On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:35:16PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2013-10-31, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > So you could shoot kids in halloween costumes for illegally being on
> > your property?
>
> Only if they've been through your underwear (_very_
> puritanical country).
If it was Halloween, it wo
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> What would any of us do if confronted by a burgler
> in the middle of the night while we were home and woken up from a
> sound sleep? Ceratinly a terrifying situation. Calm thinking does
> not happen at such times.
>
Agreed. Even the Bible
On 2013-10-31, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> On Thursday 31 October 2013 15:33:25 Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Note that I didn't say that I *would* shoot them dead.
>
> Maybe shoot them just injured ? /Smilet/
> Thierry
>
Right, he would've just blown their kneecaps out so they couldn't run
away while he h
On Thursday 31 October 2013 15:33:25 Bob Proulx wrote:
> Note that I didn't say that I *would* shoot them dead.
Maybe shoot them just injured ? /Smilet/
Thierry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
On 2013-10-31, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> So you could shoot kids in halloween costumes for illegally being on
> your property?
Only if they've been through your underwear (_very_
puritanical country).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
Neal Murphy wrote:
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Case 1: I find that someone in my family who lives in my house has
> > > rumaged through my underwear drawer. A violation of trust has
> > > occurred. I am unhappy and will talk with them and give them a harsh
> > > lecture.
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 02:22:40 PM Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:38:12PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Case 1: I find that someone in my family who lives in my house has
> > rumaged through my underwear drawer. A violation of trust has
> > occurred. I am unhappy and wi
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:38:12PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Case 1: I find that someone in my family who lives in my house has
> rumaged through my underwear drawer. A violation of trust has
> occurred. I am unhappy and will talk with them and give them a harsh
> lecture. This is not appropria
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>>
>> The "standard" task installs both nfs-common and rpcbind.
>
> Aha! Apparently the ability to nfs mount in /etc/fstab is the root
> cause of the dependency chain that requires nfs-common and therefore
> portmapper. At a guess
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:38:12PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > And what about the end result ('user will get root privs')?
>
> They are different users. A remote user could be anyone. A local
> user is someone who is already known and has an account on the system
> and who has an
Tom H wrote:
> The "standard" task installs both nfs-common and rpcbind.
Aha! Apparently the ability to nfs mount in /etc/fstab is the root
cause of the dependency chain that requires nfs-common and therefore
portmapper. At a guess.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Reco wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>>>
>>> Is 'rpcbind' installed by default? I will need to look. I wonder why
>>> it would be there?
>>
>> Part of a NFS client, I guess. Package is not marked as an essential one,
>> though. Running a diskless
Reco wrote:
> And what about the end result ('user will get root privs')?
They are different users. A remote user could be anyone. A local
user is someone who is already known and has an account on the system
and who has an established relationship and trust.
Case 1: I find that someone in my f
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:14:33PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Is 'rpcbind' installed by default? I will need to look. I wonder why
> > > it would be there?
> >
> > Part of a NFS client, I guess. Package is not marked as an essential one,
> > though. Runnin
Reco wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Is 'rpcbind' installed by default? I will need to look. I wonder why
> > it would be there?
>
> Part of a NFS client, I guess. Package is not marked as an essential one,
> though. Running a diskless client over NFS would be a curious trick
> without NFS suppor
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:45:03AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > And one must be careful of throwing stones. For example Debian does
> > > not provide a firewall by default. And it is debatable if it needs
> > > one. Many people don't configure one. Many peo
Reco wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > And one must be careful of throwing stones. For example Debian does
> > not provide a firewall by default. And it is debatable if it needs
> > one. Many people don't configure one. Many people do. It all
> > depends upon many things about the use case. I do
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:37:02AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Reco wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:50:23 +
>>> Tom H wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Reco wrote:
>
> Yes, but pfexec is not sudo
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:15:43PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Oh. You mean that HP suddenly transformed to good fairies and stopped
> > charging extra for aCC? Or IBM received an encrypted signal from their
> > supervisors from Mars and did the same to vacc? And don't even mention
>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:37:02AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Reco wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:50:23 +
> > Tom H wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Reco wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but pfexec is not sudo. And privilege-aware Solaris shells are
> >>> de
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Reco wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:50:23 +
> Tom H wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Reco wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but pfexec is not sudo. And privilege-aware Solaris shells are
>>> definitely not sudo too.
>>
>> It might not be sudo but it's the same p
Reco wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Most of those systems ship very little by their vendors. I have used
> > them for many years and almost all of the software that you will use
> > on those systems will have been compiled and installed by the local
> > admin. IMNHO they are mainly a good solid b
Hi.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:50:23 +
Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Reco wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, but pfexec is not sudo. And privilege-aware Solaris shells are
> > definitely not sudo too.
>
> It might not be sudo but it's the same principle of privilege escalation.
>
> sudo
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Reco wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:28:57 +
> Tom H wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:31:55 -0600
>>> Bob Proulx wrote:
Sudo has been on
HP-UX, SunOS, Solaris, IBM AIX and others for many years. It is
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 23:17:06 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 01:07 +0400, Reco wrote:
> > Passwords stored in a plain text files in a recyclebin (or on a sheet
> > of paper under the keyboard).
>
> Female sysadmins wearing slips of paper on the forehead with
> passphrases: http
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 01:34 +0400, Reco wrote:
> Please tell that to that Lennart Poeterring guy who invented his own
> RealTimeGizmo for his beloved PulseAudio ;)
Ok, now I'm able to resist. I love to be marxbrotherish, but with
respect to the list, I try to fake, that I don't know who this girl
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:10:35 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> In the past I was against sudo, but nowadays I set up a root account
> (su) and sudo for my Linux and if I use Ubuntu I usually keep it as is,
> IOW just sudo, no root account. Security doesn't suffer from sudo, OTOH
> "ich bin schmerzfrei"
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 01:07 +0400, Reco wrote:
> Passwords stored in a plain text files in a recyclebin (or on a sheet
> of paper under the keyboard).
Female sysadmins wearing slips of paper on the forehead with
passphrases: http://www.kingmatz.com/Bilder%202007/2009/mk/RIMG0206.JPG
--
To UNSUB
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:28:57 +
Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:31:55 -0600
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
>
>
> >> Sudo has been on
> >> HP-UX, SunOS, Solaris, IBM AIX and others for many years. It isn't
> >> anything new. It is a good worthy to
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:21:37 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > This is not entirely correct. Sudo is considered third-party software
> > in HP-UX (HP merely builds it and doesn't install by default), AIX (not
> > provided by IBM and therefore not sup
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:41 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:31:55 -0600
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Sudo has been on
>> HP-UX, SunOS, Solaris, IBM AIX and others for many years. It isn't
>> anything new. It is a good worthy tool.
>
> This is not entirely correct. Sudo is considered third-par
recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Sudo has been on HP-UX, SunOS, Solaris, IBM AIX and others for
> > many years. It isn't anything new. It is a good worthy tool.
>
> This is not entirely correct. Sudo is considered third-party software
> in HP-UX (HP merely builds it and doesn
This seems to be an unintended initiated thread by me :D.
In the past I was against sudo, but nowadays I set up a root account
(su) and sudo for my Linux and if I use Ubuntu I usually keep it as is,
IOW just sudo, no root account. Security doesn't suffer from sudo, OTOH
"ich bin schmerzfrei" as we
Hi.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:31:55 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Sudo has been on
> HP-UX, SunOS, Solaris, IBM AIX and others for many years. It isn't
> anything new. It is a good worthy tool.
This is not entirely correct. Sudo is considered third-party software
in HP-UX (HP merely builds it and d
34 matches
Mail list logo
