Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
administrative machine? Why not just capture the output of it directly
to the administrative machine all in one go?
i.e. rather than:
if ! ssh [EMAIL PRO
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
> is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
> administrative machine? Why not just capture the output of it directly
> to the administrative machine all in one go?
Becau
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:42:32AM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
> > is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
> > administrative machine? Why not just capture the output
On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 07:42 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
> > is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
> > administrative machine? Why not just capture the output of it d
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 07:42 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
>>> is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
>>> administrative machine? Why not just
On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 11:53 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> There is no reason to have the capabilities file resident on the Shorewall
> Lite firewall system.
The following patch to 3.4.2 should take care of this:
--- shorewall.dist 2007-04-30 14:59:14.0 -0400
+++ shorewall 2007-04-3
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 11:53 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> There is no reason to have the capabilities file resident on the Shorewall
>> Lite firewall system.
>
> The following patch to 3.4.2 should take care of this:
Brian,
Please send the patch as an attachment rather th
On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 12:06 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 11:53 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> >> There is no reason to have the capabilities file resident on the Shorewall
> >> Lite firewall system.
> >
> > The following patch to 3.4.2 should take care o
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 12:06 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-30-04 at 11:53 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
There is no reason to have the capabilities file resident on the Shorewall
Lite firewall system.
>>> The following patch to 3.
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:42:32AM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
>>> is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
>>> administrative machine? Why no
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 07:42:32AM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Is there any reason why the output of /usr/share/shorewall-lite/shorecap
is stored on the shorewall-lite target and then scp'd to the shorewall
admini
11 matches
Mail list logo
