_
MSN. Más Útil cada Día. http://www.msn.es/intmap/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hantzley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thus:
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Your comments and ideas are the most
Have a look at the -p option in netstat.
Tim
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:36:48AM +0400, Hantzley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services.
Hi,
Moses Moore écrivait :
Is there a more efficient way of getting slapper to not grab my webserver
connections? I've considered recompiling apache to get rid of the
Server: HTTP response header line completely, but deploying a recompiled
binary (and recompiling every time) across
On 0, Ian H. Greenhoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
BTW: netstat vs. lsof:
netstat is more likely to be installed than lsof, and only shows relevant
items when you are wondering about net connections to process IDs.
What irrelevant items does 'lsof -i' show?
Tom
--
Tom Cook
Information
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Netstat options have already been mentioned, and one person suggested
lsof. I would add fuser
Tom Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW: netstat vs. lsof:
netstat is more likely to be installed than lsof, and only shows relevant
items when you are wondering about net connections to process IDs.
What irrelevant items does 'lsof -i' show?
To horribly abuse the infamous quote (which is
Hi,
Dorneles Treméa écrivait :
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1], but take a look at:
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=9506623list=513
Just looks like: oh yes, they are rules (say RFC) telling we should drive
on the right side of the road, but I discovered that for
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anne Carasik wrote:
Hi all,
I have something I've been trying to do with quite some
time--the joys of log parsing.
I have installed log_analysis, and it seems to be the
best tool to do the job. However, the man pages are
very difficult to read, and there are not any clear
examples of
Hi
I need to setup a Debian Woody server with th following:
* SMTP (i like sendmail) with:
+ incomming authentication SECURE
to send an email with this server it MUST be necessary authentication
with SSL
* POP3 (i like qpopper)
+ outgoing authentication SECURE
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see
http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html
The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192
returns: OK.
In fact I should get :
rewrite: ruleset 192 returns:
What might concern you is Spanish law regarding the use/import of
cryptography.
Which law might that be? Last I checked there was none.
Javi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But have you been able to authenticate via SSL to qmail? i patched
qmail-smtpd but i could either authenticate, or make ssl connection. never
the both at the same time.
Statu Nascendi,
Master of Own Disaster.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Marziani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Hi Christian Schuerer-Waldheim!!!
Google is your friend!
Yes i know.. ;-)
http://www.stunnel.org/patches/desc/syslog_danilche.html
http://www.stunnel.org/download/stunnel/mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel/stunnel.html
I think he meant France with the limitation of 56 bit encription.
Marcel
PGP / GPG Key:http://www.ncpro.com/GPG/mmweber-at-ncpro-com.asc
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Actually, I was not trying to make any specific statement about
non-US cryptography law - I have no details on any specifics. I was
just making a generalized statement that local law should apply
rather than US law.
BTW, What ever happened to the
Kaixo Giacomo Mulas!!!
I need authentication + SSL (with/out stunnel/wrapper) to relay email.
What about one of the many MTAs which natively support tls? Off the top of
my head I remember the exim-tls and postfix-tls packages, there surely are
many others. I _think_ (but did not try)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL
If you arn't using ancient sendmail, (woody's is fine) use the dnsbl
feature in your sendmail.mc: (examples from my sendmail.mc, see the
web pages before you use any dnsbl)
BTW, What ever happened to the EU urging citizens to use
cryptography because of ECHELON?
I've doing some research... mainly on www.europa.eu.int. Maybe this
enligtens you:
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/PublicHearingPresentations/AOL.html
Even there is some debate
Quoting Giacomo Mulas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What about one of the many MTAs which natively support tls?
Not excessively difficult with any of the most-used MTAs, in any event.
Some (Postfix, Qmail, Exim) require patching/extensions or a prepatched
package. Some (Sendmail, Courier-MTA) do not.
Marcel Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he meant France with the limitation of 56 bit encription.
