Re: patch validation

2006-05-03 Thread Bob Beck
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 20:07]: > yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work in an audit. (Ahem) horseshit. If you as your regular business practice set up a procedure that the admins keep notes on a system and documents whenever fixes are applied (t

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Eric Furman
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work > in an audit. > > seriously, is there anything that > a) can be queried against? > b) compared against? > c) hashs of files? > d) etc? > > is it something others have concerns about? > M > Ioan Nemes <[

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Philip Guenther
On 5/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work in an audit. Since you didn't state the requirements of the audit, it's not surprising that the answers don't satisfy that. seriously, is there anything that a) can be queried agains

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Nick Holland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work in an audit. seriously, is there anything that a) can be queried against? sometimes b) compared against? sometimes c) hashs of files? don't count on it. d) etc? yes. Seriously, tell us what your criteria is

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Michael Erdely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep notes? yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work in an audit. Come on... "official" change logs are a good thing to keep for all servers. But, you didn't give any information about how the patch was applied. Assuming from local source... when you go t

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread mdcalvi
yea. i'll keep that in mind. too bad it doesnt work in an audit. seriously, is there anything that a) can be queried against? b) compared against? c) hashs of files? d) etc? is it something others have concerns about? M Ioan Nemes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> "Nick Guenther" <[EMAI

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Claus Assmann
On Tue, May 02, 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I brought up a 3.9 server and have patched it with the sendmail > patch. My question is how does one prove that the box has been > patched in 2,3 or 4 months? Check the version: -char Version[] = "8.13.4"; +char Version[] = "8.13.5.20060308";

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Ioan Nemes
>>> "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/05/2006 09:07:35 am >>> On 5/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I brought up a 3.9 server and have patched it with the sendmail patch. My question is how does one prove that the box has been patched in 2,3 or 4 months? > TIA > Mike > K

Re: patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread Nick Guenther
On 5/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I brought up a 3.9 server and have patched it with the sendmail patch. My question is how does one prove that the box has been patched in 2,3 or 4 months? TIA Mike Keep notes?

patch validation

2006-05-02 Thread mdcalvi
I brought up a 3.9 server and have patched it with the sendmail patch. My question is how does one prove that the box has been patched in 2,3 or 4 months? TIA Mike