Hi Dotan,
Le 23/01/2012 17:49, Dotan Cohen a écrit :
Thanks, all. I suppose that you all are right, considering that 5.2 is
no longer supported. I was under the impression that this is an older
but up-to-date install. This server sits in a datacenter hundreds or
thousands of kilometers from
There is a CentOS 5.2 machine that is sometimes found to be offline.
It runs a few websites but nothing very high traffic. I happened to
notice a few days ago that before it went down, one of the sites
written in PHP was throwing errors that it could not connect to the
MySQL backend. Two hours
Dotan Cohen wrote on 01/23/2012 08:39 AM:
There is a CentOS 5.2 machine ...
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been exploited.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might have been exploited.
On 2012-01-23 15:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5
point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities might
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
release level; and what resultant vulnerabilities
On 23-01-12 16:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Thanks. There are a lot of very specific software on that server that
precludes it from being updated. I believe that 5.2 still is seeing
security updates, no?
5.2 does not get security updates. My guess is your box has been
compromised. Boot the box with
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
I'd have a look at why an apparently Internet-facing server is 5 point
releases, plus a lot of subsequent errata, behind the current 5.7
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Dotan Cohen
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:14
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Machine becoming irresponsive
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 16:23, Phil Schaffner
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not my box, but I may have opportunity to look at it. After going
through dmesg and messages, if I don't find anything obvious, what
should I start looking for?
Forwarding on behalf of Mark whose emails are being
Thanks, all. I suppose that you all are right, considering that 5.2 is
no longer supported. I was under the impression that this is an older
but up-to-date install. This server sits in a datacenter hundreds or
thousands of kilometers from anyone related to it, so I will back it
all up via rsync.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 18:57, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
a) You should NOT, under any circumstances, be backing it up to your home
systems. You should be backing it up to a work server - there are very
serious legal implications involved here.
Thanks, but there are no customer data or other
On 01/23/12 7:13 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
I believe that 5.2 still is seeing
security updates, no?
5.7 (plus anything released since 5.7) *is* the current security update
to 5.2
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
14 matches
Mail list logo
