On 02/05/2018 04:02 PM, Mike Small wrote:
At what point does it make sense to go to the cgroup level or even
container level and at what point are traditional Unix abstractions like
process groups and sessions adequate? If Kent is creating all the
processes himself and they all fall in one proce
"Rich Braun" writes:
> Kent Borg wrote:
>>> I am playing with lots of different processes
>>> communicating with each other, maybe some coming and going
>>> incrementally. I want the ability occasionally kill them all and
>>> start from a clean slate.
>
> Sure sounds like what you really want is
Actually, QNAP is probably one of the worst storage system vendors. They
offer little or no support. They sat on a silent corruption bug until they
were out-ed by a blogger who went public after the company's refusal to
acknowledge the bug:
http://www.sbsfaq.com/?p=4277
I have personally had to d
On 2/5/2018 3:07 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> However, they don't mention anything in the release notes yet
> https://www.qnap.com/en/releasenotes/ so I'm unsure if it's "in there".
Safer to assume the patches are not included unless specifically listed.
> They advise:
>
>- Do not
At least QNAP offer to one-click secure your installation with a Let's
Encrypt cert through their SSL management plugin - even though they sell
certs through the the same plugin/admin interface.
(ed. note: TLS/SSL does not prevent Spectre / Meltdown - it's just an
indication that QNAP are not 'cra
I have a QNAP TS-231 (dual bay SMB NAS)
https://static.myqnapcloud.com/device_model/53466f86d6b82f5cd5295b28?r=1517796001
QNAP offered this security advisory on Jan. 8th
https://www.qnap.com/en-us/security-advisory/nas-201801-08
And have released firmware upgrades since then ( 2018/01/30 ) QTS
4
On 2/5/2018 10:30 AM, Joe Polcari wrote:
> I just got an update today which, I think, covers it.
The CVE referenced in the release notes fixes a local privilege
escalation bug in ipesc. The Meltdown/Spectre CVEs are still listed as
"Ongoing" as of this writing:
https://www.synology.com/en-us/supp
Nope - I was wrong
This is the one it addresses CVE-2017-16939
On 2/5/18, 10:30 AM, "Discuss on behalf of Joe Polcari"
wrote:
>I just got an update today which, I think, covers it.
>
>On 2/5/18, 9:33 AM, "discuss-bounces+joe=polcari@blu.org on behalf of
>ma...@mohawksoft.com" of ma...@mohaw
I just got an update today which, I think, covers it.
On 2/5/18, 9:33 AM, "discuss-bounces+joe=polcari@blu.org on behalf of
ma...@mohawksoft.com" wrote:
>This is common across the industry. EMC, Cisco, IBM, and others have said
>basically the same thing. I would dump synology because its cra
This is common across the industry. EMC, Cisco, IBM, and others have said
basically the same thing. I would dump synology because its crap, but not
because of that.
> The Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities were publicly disclosed 3
> January.
>
> Synology posted their own security advisory 5 day
10 matches
Mail list logo