It doesn't exist any more. It used to be 128 bits for some time (I think
it's still 128 bits for undeclared secret-key crypto-systems, but
IANAL), and since the 15th of July 2002, the key
Hi,
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded the base-passwd
package. The root
password seems to be upgraded also, since one of the two machines doesn't allow
su-ing to root any
more; regular users can log in normally. The other box is okay.
Anyone else had the same
On 2002/10/10 11:24:38PM +0300, Thu, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki R??bert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
the
* Michael Marziani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There have been no security hacks to qmail for over 3 years.
Sendmail certainly can't say that.
Depends what your definition of security hacks is.
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
sendmail is by no means perfect, but
El 10 de oct de 2002, a las 09:31 +, P. Ook escribio:
Hi all,
I've found 'synchronized pings' in my logs from several
hosts all around the world.
Today they where 11 hosts more or less doing ping to my
Debian box at the same time
(11 pings in the same second). Sure this is not
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
FYI:
...
Thanks, that was enlightening.
--
Scott Moynes http://www.icculus.org/openbox/
Computer science is as much about computers
as astronomy is about telescopes. -- Dijkstra
msg07333/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Quoting Scott Moynes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Thanks, that was enlightening.
Yr. very welcome. I count it a major success when I can add clarity to
a traditionally flame-shrouded subject. ;-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
hi ya
you can try some of my *.mc files w/ rbl
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Mail
- click on the sendmail stuff
and i'd install check_local too so that i can check headers,
message id and some virus
c ya
alvin
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Hantzley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I can su to root from the console but in Konsole i get the following:
su
Password:
su: Error in service module
Sorry.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki Róbert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
the base-passwd package. The root password seems to be upgraded
also,
How about an nmap decoy scan with initial ICMP ping of the scanned host, does it
explain what you saw ?
Did you check all these addresses if they were up at the moment of the .. er .. attack?
BR,
Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701
http://boyan.ludost.net/
Just another techie speaking for himself
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Your comments and ideas are
On 0, Hantzley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Your comments and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can't remember where I found this program, but it should do what you want:
http://packetspike.net/~daniel/programs/sockstat.c
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 10:36 pm, Hantzley wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a
Thank you very much for your help. It was a Windows 2000 Server box in the same
LAN
sending packets to 224.0.1.24 ;-)
Bye!
__
Consigue tu e-mail gratuito en Lycos. Entra en http://www.lycos.es
Consigue tu propio Hosting y Dominio al mejor
_
MSN. Más Útil cada Día. http://www.msn.es/intmap/
Hantzley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thus:
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port?
e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Your comments and ideas are the most
netstat -anp (p is the option that shows you process/pid)
compare to entries in /etc/services to see if something's fishy
Statu Nascendi
Master of Own Disaster.
- Original Message -
From: Hantzley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, October 10,
Have a look at the -p option in netstat.
Tim
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:36:48AM +0400, Hantzley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services.
Hi,
Moses Moore écrivait :
Is there a more efficient way of getting slapper to not grab my webserver
connections? I've considered recompiling apache to get rid of the
Server: HTTP response header line completely, but deploying a recompiled
binary (and recompiling every time) across a
On 0, Ian H. Greenhoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
BTW: netstat vs. lsof:
netstat is more likely to be installed than lsof, and only shows relevant
items when you are wondering about net connections to process IDs.
What irrelevant items does 'lsof -i' show?
Tom
--
Tom Cook
Information
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port? e.g.,
port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to which process
do they pertain to, that's another issue?
Netstat options have already been mentioned, and one person suggested
lsof. I would add fuser
Tom Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW: netstat vs. lsof:
netstat is more likely to be installed than lsof, and only shows relevant
items when you are wondering about net connections to process IDs.
What irrelevant items does 'lsof -i' show?
To horribly abuse the infamous quote (which is
Hi,
Dorneles Treméa écrivait :
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1], but take a look at:
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=9506623list=513
Just looks like: oh yes, they are rules (say RFC) telling we should drive
on the right side of the road, but I discovered that for
Anne Carasik wrote:
Hi all,
I have something I've been trying to do with quite some
time--the joys of log parsing.
