Le samedi 3 février 2018 07:59:55 UTC+2, ThierryIT a écrit :
> Le samedi 3 février 2018 07:45:16 UTC+2, ThierryIT a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 2 février 2018 18:24:02 UTC+2, awokd a écrit :
> > > On Fri, February 2, 2018 6:03 am, ThierryIT wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have installed
Le samedi 3 février 2018 07:45:16 UTC+2, ThierryIT a écrit :
> Le vendredi 2 février 2018 18:24:02 UTC+2, awokd a écrit :
> > On Fri, February 2, 2018 6:03 am, ThierryIT wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have installed "qubes-usb-proxy" on my StandaloneVM.
> > > -> qvm-usb l : sys-usb:4-2
Le vendredi 2 février 2018 18:24:02 UTC+2, awokd a écrit :
> On Fri, February 2, 2018 6:03 am, ThierryIT wrote:
>
> >
> > I have installed "qubes-usb-proxy" on my StandaloneVM.
> > -> qvm-usb l : sys-usb:4-2 Yubico_Yubikey_4_U2F+CCID
> >
> >
> > -> qvm-device usb attach vm-name sys-usb:4-2 :
On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 12:56:29 AM UTC+1, Unman wrote:
> I'm just pushing up some PRs to remove zesty and institute build support
> for artful (17.10).
> If you cant wait there's a ready built 3.2 template you can try at:
> http://qubes.3isec.org/Templates
>
> unman
This looks really
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 2:06:34 AM UTC+1, John wrote:
> I'm delighted the Qube Manager is back (typo? should it be Qubes Manager?).
> Thanks for listening. Minor point but it doesn't always refresh
> automatically. Keep up the good work!
When naming it Qube Manager, the emphasis is
I'm delighted the Qube Manager is back (typo? should it be Qubes Manager?).
Thanks for listening. Minor point but it doesn't always refresh automatically.
Keep up the good work!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 05:44:36PM -0800, mikihonz...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:56:29 PM UTC, Unman wrote:
> > I'm just pushing up some PRs to remove zesty and institute build support
> > for artful (17.10).
> > If you cant wait there's a ready built 3.2 template you
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 4:19:27 PM UTC+1, bill...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for you help --- again. Your widget discussion is what did it. In
> KDE, I didn't see the widget for adding disks to VMs, but it's there in the
> XCFe desktop. So instead of using the widget in KDE, I did
PS_15_9560-20180202-173910.yml
Description: Binary data
Yes it is, I despise the OEM's forcing UEFI on us.
Although both are insecure vs a libre BIOS such as select coreboot
boards (ex: KCMA-D8/KGPE-D16) and the OpenPOWER TALOS 2 (only $2.5K now
for board/cpu - which is less than x86_64 server hardware with equiv
performance)
I highly suggest
On 2018-02-02 06:37, awokd wrote:
> On Fri, February 2, 2018 9:24 am, yreb...@riseup.net wrote:
>> so, I created an win7 HVM ; and I think installed windows tools, but when
>> I read through the qubes docs, the instructions seem to be
>> circular.
>
>> I guess the benefit of the AppVM over the
On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 6:18:14 PM UTC+1, vel...@tutamail.com wrote:
> Is legacy BIOs still preferred and likely compatible with 4.0 when final?
You're seeing it backwards, flipping it around and you might see where the
problem is.
Instead ask, is UEFI reliable/secure now? In short,
Great, thank you so much.
Can you please update https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/releases/4.0/schedule/
Thanks again
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Il 02/02/2018 19.20, Matteo ha scritto:
>
>>> I guess the benefit of the AppVM over the HVM is Qubes integration for
>>> copy and paste and anything else practical?
>
> If you make an AppVM instead of a template (or standalone) only
> C:\Users\* will be preserved across reboot.
> This is
>> I guess the benefit of the AppVM over the HVM is Qubes integration for
>> copy and paste and anything else practical?
If you make an AppVM instead of a template (or standalone) only
C:\Users\* will be preserved across reboot.
This is useful to keep the system clean from virus.
C:\Users
On Friday, 2 February 2018 01:03:14 UTC-5, ThierryIT wrote:
> Le jeudi 1 février 2018 18:01:21 UTC+2, awokd a écrit :
> > On Thu, February 1, 2018 3:46 pm, ThierryIT wrote:
> > > What am I doing wrong ?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a Yubikey4 U2F + CCID.
