Re: [rdiff-backup-users] SECURITY: Not all file ops accessed via vetted RPath objects? Also a path prefixing patch

2005-08-17 Thread Ben Escoto
Charles Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the following on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:58:22 -0500 If they aren't in the list of allowable commands, why am I seeing the client sending such requests and the server processing them? I don't thoroughly understand at what times and under what circumstances

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] SECURITY: Not all file ops accessed via vetted RPath objects? Also a path prefixing patch

2005-08-17 Thread dean gaudet
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Charles Duffy wrote: http://arctic.org/~dean/rdiff-backup/unattended.html Not workable in my situation: - The instructions from the page in question require work to be done on a per-server basis. I need to support tens to hundreds (and possibly someday thousands) of

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] SECURITY: Not all file ops accessed via vetted RPath objects? Also a path prefixing patch

2005-08-17 Thread Charles Duffy
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 23:30 -0700, dean gaudet wrote: that's my bad really -- you actually only need a single special backup key... and you can clone the /root/.ssh/authorized_keys2 file everywhere with that one key. Yes, and I realize that -- but it doesn't address the [important] hosts

[rdiff-backup-users] Backwards compatibility lost?

2005-08-17 Thread Troels Arvin
Hello, I thought that rdiff-backup 1.0.0 would be backwards compatible with v. 0.12.8. But it seems it isn't: Warning: Local version 1.0.0 does not match remote version 0.12.8. Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/rdiff-backup, line 23, in ? rdiff_backup.Main.Main(sys.argv[1:])

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Backwards compatibility lost?

2005-08-17 Thread Davy Durham
Troels Arvin wrote: Hello, I thought that rdiff-backup 1.0.0 would be backwards compatible with v. 0.12.8. But it seems it isn't: You're old data should be okay.. but both machines have to be running the same versions of rdiff-backup AFAIK Warning: Local version 1.0.0 does not match

[rdiff-backup-users] Re: Backwards compatibility lost?

2005-08-17 Thread Troels Arvin
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 02:15:33 -0500, Davy Durham wrote: I thought that rdiff-backup 1.0.0 would be backwards compatible with v. 0.12.8. But it seems it isn't: You're old data should be okay.. but both machines have to be running the same versions of rdiff-backup AFAIK All right. (It would be

[rdiff-backup-users] Re: Uh-oh, IOError in 1.0.0, oh, no!

2005-08-17 Thread Jonathan W. Smith
Sorry, I must have misread the instructions. I reinstated the most recent mirror file. I ran 'zcat -t' and removed corrupted zip files until it completed without a corrupted file report. I then ran rdiff-backup again and it seem to run okay. Thanks for the help. -Original Message-

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Version 1.0.0 released

2005-08-17 Thread Clint Silvester
Ben Escoto wrote: Version 1.0.0 has been released. This release comes from the 0.13.x tree, and could have been called 0.13.7. rdiff-backup is more than four years old now, so I thought it's time it had a version 1+. (Originally I was going to wait until librsync had their version 1.0, but

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] rdiff-backup probm

2005-08-17 Thread Ben Escoto
Davy Durham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the following on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:51:27 -0500 Also, still two questions: 1) Is it okay/wise to delete the backup.log and restore.log files from the rdiff-backup-data directories? Sure, they are never read by the program. 2) I'm noticing some old

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Version 1.0.0 released

2005-08-17 Thread Ben Escoto
Clint Silvester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the following on Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:12:16 -0600 I don't see anything about the redone algorithm that possibly fixes the problem with files greater than 25 gig. Last time there was discussion I think it was supposed to be: if file_len 4096: