. i reported the same thing on the list some time ago. i guess urxvt might be the culprit, i use it as well and see similar

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

running the latest Etch with 2.6.16-2-686-smp. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? If this was CP/M, I'd say that someone has pressed ^P. i reported the same thing on the list some time ago. i guess urxvt might

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

Mumia W.. wrote: Hit Control-Shift, and urxvt (rxvt-unicode) goes into Unicode digit acquisition mode. Release Control, and it goes into keycap insertion mode. Jason, perhaps some keys you press in one of those modes cause ^P or something similar to be generated. I use rxvt-xpm nowadays

Re: security problem: console text gets sent to printer

I typed before text started printing was xlock. I'm running the latest Etch with 2.6.16-2-686-smp. This is a pretty big security problem, since my computer prints to a shared printer. Any idea what's causing it? If this was CP/M, I'd say that someone has pressed ^P. i reported the same

Re: Security problem: who is responsible?

! The security problem has been fixed, and as far as I can see, the only things that this has broken are programs that are not actually in sarge at all. So the fact people are still working on fixing it is quite admirable. If you're desperate, there's a working .deb in one of the messages of that thread

Re: Security problem: who is responsible?

there, obviously being actively worked on. I don't understand the security-team has not made a new version of libfreetype6 after 47 days. Maybe a crashing OpenOffice is not a security-problem? Maybe you should actually read the bug you refer to. The bug is found at Jun 11. Steve Langasek (maintainer

Re: Security problem: who is responsible?

worked on. I don't understand the security-team has not made a new version of libfreetype6 after 47 days. Maybe a crashing OpenOffice is not a security-problem? Maybe you should actually read the bug you refer to. Who's responsebility is it, to repear this bug? And what when this person

Security problem: who is responsible?

. I don't understand the security-team has not made a new version of libfreetype6 after 47 days. Maybe a crashing OpenOffice is not a security-problem? Who's responsebility is it, to repear this bug? And what when this person is in holiday? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

possible firefix security problem??

Running relatively up-to-date Debian sarge system. Followed a link to a rater nice site, www.irateradio.com It runs a Java applet that (1) downloads some random music files (2) plays them and allows you to rate them (3) compares your ratins with the ratings others provided in its database

Re: possible firefix security problem??

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:44:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Running relatively up-to-date Debian sarge system. Followed a link to a rater nice site, www.irateradio.com It runs a Java applet that (1) downloads some random music files (2) plays them and allows you to rate them

find running as nobody? security problem?

working on my box this morning I noticed some drive activity that didn't seem to be connected to what I was doing. I did a top and saw find running as user nobody. It carried on for a few more seconds and then the system was quiet. My box is a recent sarge, I run apache in standard configuration

Re: find running as nobody? security problem?

On 7/22/05, Daniel McBrearty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: working on my box this morning I noticed some drive activity that didn't seem to be connected to what I was doing. I did a top and saw find running as user nobody. It carried on for a few more seconds and then the system was quiet.

Security Problem mit Apache: DNS resolution

Hallo an alle! Ich habe ein security problem mit Apache: Ich hatte hostlookup aktiviert, und als ich mit meinem Handy auf meiner webpage mal so aus spass surfte stand in der log datei: gateway-wap-fr - - [06/Sep/2003:20:20:49 +0200] GET /Bilder/bg-bottom.gif HTTP/1.1 200 83 http

Fetchmail security problem and sarge

There is a new Debian security advisory about fetchmail. Since sarge does not get security updates (why not??), I built a new package using unstable source. This is not installable, because fetchmail-common does not get built. Is there any way around this? Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Fetchmail security problem and sarge

I figured it out--fetchmail-common no longer exists with the newer version. Using --force-depends with dpkg got fetchmail to install. On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 09:18:00AM -0800, Bob Nielsen wrote: There is a new Debian security advisory about fetchmail. Since sarge does not get security updates

Re: Fetchmail security problem and sarge

Bob Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I figured it out--fetchmail-common no longer exists with the newer version. Using --force-depends with dpkg got fetchmail to install. Ick. Why not just remove the fetchmail-common package instead of forcing the depends? -- Curse my natural showmanship!

security problem on oleane???

