On Aug 2, 2004, at 11:17 PM, Alan Altmark wrote:
Chuckie's busy at the moment, so I'll answer instead. There is nothing
inherently evil about modifying the PROFILE EXEC of service machines.
It
*is* evil (and, to some, a hostile act) to modify the PROFILE EXEC of
the
set of servers that comprise VM
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 08:55 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chuckie: is it merely modifying the PROFILE EXEC of service machines
> that's evil, or should I also refrain from putting other stuff on their
> 191-disks? That is, hypothetically, if I were implementing a service
> th
Based on the discussion on both the lists in the header, we at Sine
Nomine have created a canned enabler system to allow anyone to activate
and use the VM SSL support free of charge. Special kudos for this
project go to Adam Thornton, who headed the engineering team for this
tool.
The SSLSERV enab
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 18:12, Alan Cox wrote:
> Guys if I wanted to read alt.humor.notfunny I'd try usenet. Or can we
> have linux-390-ontopic ?
Oh, all right. Party pooper.
Ontopic:
Chuckie: is it merely modifying the PROFILE EXEC of service machines
that's evil, or should I also refrain from p
Hello from Gregg C Levine
If you can't convince them, confuse them.
That being said, I prefer the systems from Star Trek. I'll leave that
to the imagination of everyone here.
---
Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The For
Guys if I wanted to read alt.humor.notfunny I'd try usenet. Or can we
have linux-390-ontopic ?
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
If you have a linux guest that is "close" to VM in the sense that ip traffic
does not have to traverse subnets that you dont control, you can use
ssh to create an encrypted tunnel to VM through the linux guest
eg. (assuming all linux boxes here:)
on localhost:
ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] -L 2323:vmhost
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 05:37 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's really even safer if you just never build the machine at all.
> Nonexistent machines are the safest kind. Plus they're easy to brag
> about: "My imaginary 75-Petaflop Helium-3-cooled system with 14
> googolplexbyte
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:47, Daniel P. Martin wrote:
> Two words: Bolt Cutters.
> >Make sure is unplugged from power supply. Just in case, throw the mains.
It's really even safer if you just never build the machine at all.
Nonexistent machines are the safest kind. Plus they're easy to brag
abou
Or a Faraday Cage!
Alan Altmark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s.ibm.com>cc:
Sent by: LinuxSubject: Re: For the security weenies
on 390 Port
The same diamond saw we use on the disk platters works wonders on those lead
encased transmitters too.
/Thomas Kern
/301-903-2211
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 16:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECT
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 02:47 EST, "Daniel P. Martin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two words: Bolt Cutters.
>
> Just be sure you unplug it first...
Youse guys forgot about sneaky battery-backup wireless. Encase in lead.
Chuckie
-
Two words: Bolt Cutters.
Just be sure you unplug it first...
-dan.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 01:59 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:16, Dave Jones wrote:
Well, having a server you can't log onto is certainly one way to make
it
"secure",
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 01:59 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:16, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Well, having a server you can't log onto is certainly one way to make
it
> > "secure", I suppose.not connecting it to a network is
another...:-)
>
> Neither is as go
Alan,
Where can I find these numbers???
Carlos Alberto Bodra
S/390 System Programmer
Sao Paulo - Brazil
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
Altmark
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Installation an
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 14:16, Dave Jones wrote:
> Well, having a server you can't log onto is certainly one way to make it
> "secure", I suppose.not connecting it to a network is another...:-)
Neither is as good as not turning it on, though.
Adam
--
Well, having a server you can't log onto is certainly one way to make it
"secure", I suppose.not connecting it to a network is another...:-)
DJ
Kohrs, Steven wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 11:29, Ferguson, Neale wrote:
Paper: Achieving CAPP/EAL3+ Security Certification for Linux
See:
http://www-1
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 12:01 EST, Tom Duerbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't z/VM 5.0 annual
> maintenance around $500 a month per engine? Cheap!
