Hi,
just for completeness, I was saying in the openbsd newbies forum that
I found the problem somewhere. I post it here just for your
information...
This has been happening for about everything that requires curl
since it was upgraded to shared lib version 4. I believe it's
because the package
Hi Folks,
I have just joined the list again after an absence of some
months. I have checked two different archives and found no reference to
this issue, which surprises me. If it has been discussed please accept
my apologies and give me a url to an archive with the relevant posts.
My
I happen to have more and more systems that identify as
$ uname
OpenBSD
which is good. One way or another.
One item that tends to go wrong here is cvs, where I have some scripts
doing cvs regularly, and I lose track of the version while
upgrading by re-using the scripts.
In cvs it is OPENBSD_4_0
Are you afraid of unleasing the powers of sed(1)?
I've looked an man pf, and it's way too confusing; I'm using smoothwall as a
standalone firewall, and it pretty much works the way I want it to; however,
I've found a reason to block a an IP range, particularly 216.87.0.0/17;
is there an equivalent to an iptables command I can use to simply
drop
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:23:19PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
I happen to have more and more systems that identify as
$ uname
OpenBSD
which is good. One way or another.
One item that tends to go wrong here is cvs, where I have some scripts
doing cvs regularly, and I lose track of the version
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 02:43:38AM -0700, David B. wrote:
I've looked an man pf, and it's way too confusing; I'm using smoothwall as a
standalone firewall, and it pretty much works the way I want it to; however,
I've found a reason to block a an IP range, particularly 216.87.0.0/17;
is there
* David B. wrote:
I've looked an man pf, and it's way too confusing; I'm using smoothwall as a
standalone firewall, and it pretty much works the way I want it to; however,
I've found a reason to block a an IP range, particularly 216.87.0.0/17;
is there an equivalent to an iptables command I
On Saturday 09 December 2006 04:43, David B. wrote:
I've looked an man pf, and it's way too confusing; I'm using smoothwall as
a standalone firewall, and it pretty much works the way I want it to;
however, I've found a reason to block a an IP range, particularly
216.87.0.0/17; is there an
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:24:48 +0100, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
I have the same problem on two servers, OpenBSD 4.0 and 3.9.
And I do it on both ...
... but differently:
ftpd_flags=-DllUS
Their HOME is where I want to chroot them
Their shell is /usr/bin/passwd (to change the passwd and prevent
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:46:34 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
uname -sr | tr '[:lower:] .' '[:upper:]_'
Somehow I think changing scripts is a better solution in this case. Or
copy the above into a new script named uname-cvs. ;)
Thanks Darren, but I'd written this myself faster than it took me
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:15:44 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
If so, well, I hope you enjoy that universe you live in.
Since someone informed me that ksh on Solaris processes the discussed
expressions properly, I might feel tempted to evaluate David's opinion
on the behaviour he'd prefer.
Maybe
On 12/9/06, Uwe Dippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:15:44 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
If so, well, I hope you enjoy that universe you live in.
Since someone informed me that ksh on Solaris processes the discussed
expressions properly, I might feel tempted to evaluate
Mikael Fridh wrote:
# pfctl -s all
TRANSLATION RULES:
nat on bge0 inet from 192.168.1.0/24 to any - (bge0:0)
rdr pass on em1 inet proto tcp from any to any port = 5900 -
192.168.1.111 port 5900
If bge0 is your external interface that nat line now looks correct.
If your internal hosts on
Joel Goguen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:01:10 +0100, Mitja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel Goguen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:16:50 +0100, Mitja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
# pfctl -s all
TRANSLATION RULES:
nat on em1 inet from 192.168.1.0/24 to any - (em1:0)
If em1 is only serving
michel bidard a icrit :
Henning Brauer a icrit :
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-08 20:15]:
you need on openbsd
ifconfig vlan0 create
ifconfig vlan0 vlan 2 vlandev rl0 up
no. create is implicit.
This is what I already did and tried for each port configured on the
Let's try this. It works, but the source IP is from bge0 my external
interface (193.77.12.154).
Then use address from em1 in nat rule for bge0.
nat on bge0 inet from 192.168.1.0/24 to any - (em1:0)
No one said that translated source address must be the same as the
address of nat external
On 12/9/06, michel bidard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok ... here is the ifconfig -A ...
# ifconfig -A
[snip]
vlan0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
lladdr 00:48:54:80:d0:ec
vlan: 2 priority: 0 parent interface: rl0
groups: vlan
inet6
On 2006/12/09 08:47, michel bidard wrote:
3- This is what I have in my /etc/hostname.vlan0
10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 vlan 2 vlandev rl0
two things:
1. you missed inet at the start of the line with the addresses
2. you should either list vlan 2 vlandev rl0 on a separate line,
or include the
Darren beat me to it...
The hex value of 0xff00 = 255.0.0.0 in decimal.
The hosts have a Class A subnet mask. I'm guessing that since you
have a Class C broadcast address, you do not want to do this.
Fix your mask on the vlan interfaces, then try again.
On 12/9/06, Darren Spruell [EMAIL
Original message
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:47:42 -0500
From: michel bidard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OpenBSD - Vlans - CISCO
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], misc@openbsd.org
michel bidard a icrit :
Henning Brauer a icrit :
it was amusing to see henning's initial
Russell Fulton wrote:
My question is are the em NIC drivers vulnerable to the recently
announced intel NIC driver stack overflow bugs? I see that there are
new FREEBSD em drivers available on the Intel site but no mention of
Open BSD.
