-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 412-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Matt Zimmerman
January 5th, 2004
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 413-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
January 6th, 2004
Incoming from ZsoL:
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06.37, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Matt Zimmerman:
Debian Security Advisory DSA 411-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/security/
Matt Zimmerman January 5th, 2004
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:37:49PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Matt Zimmerman:
Debian Security Advisory DSA 411-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Matt Zimmerman
January 5th, 2004
--
Maciek Hofstede
PGP: http://www.demon.pl/max/max.pgp
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi!
When I recently read about problems with verifying the PGP signature of
DSAs, I realized that for most DSAs mutt does not automatically check
the signature.
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a
unsubscribeFraser Computer Consulting ServicesPC advice - Network Engineering - Network Security - Infrastructure solutionsEmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]Phone 0413 495 4236am -6pm 7 Days a week.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
* Lupe Christoph [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:25:27 +0100]:
When I recently read about problems with verifying the PGP signature of
DSAs, I realized that for most DSAs mutt does not automatically check
the signature.
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found
Hi Lupe,
* Lupe Christoph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a Content-Type as mutt
wants it:
Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign
- PGP/MIME
Newer
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 16:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:26:12PM +0100, kuene wrote:
[snip]
You are still wrong. What you do not understand is, when you install
Debian, you do not have the package kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 installed.
You have a copy of some of the files
On Montag Januar 5 2004 18:43, Marcel Weber wrote:
Whatever, I guess during the inital setup of LFS I made a mistake and
compiled these files statically... This probably explains the size. I do
not think, that they're belonging to a rootkit, as I have the same files
on my initial install
Rudolf Lohner wrote:
[snip]
file hello.dyn
hello.dyn: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped
file hello.stat
hello.stat: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, statically linked, not stripped
[snip]
Greetings, Rudolf
On Monday, 05 January 2004, at 17:21:52 +0100,
Teófilo Ruiz Suárez wrote:
What about 2.6? Is it fixed anyhow?
It seems to be fixed in 2.6.1-rc2, as Linus said. But the fix seems to
be temporary while kernel gurus and the people in charge of libc agree
on a better solution.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:29:41PM +0100, kuene wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 16:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:26:12PM +0100, kuene wrote:
[snip]
You are still wrong. What you do not understand is, when you install
Debian, you do not have the package
Hello!
I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the
GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg.
There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail
writes this in the messages window:
The message is signed, but the validity
LeVA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-06 18:22]:
Hello!
I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the
GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg.
There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail
writes this in the messages
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004. január 06. 18:26 dátummal Lukas Ruf ezt írta:
I assume the keys you try to make use of are for PGP 2.x -- thus they
require idea. As far as I found on the web, the gpg-idea package
somehow vanished. See my question I posted five minutes ago.
But there are not any gpg-idea packages
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 19:06:50 +0100, LeVA wrote:
But there are not any gpg-idea packages anywhere.
IDEA is patent encumbered in much of Europe, including The Netherlands where
non-us.debian.org is hosted and apparently Germany where ftp.gnupg.org is
hosted (AFAIK).
On the www.gnupg.org
2004. január 06. 19:17 dátummal J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) ezt írta:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 19:06:50 +0100, LeVA wrote:
But there are not any gpg-idea packages anywhere.
IDEA is patent encumbered in much of Europe, including The
Netherlands where non-us.debian.org is hosted and apparently Germany
Quoting Lukas Ruf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I assume the keys you try to make use of are for PGP 2.x -- thus they
require idea. As far as I found on the web, the gpg-idea package
somehow vanished. See my question I posted five minutes ago.
You probably already realise this, but idea.c is still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06.37, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Matt Zimmerman:
Debian Security Advisory DSA 411-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/security/
Matt Zimmerman January 5th,
Incoming from ZsoL:
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 06.37, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Matt Zimmerman:
Debian Security Advisory DSA 411-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/security/
Matt Zimmerman January 5th, 2004
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:37:49PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Matt Zimmerman:
Debian Security Advisory DSA 411-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/ Matt Zimmerman
January 5th, 2004
Hi!
When I recently read about problems with verifying the PGP signature of
DSAs, I realized that for most DSAs mutt does not automatically check
the signature.
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a
--
Maciek Hofstede
PGP: http://www.demon.pl/max/max.pgp
pgpvrBe1S0uq3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
unsubscribeFraser Computer Consulting ServicesPC advice - Network Engineering - Network Security - Infrastructure solutionsEmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]Phone 0413 495 4236am -6pm 7 Days a week.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
* Lupe Christoph [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:25:27 +0100]:
When I recently read about problems with verifying the PGP signature of
DSAs, I realized that for most DSAs mutt does not automatically check
the signature.
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 16:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:26:12PM +0100, kuene wrote:
[snip]
You are still wrong. What you do not understand is, when you install
Debian, you do not have the package kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 installed.
You have a copy of some of the files
Hi Lupe,
* Lupe Christoph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a Content-Type as mutt
wants it:
Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign
- PGP/MIME
Newer
On Monday, 05 January 2004, at 17:21:52 +0100,
Teófilo Ruiz Suárez wrote:
What about 2.6? Is it fixed anyhow?
It seems to be fixed in 2.6.1-rc2, as Linus said. But the fix seems to
be temporary while kernel gurus and the people in charge of libc agree
on a better solution.
Hello!
I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the
GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg.
There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail
writes this in the messages window:
The message is signed, but the validity
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:29:41PM +0100, kuene wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 16:57, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:26:12PM +0100, kuene wrote:
[snip]
You are still wrong. What you do not understand is, when you install
Debian, you do not have the package
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 19:06:50 +0100, LeVA wrote:
But there are not any gpg-idea packages anywhere.
IDEA is patent encumbered in much of Europe, including The Netherlands where
non-us.debian.org is hosted and apparently Germany where ftp.gnupg.org is
hosted (AFAIK).
On the www.gnupg.org
2004. január 06. 19:17 dátummal J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) ezt írta:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 19:06:50 +0100, LeVA wrote:
But there are not any gpg-idea packages anywhere.
IDEA is patent encumbered in much of Europe, including The
Netherlands where non-us.debian.org is hosted and apparently Germany
2004. január 06. 18:26 dátummal Lukas Ruf ezt írta:
I assume the keys you try to make use of are for PGP 2.x -- thus they
require idea. As far as I found on the web, the gpg-idea package
somehow vanished. See my question I posted five minutes ago.
But there are not any gpg-idea packages
Quoting Lukas Ruf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I assume the keys you try to make use of are for PGP 2.x -- thus they
require idea. As far as I found on the web, the gpg-idea package
somehow vanished. See my question I posted five minutes ago.
You probably already realise this, but idea.c is still
LeVA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-06 18:22]:
Hello!
I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the
GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg.
There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail
writes this in the messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Clinging to sanity, Alexander Neumann mumbled in his beard:
Hi Lupe,
* Lupe Christoph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comparing the DSAs and reading how mutt recognizes a PGP signed message,
I found that only some DSAs from Martin Schulze have a
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:36:28AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Martin Schulze:
- --
Debian Security Advisory DSA 407-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/security/
Hi Listreaders,
I just found exim's(3) config file in woody is installed with 0644 file
permission by default. This might be okay for standard-installation, but might
that not rise a security bug as soon, as you use either
- client side authentification and have to insert the password there
Hi Listreaders,
sorry for the double-post, but after accidently writing my prior email with
the worng subject, and someone noted (PM) that some of you might drop mails
with 'unsubcribe' subject, i do a repost of my message.
Here is what i wrote:
I just found exim's(3) config file in woody is
43 matches
Mail list logo