Hello! made an upgrade hoping for a working galeon on unstable... and got this: Failed to fetch ftp://ftp.oleane.net/pub/java-linux/debian/pool/non-free/j/j2se1.4-i386/j2re1.4_1.4.0.99beta-1_i386.deb MD5Sum mismatch just some problem on my side, or a real problem?? -- ciao bboett

Re: Security problem: rbash isn't working on initial invocation

* Bob George ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020926 11:40]: I'm using bash on Debian 'testing'. I've created a symlink /bin/rbash that points to /bin/bash, and prior to upgrading to 3, it worked as expected. Users could not do cd .. and other restricted functions as described in the manpage. I only

Re: Security problem: rbash isn't working on initial invocation

Vineet Kumar wrote: [...] Well, there's a clue about why it's not working the way you expect: bash enters restricted mode when invoked as 'rbash', but it's being invoked as '-rbash' from login. I hadn't noticed that the first time around. I'm digging through the bash manpage, and the

wu-ftpd-2.4.2.16-12 security problem

Hi, I just found that this version of the wu-ftpd allows any user do a cd / And then all users can see the / directory on the system. How do I stop this? I only want them to see /home/username. Thanks. Shao. --

Re: wu-ftpd-2.4.2.16-12 security problem

thats not a security problem. its how its supposed to behave. if u dont want users chrooted to /home/username, that is, they can only go to as high as /home/username, read on re giving users guestgroup access in wu-ftpd docs, and then change their respective enreies in /etc/passwd so

Re: wu-ftpd-2.4.2.16-12 security problem

:38AM +0800, Chad A. Adlawan wrote: thats not a security problem. its how its supposed to behave. if u dont want users chrooted to /home/username, that is, they can only go to as high as /home/username, read on re giving users guestgroup access in wu-ftpd docs, and then change their respective

Re: Security problem

On Tuesday, October 27, Lukas Eppler wrote I have [dists/hamm/main dists/hamm/contrib dists/hamm/non-free] in my selection in dselect. is there a directory to mention to have the security updates quicker than a week, without going slink/unstable? The best thing to do is to subscribe to

Re: Security problem

The bug is real, and Debian has a fix. See security lists in Debian. If you are running Debian 2.0 you might have a security hole. There was also security problems with bind. The fixes appear in the current distributions (2.0.2 I think) not in package-updates. Why the

Re: Security problem

King Lee wrote: The fixes appear in the current distributions (2.0.2 I think) not in package-updates. Now I'm really confused. I always thought that I'd have everything by installing 2.0 and then tracking proposed-updates. I thought that 2.0 was _stable_, and therefore

Re: Security problem

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Christian Hudon wrote: ... Well, you can also subscribe to debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org Information about every security fix released by Debian is posted there. (To subscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word 'subscribe' in the subject

Re: Security problem

On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 at 09:27:55AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: I thought that 2.0 was _stable_, and therefore was the same as my CD. This is not the case? Proposed security fixes (from proposed-updates) are moved into the stable tree at the request of the security team. Ray -- ART A

Re: Security problem

J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 1998 at 09:27:55AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: I thought that 2.0 was _stable_, and therefore was the same as my CD. This is not the case? Proposed security fixes (from proposed-updates) are moved into the stable tree at the request of

Re: Security problem

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, King Lee wrote: The bug is real, and Debian has a fix. See security lists in Debian. If you are running Debian 2.0 you might have a security hole. There was also security problems with bind. The fixes appear in the current distributions (2.0.2 I think) not in

Re: Security problem

Sorry to keep this thread going, but perhaps one more clarification. The original post said that the bug occured on RedHat 5.1 of our system administrator. I immediately emailed Red Hat (haven't heard from them yet), and also posted to Debian. I got a reply from Debian within 12 hours and

Security problem

Hello, At our school our system administrator (who is very good) was running Red Hat 5.1 and someone broke in and got root privileges. Since he had written a Lan watch, we think we know how it happened. The Lan Watch showed someone form Israel send a very long packet to mountd. Shortly after,

Re: Security problem

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, King Lee wrote: : Hello, : : At our school our system administrator (who is very good) was : running Red Hat 5.1 and someone broke in and got root privileges. : Since he had written a Lan watch, we think we know how it happened. : : The Lan Watch showed someone form

Re: Security problem

At our school our system administrator (who is very good) was running Red Hat 5.1 and someone broke in and got root privileges. Since he had written a Lan watch, we think we know how it happened. The Lan Watch showed someone form Israel send a very long packet to mountd. Shortly after,