> > > Not detected with "qvm-block"
> > >
On Fri, February 2, 2018 9:24 am, yreb...@riseup.net wrote:
> so, I created an win7 HVM ; and I think installed windows tools, but when
> I read through the qubes docs, the instructions seem to be
> circular.
> I guess the benefit of the AppVM over the HVM is Qubes integration for
> copy and
I remember some issues with reattaching in the past, but recently, the
qvm-shutdown --wait --force sys-net && qvm-start sys-net seems to be working.
It can fail in some cases like when you have a paused VM (a feature that seems
to cause various issues in 3.2) and it does nto work id the sys-net
On Fri, February 2, 2018 6:03 am, ThierryIT wrote:
>
> I have installed "qubes-usb-proxy" on my StandaloneVM.
> -> qvm-usb l : sys-usb:4-2 Yubico_Yubikey_4_U2F+CCID
>
>
> -> qvm-device usb attach vm-name sys-usb:4-2 : Device attach failed: No
> device info received, connection failed, check
On Fri, February 2, 2018 11:05 am, Bernhard wrote:
> On 02/02/2018 11:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Bernhard wrote:
>>> That would allow to confortably reboot sys-net
For a bit more blunt force approach, you could qvm-kill sys-net then use
the procedure "Reconnecting VMs
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 02:44:13 UTC, Andrew David Wong wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Dear Qubes Community,
>
> We're pleased to announce the fourth release candidate for Qubes 4.0!
> This release contains important safeguards against the [Spectre and
>
On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 17:36:00 UTC, Krišjānis Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to build a custom installation .iso. I have an issue that I have
> purchased a new set of hardware that does not work with the current builds of
> qubes. I am trying to build the most updated version with
On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 19:24:05 UTC, Krišjānis Gross wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Was using Qubes 3.2 on 4th generation i5 processor when decided to upgrade my
> hardware.
>
> Purchased 8th gen i5 processor and MB. Now when I start my Qubes only dom0 is
> started. no other VM is started
On 02/02/2018 11:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Bernhard wrote:
>
>> Did by chance someone write a dom0-script that
>>
>> a) fetches a list of all (running) appvm's that use sys-net.
>>
>> b) setting their net-vm to "none"
>>
>> c) reboot sys-net
>>
>> d) undoes step (b)
>>
>>
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Bernhard wrote:
> Did by chance someone write a dom0-script that
>
> a) fetches a list of all (running) appvm's that use sys-net.
>
> b) setting their net-vm to "none"
>
> c) reboot sys-net
>
> d) undoes step (b)
>
> That would allow to confortably reboot sys-net (same
Did by chance someone write a dom0-script that
a) fetches a list of all (running) appvm's that use sys-net.
b) setting their net-vm to "none"
c) reboot sys-net
d) undoes step (b)
That would allow to confortably reboot sys-net (same ideas apply to
sys-firewall & sys-whonix) and could help many
so, I created an win7 HVM ; and I think installed windows tools, but
when I read through the qubes docs, the instructions seem to be
circular.
eg, I don't have any idea how I would run an AppVM based on ?the Win7
HVM ?? or should I try to make a win7 "Template HVM" instead ,
or, how does
Ilpo Järvinen:
> > Great find Ilpo! Did you have to do some iptables-trickery for this
> > testing? I have ping working between proxy and appvm, but iperf and nc
> > both tell me no route to host?
>
> Yes, I did (it replies with ICMP by default). You'll need to fill in the
> vif IP-address to
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Jarle Thorsen wrote:
> Ilpo Järvinen:
> > Can you try if you get better throughput between a proxy vm and an appvm
> > using this kind of topology?
> >
> > sys-net <-> iperf-srv (proxyvm) <-> iperf-cli (appvm)
> >
> > I could push ~10Gbps with one flow and slightly more
Ilpo Järvinen:
> Can you try if you get better throughput between a proxy vm and an appvm
> using this kind of topology?
>
> sys-net <-> iperf-srv (proxyvm) <-> iperf-cli (appvm)
>
> I could push ~10Gbps with one flow and slightly more with more parallel
> flows between them.
Great find Ilpo!
30 matches
Mail list logo
