So my questions are:
There REALLY needs to be a good reason that you are running any 1.X version or
else your question should be, Why haven't I upgraded to the latest and most
secure FreeRADIUS release.
Jake Sallee
Godfather of Bandwidth
System Engineer
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
900
On 01/08/2011 22:08, d.tom.schm...@l-3com.com wrote:
Currently running 1.1.3 on CentOS 5.x.
Upgrade
I am currently using the flat file option and it works just fine as long
as the permissions on the file are:
664 RW-RW-R—
Record in the file looks like:
Tom tab Auth-Type := Local,
users mailing list
Subject: RE: Security issues with 1.1.3 flatfile
So my questions are:
There REALLY needs to be a good reason that you are running any 1.X
version or else your question should be, Why haven't I upgraded to the
latest and most secure FreeRADIUS release.
Jake Sallee
users mailing list
Subject: RE: Security issues with 1.1.3 flatfile
Because that is what is installed when you do 'yum -y install freeradius' on
the CentOS 5.x PBX-in-a-Flash (PiaF) platform.
Otherwise, you have to explain to everyone how to manually install 2.1.7.
Does the problem not exist in 2.1.7
On 08/01/2011 05:08 PM, d.tom.schm...@l-3com.com wrote:
Currently running 1.1.3 on CentOS 5.x.
You really should upgrade to 2.x. In RHEL 5 the package name of the 2.x
version of FreeRADIUS is freeradius2. The reason why the package name is
different is because the configuration of FreeRADIUS
d.tom.schm...@l-3com.com wrote:
Currently running 1.1.3 on CentOS 5.x.
I am currently using the flat file option and it works just fine as long
as the permissions on the file are:
664 RW-RW-R-
Is the file owner the same as the user as which freeradius is running?
If it is, I
On 08/01/2011 05:50 PM, Sallee, Stephen (Jake) wrote:
Because that is what is installed when you do ‘yum –y install
freeradius’ on the CentOS 5.x PBX-in-a-Flash (PiaF) platform.
That is a fair statement, however I will say the installing FR from
source is the easiest source installation I
7 matches
Mail list logo
