Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Gordon Messmer
On 08/12/2016 05:07 AM, Andrew Dent wrote: Would a successful attack on the IP address of a VPS in a Plesk environment expose the VPS, the Virtual Host or both (and all other VPSs)? It would "expose" the one individual TCP connection that was attacked.

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Andrew Dent
Would a successful attack on the IP address of a VPS in a Plesk environment expose the VPS, the Virtual Host or both (and all other VPSs)? -- Original Message -- From: "Johnny Hughes" <joh...@centos.org> To: centos@centos.org Sent: 12/08/2016 9:08:23 PM Subject: Re: [C

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Johnny Hughes
On 08/12/2016 05:58 AM, Andrew Dent wrote: > Thanks for the info Peter. > The VPS is running on a Plesk environment. > Right, and in a Plesk environment there is only one kernel on the main machine, and all the VPS machines use it. So the hosting provider has to make all kernel mods.

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Andrew Dent
Thanks for the info Peter. The VPS is running on a Plesk environment. -- Original Message -- From: "Peter" <pe...@pajamian.dhs.org> To: centos@centos.org Sent: 12/08/2016 3:36:32 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw On 12/08/16 17:33, Andrew Dent wrote: So after re

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Barry Brimer
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Alice Wonder wrote: On 08/11/2016 11:07 PM, Barry Brimer wrote: On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Peter wrote: On 12/08/16 17:56, Barry Brimer wrote: [root@vps ~]# uname -r 2.6.32-042stab108.7 Not needed. This affects 3.6+ kernels. You don't have one of those. It affects

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Alice Wonder
On 08/11/2016 11:07 PM, Barry Brimer wrote: On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Peter wrote: On 12/08/16 17:56, Barry Brimer wrote: [root@vps ~]# uname -r 2.6.32-042stab108.7 Not needed. This affects 3.6+ kernels. You don't have one of those. It affects RHEL6 which runs 2.6.32, they backported the

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Barry Brimer
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Peter wrote: On 12/08/16 17:56, Barry Brimer wrote: [root@vps ~]# uname -r 2.6.32-042stab108.7 Not needed. This affects 3.6+ kernels. You don't have one of those. It affects RHEL6 which runs 2.6.32, they backported the features that it affects. If the above openvz

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-12 Thread Peter
On 12/08/16 17:56, Barry Brimer wrote: >> [root@vps ~]# uname -r >> 2.6.32-042stab108.7 > > Not needed. This affects 3.6+ kernels. You don't have one of those. It affects RHEL6 which runs 2.6.32, they backported the features that it affects. If the above openvz kernel was based on a RHEL6

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-11 Thread Barry Brimer
Hi So after reading this, felt I should apply the fix to a CentOS6 VPS that I have. http://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-tcp-flaw-lets-anyone-hijack-internet-traffic/ The article doesn't talk about CentOS or Redhat, but I assume the problem is the same, and hoping the solution is the same.

Re: [CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-11 Thread Peter
On 12/08/16 17:33, Andrew Dent wrote: > So after reading this, felt I should apply the fix to a CentOS6 VPS that > I have. > http://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-tcp-flaw-lets-anyone-hijack-internet-traffic/ > > [root@vps ~]# uname -r > 2.6.32-042stab108.7 That's not a CentOS kernel, it's an

[CentOS] Linux TCP flaw

2016-08-11 Thread Andrew Dent
Hi So after reading this, felt I should apply the fix to a CentOS6 VPS that I have. http://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-tcp-flaw-lets-anyone-hijack-internet-traffic/ The article doesn't talk about CentOS or Redhat, but I assume the problem is the same, and hoping the solution is the same.