On 13 Oct 2002, Peter Kiem wrote:
> I have rsa2 SSH logins running now. I can see this is a great idea as
> even if the attacker KNOWS your root password they STILL cannot get in
> without your private rsa key, right?
That's sort of correct. Root can, in fact, connect to an existing
ssh-agent s
Hi all,
I have rsa2 SSH logins running now. I can see this is a great idea as
even if the attacker KNOWS your root password they STILL cannot get in
without your private rsa key, right?
Is there some way to make it easier to run ssh-agent? I was trying to
put the eval `ssh-agent'; ssh-add into
> wrong ! With the public key and the root password known,
> and files appropriately configured, the "attacker" won't
> be prompted for a password.
>
> If the root password is known in any senario then "is all over" !
Can you clarify what you mean here?
If you force key
> If you have it set up like A -> B where A is your workstation and B is
> your server so that A has your private key and B has your public key
> what happens if you now want to log into another remote server C (A -> B
> -> C)?
Use agent forwarding. It will forward your key authentication-challe
On 13 Oct 2002, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have rsa2 SSH logins running now. I can see this is a great idea as
> even if the attacker KNOWS your root password they STILL cannot get in
> without your private rsa key, right?
wrong ! With the public key and the root password known
> > Again, only if you create keys that have no passphrase.
>
> If you are using keys, you only need to fully trust your local SSH client.
A
> remote server can't compromise your public key or your passphrase, even if
> you are using the compromised server to log into other servers (and are
u
The keys should also have a password incase of such problems and it is
offered when you type ssh-keygen -t rsa.
this is so much more secure as only a host with a recognised public key
can even attempt to login.
If you only allow rsa authentication, brute force attacks are no longer
an option th
> > At least if you are using passwords they need to work out the other
> > computer's passwords before they can SSH into them?
>
> Again, only if you create keys that have no passphrase.
Also, if you are using a password to log into a server that's been
compromised, they don't need to work out
On 10/10/02 9:31 PM, "Peter Kiem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might seem a stupid question but I often see people recommending that
> you never log into SSH with password but rather use keys.
>
> Doesn't this create a security issue as if someone manages to break into one
> comput
you still need a passphrase to unlock the key. (99% of the time).
So even if somebody steals your private key file they still
need your passphrase to use it. It is possible to set one up
with a null passphrase, but,
not surprisingly, that is not recommended.
If someone has stolen your private key
Thanx All
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:30:36 -0700 "Hugh E Cruickshank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Patrick:
>
>The answer probably depends on the language you are using. In
>my experience it really boils down to semantics.
>
>A function is a subroutine that can be invoked from your program.
>Th
On 2002.06.07 09:48 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> Maybe a stupid question but can anybody tell me clearly what the
> difference(s)
> is (are) between functions and library routines ??
See http://www.foldoc.org.
Functions are components of a structured program. They may or
may no
Hi Patrick:
The answer probably depends on the language you are using. In
my experience it really boils down to semantics.
A function is a subroutine that can be invoked from your program.
That function can be define within the source file of your program
or it can be defined within an external
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 23/12/00 at 10:07 Charles Galpin wrote:
>Philippe
>
>This is an FAQ. It has been covered before on this list several times. and
>I believe is also on the Red Hat site as well.
>
>You need to first upgrade to rpm-3.05.*
>
>Then it can install rpm-4.0.
]]On Behalf Of Philippe Moutarlier
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: stupid question about upgrading rpm
Well,
this is where the problem is : to install rpm-4.0*.rpm using
rpm 3.* does not work. Basically it reports that my version
of rpm (3.*) is not able
Philippe
This is an FAQ. It has been covered before on this list several times. and
I believe is also on the Red Hat site as well.
You need to first upgrade to rpm-3.05.*
Then it can install rpm-4.0.* just fine
BTW, this is *not* a stupid question, and is clearly a sticky problem that
would be
EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael R. Jinks
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: stupid question about upgrading rpm
I haven't been able to figure this out either. I think the only choices
are to compile from scratch, or to do something like what
hehe. stupid me answers this (supposedly) stupid question, then realizes
someone else has already provided the correct answer. doh!
So don't feel bad - this is the kind of effort the list needs. Lately it
seems the quality/volume of responses has dropped (but this is only my
opinion, and a genera
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:35:11PM -0500, Charles Galpin wrote:
> close - it's /etc/redhat-release
That's what you get when trying to answer Linux questions while sitting
on front of a Solaris box... ;-)
Cheerio,
Thomas
--
"Look, Ma, no obsolete quotes and plain text only!"
close - it's /etc/redhat-release
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Thomas Ribbrock wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:40:13AM -0600, Scott Skrogstad wrote:
> > How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> > machine?
>
> There is a file in /etc:
>
> cat /etc/rh-release
> (no guarant
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid question
When you log in usually the version comes up.
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Skrogstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Red Hat Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:40 AM
Subject:
When you log in usually the version comes up.
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Skrogstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Red Hat Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:40 AM
Subject: Stupid question
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is act
If you haven't changed your /etc/issue file, the information is usually
present on the console screen (text console) prior to login, and if you
haven't changed your /etc/issue.net file, it'll be presented prior to
login when you telnet to the box.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Scott Skrogstad wrote:
>
uname -a?
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Skrogstad [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: Red Hat Mailing list
> Subject: Stupid question
>
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> machine?
>
> Scott Skrogsta
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:40:13AM -0600, Scott Skrogstad wrote:
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> machine?
There is a file in /etc:
cat /etc/rh-release
(no guarantee with regard to correct spelling...)
