, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(704) 847-6961 x 2000
-Original Message-
From: Alan Altmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: For the security weenies
On Monday, 08/02/2004 at 08:55 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday, 08/03/2004 at 12:09 EST, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SWAPGEN on the 191 is suboptimal. What if you had to update it? Go
to
> > each server's A-disk? Blech. Of course, you could use SFS and
aliases
> > for the A-disk before IPLing Linux.
>
> I guess my question is:
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
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
-
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Alan Altmark
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 6:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL
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
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 39
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: For the security weenies
>
>
> 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 forg
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
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 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,
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
