Re: [PLUG] Serious linux malware

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 20:45 Russell Senior wrote: > Fwiw, my take when I saw the report was along the lines of "Oh, that's > interesting, what was the infection vector, how do I discover if a box is > infected, etc" and the supposed "technical details" were a bunch of > handwaving and then a sugg

Re: [PLUG] Serious linux malware

Thank you, Russel: I just checked my servers in the cloud; everything is running at least 4.15. 'Too lazy to dig the raspberry pi out of my junk box, but I think that is also way above 3.6. Mark - Original Message - From: "Russell Senior" To: "Portland Linux/Unix Group" Sent: Tuesday

Re: [PLUG] Serious linux malware

Fwiw, my take when I saw the report was along the lines of "Oh, that's interesting, what was the infection vector, how do I discover if a box is infected, etc" and the supposed "technical details" were a bunch of handwaving and then a suggestion to not run a kernel before 3.6 or something. Who is s

Re: [PLUG] Serious linux malware

On 8/14/20 5:33 AM, Rich Shepard wrote: > As a computer user and a non-professional I'd like your thoughts on this > Ars > Technica article, "NSA and FBI warn that new Linux malware threatens > national security." > >

Re: [PLUG] NetAngel verses WebSafety...

> Any thoughts on how NetAngel does or doesn't work are appreciated > from anyone who has used it. Thoughts on how to improve WebSafety and > make it work better are also appreciated. > > -- Michael C. Robinson Hello Michael One thing that strikes me right away is that the method where your us

[PLUG] NetAngel verses WebSafety...

WebSafety is subscription based and it configures a squid proxy for you. I have it, it doesn't work well and it's just sitting there unused. NetAngel is a routing appliance that purportedly doesn't care what the client is and that filters all clients going through it and thensome. Does NetAngel