$563 per *year* per *value unit*. At tier A (1-3 CPUs) for 1 CPU it would
be $470 per month [1 CPU x 10 VU/CPU x $563/VU/YR / 12mos/YR]. Tie
I can't even get Debian to install under VM.. I guess I am having a bad
week..
Last week and this one...
My problem is that I can't nfs mount a cd drive to install..
Acts like having problems with disk..
--
For LINUX-390 subscr
> Not disputing your facts, Jim, but it would have been a lot
> more helpful if the TSM server for Linux had included support
> for escon-attached tape drives and the ability to communicate
> with VM-based tape catalogs and tape management systems such as
> VM:Tape. As it stands, it seems to me to
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 11:29, Ferguson, Neale wrote:
> Paper: Achieving CAPP/EAL3+ Security Certification for Linux
> See:
> http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/presentations/ols2004/sec-cert-OLS_04.pdf
>
I tried 'securing' a server by following the recommendations associated
with this paper. Basically,
Yes, I agree totallyhowever
The initial query was on installing the first one or few Linux/390
images. It's hard to justify $22,500 per engine (z/VM 5.0) or $45K per
engine (prior z/VM 4) just for a couple Linux/390 images. Especially
when the OTC is non-refundable (they loose interest in Li
I wanted to let everyone know that Andreas Herrmann of the Boeblingen lab
was able to help me with this problem. He did some diagnostic work, and
then contacted Ulrich Weigand to confirm that there was a gcc compiler bug
at work. The fix for the gcc-3.3 series is documented here:
http://gcc.gnu.o
Hello from Gregg C Levine
I agree. It is funny. However the comments below it, resemble that of
slash-dot. Little relevance, and almost no intelligence. One of the
people there posted a comment regarding something for MS. I wonder
where he got his facts? At an OEM briefing, they said it would be ou
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 10:55 EST, Tom Duerbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LPARs also make sense if you have a lot of engines. VM is priced per
> engine. Even at the new, low rate, for z/VM 5.0, it can be big bucks.
>
> However, if you only have 1 or two engines, licensing VM can lead to
> gr
Gerard Graham wrote:
My management is actually considering moving certain cobal apps to
Linux,they see savings on the IFL, if we can run cobal there, has any one
done this on the z/series, or even intel. If not are there any sites I can
be pointed to for info.
Call BEA Systems and ask them to PLEAS
Paper: Achieving CAPP/EAL3+ Security Certification for Linux
See: http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/presentations/ols2004/sec-cert-OLS_04.pdf
"As far as we know, no Open Source program has been certified for security-until now.
Although some people believed that it was not possible for an Open Source
LPARs also make sense if you have a lot of engines. VM is priced per
engine. Even at the new, low rate, for z/VM 5.0, it can be big bucks.
However, if you only have 1 or two engines, licensing VM can lead to
greater productivity when using Linux/390. Just much easier to handle
then lpars, and y
The link does not work for the server protect linux.
Loren Charnley, Jr.
IT Systems Engineer
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(704) 847-6961 x 2000
-Original Message-
From: subscribe LINUX-390 eric_chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:35 AM
To
OK, but it's good of a bit of a chuckle.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040802040516974
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
UICI Insurance Center
Information Technology
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual
Hi friends,
If you are interested in ServerPortect for SuSE SLES 8 of IBM zSeries
then beta is ready below.
Please take a look and we'll fully support your testing, tks very very
much.
About Trend Micro ServerProtect Linux :
http://www.trendmicro.com/en/products/file-server/sp-linux/evaluate/ov
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 08:44 AST, "Kern, Thomas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all parts of the transaction protected by the SSL encryption,
> especially the userid/password that will get validated against the CP
> directory?
Yes, SSL in the context of https protects all data flowing over th
With all parts of the transaction protected by the SSL encryption,
especially the userid/password that will get validated against the CP
directory?
Yeah, I could get that passed the security folks for inbound file transfer.
But as we migrate more and more toward VM being just a hypervisor, we woul
33 matches
Mail list logo