Re: Security problem

My message was not clear. We did not mount /etc writable. The hacker sent a a long packet which we think overflowed buffer and caused /etc to be mounted writable. The bug is real, and Debian has a fix. See security lists in Debian. If you are running Debian 2.0 you might have a

security problem

i run on my debian 2 the telnet daemon: i want the a particoular user named tonon couldn't login to my pc by net but only by console .. he isn't root what files i need to edit? i try to edit login.access and here it is as i configure it but it doesn't work any suggestion? thanks # $Id:

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

Carey Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How do I forward pop3 over ssh? This is described in question C4 in the fetchmail FAQ (at least for version 4.3.6). Basically you need to install ssh on the client and sshd on the mail server (mailhost)

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How do I forward pop3 over ssh? This is described in question C4 in the fetchmail FAQ (at least for version 4.3.6). Basically you need to install ssh on the client and sshd on the mail server (mailhost) and put something like this in your

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

Carey Evans hat gesagt: // Carey Evans wrote: Benoit Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i found that everyone on our hubs can get my ftp, and pop3 password so easy with a sniffer. can i do something against that, because now i dont trust tcpip transfert, it send all my user name and

security problem (tcp/ip)

hi, i found that everyone on our hubs can get my ftp, and pop3 password so easy with a sniffer. can i do something against that, because now i dont trust tcpip transfert, it send all my user name and password in ascii code. wow!! thanks Benoit Joly email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

Benoit Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i found that everyone on our hubs can get my ftp, and pop3 password so easy with a sniffer. can i do something against that, because now i dont trust tcpip transfert, it send all my user name and password in ascii code. Get ssh from a Debian non-US

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

On Wed, Feb 25, 1998 at 03:28:26AM -0500, Benoit Joly wrote: hi, i found that everyone on our hubs can get my ftp, and pop3 password so easy with a sniffer. can i do something against that, because now i dont trust tcpip transfert, it send all my user name and password in ascii code.

Re: security problem (tcp/ip)

Benoit Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: hi, i found that everyone on our hubs can get my ftp, and pop3 password so easy with a sniffer. can i do something against that, because now i dont trust tcpip transfert, it send all my user name and password in ascii code. wow!! I don´t know if

Fakeroot (hamm) Security Problem

pgpPFqMm660QW.pgp Description: PGP message

Security Problem !?!

I'm not sure if this is suppose to happen, but it sure looks serious to me... While patching some source code I noticed that all the files that were patched were now group owned by root !?! The command I used was: patch -p1 patch.diff I've done this a few times to check, and each time it

Re: Security Problem !?!

I'm not sure if this is suppose to happen, but it sure looks serious to me... While patching some source code I noticed that all the files that were patched were now group owned by root !?! The command I used was: patch -p1 patch.diff I've done this a few times to check, and each

Re: Security Problem !?!

No, I was not running patch as root. I've done it a number of times now with the same result ! I have not changed anything with regard to patch I'll test again today, but I'm sure I'll get the same results. Matthew On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, joost witteveen wrote: I'm not sure if this is

Re: Security Problem !?!

No, I was not running patch as root. I've done it a number of times now with the same result ! Well, if that is true, then eighter you've got a setuid patch (likely, though it means whoever did it should be banned from ever touching a keyboard again. If you did it, then tough), or you've

Re: Mounting of removable media - security problem ?

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Wojtek Zabolotny wrote: Thanks ! It really works, however there is another small problem. I'm maintaining two debian systems, and /etc/login.defs exists only in one of them (the one with installed shadow passwords). Is the existence of /etc/login.defs associated

Re: Mounting of removable media - security problem ?

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: There already is a solution to this. There is a group named 'floppy' you can use for this. If only users that are in the 'floppy' group (and root) can (u)mount the floppy device and only users that are logged in at the console are in group

Mounting of removable media - security problem ?

Hello all! Last time I discovered, that when I added user option in /etc/fstab for floppies and zips, it is possible for everybody having account on my box to read, write and delete files on my removable disk (floppy or zip). When one user (lets call him A) mounts the floppy, he becomes

Re: Mounting of removable media - security problem ?

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Wojciech Zabolotny wrote: Hello all! Last time I discovered, that when I added user option in /etc/fstab for floppies and zips, it is possible for everybody having account on my box to read, write and delete files on my removable disk (floppy or zip). When one