After dealing with a couple of issues with OpenLDAP, I'd say it beats the
piss out of NIS all day long. NIS is ancient and decrepit.
Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
NIS for critical and secure systems.
Peter
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 AM, John R.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Peter Serwe wrote:
After dealing with a couple of issues with OpenLDAP, I'd say it beats the
piss out of NIS all day long. NIS is ancient and decrepit.
Agreed.
Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
NIS for critical and secure
Hard to believe, but certain very well known organizations refuse to get off
NIS for critical and secure systems.
{{citation needed}}
:-)
--
Drew
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
--Marie Curie
___
CentOS mailing list
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind restart.
It behaves as indicated in
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
restart.
It behaves as indicated in
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
Out of curiousity, can you point me to writeups of known working
exploits
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:50:16PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
Out of
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:44:54PM -0700, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Not one you want to hear: ditch NIS. It's known to have a *lot* of
security holes. At the very least, NIS+. Better would be either RH
NIS+ is a dead product. Even Sun gave up pushing it. (Funny; in 1995 the
Solaris training
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:50:16PM -0600, John R. Dennison wrote:
Out of curiousity, can you point me to writeups of known working
exploits against current yp-family versions on CentOS?
The problem isn't an exploit of the specific tools; the whole mechanism
is insecure, unless you
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
[mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 14:37
To: 'CentOS mailing list'
Subject: [CentOS] NIS failover
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS
servers
Jason Pyeron wrote:
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
[mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason Pyeron
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 14:37
To: 'CentOS mailing list'
Subject: [CentOS] NIS failover
We just updated our configuratiosn to have
Jason Pyeron wrote:
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
restart.
We've been using NIS like this for years - failover works
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:51:24AM +1300, Clint Dilks wrote:
How is your /etc/yp.conf defined. NIS failover works flawlessly here if
we have /etc/yp.conf like
ypserver nis2
ypserver nis
You also need to ensure you can resolve nis and nis2 without using
NIS, so you may also need to them into
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Jason Pyeron jpye...@pdinc.us wrote:
We just updated our configuratiosn to have multiple NIS servers, when we
initiated a test of client failover, we were disapointed.
It seemed that the only way to get a filaover was to /etc/init.d/ypbind
restart.
It
14 matches
Mail list logo