I have installed log_analysis, and it seems to be the
best tool to do the job. However, the man pages are
very difficult to read, and there are not any clear
examples of how to
I'm in doubt, the difference between 1.3.26 and 1.3.27 is security
bugfix. Is the 1.3.26 debian apache from security containing all of those
bugfixes?
--
Easter-eggsSpécialiste GNU/Linux
44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France - Métro Gaité
Phone: +33
Hi
I need to setup a Debian Woody server with th following:
* SMTP (i like sendmail) with:
+ incomming authentication SECURE
to send an email with this server it MUST be necessary authentication
with SSL
* POP3 (i like qpopper)
+ outgoing authentication SECURE
to
Try this.
http://packages.debian.org/stable/non-us/sslwrap.html
/Magnus Wiklander.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Iñaki Martínez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 10 oktober 2002 15:02
Till: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Ämne: SMTP and POP3 with ssl + login/password
Hi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see
http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html
The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192
returns: OK.
In fact I should get :
rewrite: ruleset 192 returns:
What might concern you is Spanish law regarding the use/import of
cryptography.
Which law might that be? Last I checked there was none.
Javi
This is just my opinion, but I much prefer qmail to sendmail. There's
something to be said for using what you're familiar with, but coming
from the sendmail camp there is no doubt in my mind that we made the
right decision switching to qmail.
There have been no security hacks to qmail for over 3
Hi!
I need to setup a Debian Woody server with th following:
* SMTP (i like sendmail) with:
+ incomming authentication SECURE
to send an email with this server it MUST be necessary authentication
with SSL
* POP3 (i like qpopper)
+ outgoing authentication SECURE
Kaixo Magnus Wiklander!!!
Try this.
http://packages.debian.org/stable/non-us/sslwrap.html
With this a solve the SSL problem, but with SMTP i do not have authentication.
This also can be done with stunnel..
I need to setup a Debian Woody server with th following:
* SMTP (i
But have you been able to authenticate via SSL to qmail? i patched
qmail-smtpd but i could either authenticate, or make ssl connection. never
the both at the same time.
Statu Nascendi,
Master of Own Disaster.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Marziani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Hi Christian Schuerer-Waldheim!!!
Google is your friend!
Yes i know.. ;-)
http://www.stunnel.org/patches/desc/syslog_danilche.html
http://www.stunnel.org/download/stunnel/mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel/stunnel.html
I think he meant France with the limitation of 56 bit encription.
Marcel
PGP / GPG Key:http://www.ncpro.com/GPG/mmweber-at-ncpro-com.asc
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10.
Kaixo Statu Nascendi!!!
But have you been able to authenticate via SSL to qmail? i patched
qmail-smtpd but i could either authenticate, or make ssl connection. never
the both at the same time.
I prefere Sendmail, if not qmail...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Actually, I was not trying to make any specific statement about
non-US cryptography law - I have no details on any specifics. I was
just making a generalized statement that local law should apply
rather than US law.
BTW, What ever happened to the EU
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Iñaki Martínez wrote:
I need authentication + SSL (with/out stunnel/wrapper) to relay email.
What about one of the many MTAs which natively support tls? Off the top of
my head I remember the exim-tls and postfix-tls packages, there surely are
many others. I _think_ (but
Kaixo Giacomo Mulas!!!
I need authentication + SSL (with/out stunnel/wrapper) to relay email.
What about one of the many MTAs which natively support tls? Off the top of
my head I remember the exim-tls and postfix-tls packages, there surely are
many others. I _think_ (but did not try) that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL
If you arn't using ancient sendmail, (woody's is fine) use the dnsbl
feature in your sendmail.mc: (examples from my sendmail.mc, see the
web pages before you use any dnsbl)
BTW, What ever happened to the EU urging citizens to use
cryptography because of ECHELON?