HTH,
Thomas
--
"Look, Ma, no obsolete q
Look at the file /etc/issue.
Scott Skrogstad wrote:
>
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> machine?
>
> Scott Skrogstad
> Computer Integration Inc,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 800-522-3475 Phone
>
> ___
> Redhat-list mail
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Scott Skrogstad wrote:
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> machine?
cat /etc/redhat-release
rpm -ql redhat-release
LLaP
bero
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> machine?
"cat /etc/redhat-release"
best
rickf
--
Rick Forrister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Definition: Honest Politician: Once bought, stays bought."
Thanxs Rick I knew it was easy. But that is really easy...
Scott Skrogstad
Computer Integration Inc,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
800-522-3475 Phone
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Rick Forrister wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > How the heck to I find out what version of RED HAT is actually on a
> > machine?
cat /etc/issue or cat /etc/redhat-release
for example:
# cat /etc/issue
Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
Kernel 2.2.16-3 on an i586
/etc/issue gets written by rc.local every time the system boots.
__
Larry Grover, PhD
Assoc Prof of Physiology
Marshall Univ Sch of Med
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 08:19:21AM -0400, Ward William E PHDN wrote:
[...]
> That said, there is nothing that says a Winmodem can't run under
> Linux... except that you need to have knowledge of how the hardware
> hooks into the software DSP. And that tends to be proprietary.
[...]
> And what m
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, rpjday wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Aldrich wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> > > Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a regular
> > > modem?
> > >
> > WinModem is missing most of the hardware that makes a modem. It's
>
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Peter Massey wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> >> Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a
> regular
> >> modem?
> >>
> >WinModem is missing most of the hardware that makes a modem. It's
> >replaced by software that EMULATES the mi
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This describes Plug 'n Play not "soft" modems
>
> Linux supports Plug 'n Play
>
True. Howeve,r it's also true of "soft" modems. :-)
John
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Steve Dixon wrote:
> Actually our Lexmark that we have isn't.
>
Hmm...last I heard most of them were WinPrinters -- they are / were
very limited under Linux.
John
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
ing to interface
with a moving target, in terms of what kernel to use.
Oh well.
Bill Ward
-Original Message-
From: Peter Massey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient.list.not.shown; @nswcphdn.navy.mil
Subject: RE: Stupid que
ace, thus making it impossible to
develop a single LINUX driver. That's why only one or two have been made to
work...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jake McHenry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 3:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re:
But VMware is awesome!
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
I know! Winabagels! They're wheels that only work on Winnebagos. :-)
--
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this. Steven W. Orr-
Does your driver's license say Organ Donor?Black holes are where God \
--
%-> How about the WinPC? It would have no hardware at all, just
%-> software that
%-> emulates all the hardware. Now wouldn't that upset Intel? And
%-> that might
%-> lead to WinMicrosoft .. .
A.k.a. VMWare ;-)
-- Juha
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubs
%-> one wonders what the next world's dumbest invention will be.
%-> winmonitors?
%-> winkeyboards? wincd-roms? winhard-drives? god, i wish i was being
%-> facetious. sigh.
Well, hrrmm... I'm reasonably certain that the next generation of external
modems which utilise the V.92 standard will b
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
>> Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a
regular
>> modem?
>>
>WinModem is missing most of the hardware that makes a modem. It's
>replaced by software that EMULATES the missing hardware, thus making
>the processor do all the
This describes Plug 'n Play not "soft" modems
Linux supports Plug 'n Play
Jake McHenry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/06/2000 03:23:27 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Stupid question about winmodems
A regular mo
Actually our Lexmark that we have isn't.
John Aldrich wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, rpjday wrote:
> >
> > one wonders what the next world's dumbest invention will be. winmonitors?
> > winkeyboards? wincd-roms? winhard-drives? god, i wish i was being
> > facetious. sigh.
> >
> They've alre
o: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Stupid question about winmodems
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Aldrich wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> > Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a
regular
> > modem?
> >
> WinModem is missin
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, rpjday wrote:
>
> one wonders what the next world's dumbest invention will be. winmonitors?
> winkeyboards? wincd-roms? winhard-drives? god, i wish i was being
> facetious. sigh.
>
They've already got WinPrinters. What do you think the Lexmark
printers are? :-/
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a regular
> modem?
> SK
>From one Stephen King to another (imagine that!)
winmodems are missing hardware that the windows OS makes up for. Thus
winmodems need windows to operate and don
A regular modem has hard set com ports and IRQ's, usually set by jumpers
or not adjustable at all. A winmodem rely's on the windows operating
system to determine what com port it uses when you install the modem, and
it get's set temporaroly in a type of flash memory on the modem. This is
why win
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Aldrich wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> > Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a regular
> > modem?
> >
> WinModem is missing most of the hardware that makes a modem. It's
> replaced by software that EMULATES the missing ha
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000, Stephen King wrote:
> Could someone define for me the difference between a winmodem and a regular
> modem?
>
WinModem is missing most of the hardware that makes a modem. It's
replaced by software that EMULATES the missing hardware, thus making
the processor do all the work tha
A winmodem is hobbled. It doesn't have all the hardware
present in a real modem. It ends up being cheaper because of
this and the functionality of the missing hw is made up in the
Windows driver.
Juan
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous
On Th
The real question you want to ask is the difference between "hardware"
modems and "software" modems. Modems, were always "hardware", yes they
used firmware burnt into proms to control their functions but they were
what is commonly referred to has "hardware devices.
Then someone got the idea for
52 matches
Mail list logo
