On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 09:34:30AM -0600, Bret Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 06:27, fred smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:34:18PM -0500, fred smith wrote:
> > > I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
> > > development and customers run the result on 6.
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 06:27, fred smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:34:18PM -0500, fred smith wrote:
> > Guys:
> >
> > I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
> > development and customers run the result on 6.2).
> >
> > today it paniced during shutdown (dunno w
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:34:18PM -0500, fred smith wrote:
> Guys:
>
> I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
> development and customers run the result on 6.2).
>
> today it paniced during shutdown (dunno why either) and after the
> massive fsck, some things are, lik
I had also same problem, but I didn't check it from GUI. It might be your different
problem but in my case I just replaced the binary file 'login' from the other same
version machine in single mode and then rebooted and it worked.
With Regards
Nabin Limbu
System Administrator
HealthNet Nepal
O
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 05:34:12PM -0800, David Busby wrote:
> Can you boot to single user to run different checks?
>
Yes, single user works, or logging in via GUI works. But so
far I haven't figured out what is wrong. Clues would be
gratefully accepted
--
-
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 09:34:00AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> > I'm not being snotty saying it's been hacked - it's a fact of life these
> > days. Stock 6.2 is not secure by any stretch of the imagination. There
> > are holes in ftp, ssl, and a bunch of other places.
>
> Another scenario is
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:40:37PM -0600, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:34:18PM -0500, fred smith wrote:
> > Guys:
> >
> > I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
> > development and customers run the result on 6.2).
>
> If this system is unprotected on t
Can you boot to single user to run different checks?
/B
- Original Message -
From: "Edward Dekkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 17:34
Subject: Re: RH62 can't log in
> > I'm not being snotty saying
> I'm not being snotty saying it's been hacked - it's a fact of life these
> days. Stock 6.2 is not secure by any stretch of the imagination. There
> are holes in ftp, ssl, and a bunch of other places.
Another scenario is that your / partition is full.
Regards,
---
Edward Dekkers (Director)
Tr
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:34:18PM -0500, fred smith wrote:
> Guys:
>
> I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
> development and customers run the result on 6.2).
If this system is unprotected on the Internet than it's likely been
hacked. You haven't given us much els
Guys:
I've got a 6.2 box at work (can't update yet because it's used for
development and customers run the result on 6.2).
today it paniced during shutdown (dunno why either) and after the
massive fsck, some things are, like, broken.
Like, for example, I can't log in on a text console, type in t
11 matches
Mail list logo