I've doing some research... mainly on www.europa.eu.int. Maybe this
enligtens you:
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/PublicHearingPresentations/AOL.html
Even there is some debate
Quoting Giacomo Mulas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What about one of the many MTAs which natively support tls?
Not excessively difficult with any of the most-used MTAs, in any event.
Some (Postfix, Qmail, Exim) require patching/extensions or a prepatched
package. Some (Sendmail, Courier-MTA) do not.
Marcel Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he meant France with the limitation of 56 bit encription.
It doesn't exist any more. It used to be 128 bits for some time (I think
it's still 128 bits for undeclared secret-key crypto-systems, but
IANAL), and since the 15th of July 2002, the key
Hi,
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded the
base-passwd package. The root
password seems to be upgraded also, since one of the two machines doesn't
allow su-ing to root any
more; regular users can log in normally. The other box is okay.
Anyone else had the same
On Thu 10 Oct 02 15:47, Iñaki Martínez wrote:
Kaixo Magnus Wiklander!!!
Try this.
http://packages.debian.org/stable/non-us/sslwrap.html
With this a solve the SSL problem, but with SMTP i do not have
authentication.
info exim.
You'll need to mess around with lookups and lsearches.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hantzley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to know to which process belong a particular port?
e.g., port 32773 - 32779, are known to be for rpc services. But to
which process do they pertain to, that's another issue?
First, read through
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki Róbert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded the
base-passwd package. The root password seems to be upgraded also, since
one of the two machines doesn't allow su-ing to root any more; regular
users can log in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki Róbert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
the base-passwd package. The root password seems to be upgraded
also,
On 2002/10/10 11:24:38PM +0300, Thu, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki R??bert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
the
Hi all,
I've found 'synchronized pings' in my logs from several hosts all around the
world.
Today they where 11 hosts more or less doing ping to my Debian box at the same
time
(11 pings in the same second). Sure this is not a DOS attack, almost for my
server,
but i can't understand why they
El 10 de oct de 2002, a las 09:31 +, P. Ook escribio:
Hi all,
I've found 'synchronized pings' in my logs from several hosts all around the
world.
Today they where 11 hosts more or less doing ping to my Debian box at the
same time
(11 pings in the same second). Sure this is not a DOS
* Michael Marziani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There have been no security hacks to qmail for over 3 years.
Sendmail certainly can't say that.
Depends what your definition of security hacks is.
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
sendmail is by no means perfect, but
El 10 de oct de 2002, a las 09:31 +, P. Ook escribio:
Hi all,
I've found 'synchronized pings' in my logs from several
hosts all around the world.
Today they where 11 hosts more or less doing ping to my
Debian box at the same time
(11 pings in the same second). Sure this is not
Quoting Scott Moynes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Michael Marziani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There have been no security hacks to qmail for over 3 years.
Sendmail certainly can't say that.
Depends what your definition of security hacks is.
* Rick Moen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
FYI:
...
Thanks, that was enlightening.
--
Scott Moynes http://www.icculus.org/openbox/
Computer science is as much about computers
as astronomy is about telescopes. -- Dijkstra
pgpEbnR0C04Yr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Quoting Scott Moynes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Thanks, that was enlightening.
Yr. very welcome. I count it a major success when I can add clarity to
a traditionally flame-shrouded subject. ;-
hi ya
you can try some of my *.mc files w/ rbl
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Mail
- click on the sendmail stuff
and i'd install check_local too so that i can check headers,
message id and some virus
c ya
alvin
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Hantzley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 21:31:13 -, Kisteleki Róbert wrote:
Yesterday I upgraded two severs with apt, which in turn upgraded
the base-passwd package. The root password seems to be upgraded
also, since
I had the same problem. This kind of initiative by the package
shouldn't be so passive. It should be corrected, or one might find
themselves frustrated.
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 23:51, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can su to root from the console but in Konsole i get the following:
su
Password:
su: Error in service module
Sorry.
83 matches
Mail list logo