What makes you think the FreeBSD drivers are vulnerable?
I'm assuming that this is a bad Soekris box, but I just would like
someone else to review the debug output, and maybe shed some light on
what happened to cause this kernel panic. This is a base install of
OpenBSD with root mounted with noatime, and an mfs mount for the /var
partition as this
Jacob Yocom-Piatt a icrit :
Original message
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:47:42 -0500
From: michel bidard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OpenBSD - Vlans - CISCO
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], misc@openbsd.org
michel bidard a icrit :
Henning Brauer a icrit :
Hi,
a friend of mine bought himself a MSI US54SE 11g USB Wlan stick.
I plugged it in and it gets recognized as zyd0.
Just wanted to tell you, so you could add it to list shown in the man
page.
I attached a dmesg. If you want more information, feel free to mail me.
(If you want to email me,
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 07:04:22PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Thanks Darren, but I'd written this myself faster than it took me to write
the message. I am still sure, that most users, including writers (and
updaters) of the FAQ would profit from this addition. The FAQ is full of
this `arch`,
Hi Uwe.
I see the advantages of your proposal but, as suggested in this thread
and as you did, sed(1) can be very helpful in this matter. Just my
opinion, but one of the best features in the BSD family of operating
systems is that these operating systems are simple. The BSD operating
systems do
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 02:43:38AM -0700, David B. wrote:
I've looked an man pf, and it's way too confusing;
read pf.conf(5) instead.
pf(4) isn't going to be very useful to you if you're
not writing code who wants to interact with pf.
like go into a file, and have a command in the form
I am not a member of this mailing list, so I will copy and paste
the comment of Philip Guenther here:
The 'cpio' format for pax (selected using -x cpio) handles long file
names in a portable way, as opposed to GNU tar's non-portable
extension for handling file names longer than 100 bytes.
I'm in the process of evaluating whether to transition from a DSL line
over to a cable modem, and until February I'll have both hooked up to
my OpenBSD 3.8 box, which acts as a mail/web/NAT server.
I've got the new cable modem hooked up, it has an IP, and I can ping
its gateway...but using
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:34:04 +0100, Mitja wrote:
Mikael Fridh wrote:
# pfctl -s all
TRANSLATION RULES:
nat on bge0 inet from 192.168.1.0/24 to any - (bge0:0)
rdr pass on em1 inet proto tcp from any to any port = 5900 -
192.168.1.111 port 5900
If bge0 is your external interface that nat
--- Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2006/12/09 at 16:36 -0500:
I'm in the process of evaluating whether to transition from a DSL line
over to a cable modem, and until February I'll have both hooked up to
my OpenBSD 3.8 box, which acts as a mail/web/NAT server.
I've got the new cable modem
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, David B. wrote:
oh, and does anyone have any comments on Labrea? as a honeypot? it looks
pretty good, and it comes for openbsd, or is openbsd simply best left alone?
In use here for MANY years! Don't need an OBSD flavor.
Lee
I'm in the process of evaluating whether to transition from a DSL line
over to a cable modem, and until February I'll have both hooked up to
my OpenBSD 3.8 box, which acts as a mail/web/NAT server.
I've got the new cable modem hooked up, it has an IP, and I can ping
its gateway...but using that
Hi List,
i've tried today openbsd 4.0
with several cards:
rt2561t - PC-620C
rt2560f - WMIR-103G
rt2560f - GN-WIKG
with all cards i got a connection (mediaopt ibss - adhoc)
with a distance of some meters. but if i tried a distance of 150 meters
with 2 yagi (12dbi) i got no connection :-(. i one
I have a Linksys card that uses ral and I can confirm this
Sam Fourman Jr.
On 12/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi List,
i've tried today openbsd 4.0
with several cards:
rt2561t - PC-620C
rt2560f - WMIR-103G
rt2560f - GN-WIKG
with all cards i got a connection (mediaopt
On 2006/12/09 17:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reply-to option (I had missed that earlier), and I now can SSH in via
the cable modem interface (no word yet on whether I can NAT out of it,
I'll figure that out when I'm at a machine that would use that NAT).
NATting is fairly straightforward,
various developers have added new entries to the want list
at www.openbsd.org/want.html
it would be nice if people would review the page again, to see if they
spot something that they can help with.
many recent drivers (wireless, raid, etc), ports (openoffice for
instance) happened because of
So whereas Linux has both a Security Policy Database and a Security
Association Database in the kernel, I believe (and someone please correct me
if I'm wrong) that OpenBSD kernel has only an SAD. You put your policy into
ipsecctl, which passes it onto isakmpd, and isakmpd negotiates keys and
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:08:34 +0100, Igor Sobrado wrote:
The BSD operating
systems do not have the overfeaturism we can find in other OSes these
days
Seems that it's about only me here who wants this simplification ... .
I fully agree with your arguments on
-possible change of tags
Otto Moerbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ustar format is defined by POSIX and does not allow for filename
larger than 100 chars or path names larger than 255 chars.
GNU choose to provide an extension, at the cost of reduced interoperability.
BTW, GNU tar changed the extension back in
41 matches
Mail list logo
