On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:55 PM Charles Curley
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:00:29 +
> Andy Smith wrote:
>
> > In my view a great example of the "people other than me just need to
> > get good" fallacy merged with the group of people predisposed to
> > hate systemd.
> >
> > It could have
On 4/1/24 21:37, Christian Gelinek wrote:
Hi,
I have ImageMagick installed, but only the `convert` binary is in my path.
Other binaries like `magick` are not. Where can I find them,
In Synaptic, if you get the properties of an installed package one of the
tabs is "installed files". You can
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:06:40PM -0400, e...@gmx.us wrote:
> On 4/1/24 21:37, Christian Gelinek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have ImageMagick installed, but only the `convert` binary is in my path.
> >
> > Other binaries like `magick` are not. Where can I find them,
>
> In Synaptic, if you get
Am Dienstag, dem 02.04.2024 um 13:35 +1030 schrieb Christian Gelinek:
> Thank you all for your responses.
>
> On 2/4/24 12:41, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:06:40PM -0400, e...@gmx.us wrote:
> >
> > The command-line equivalent is "dpkg -L", to list the files that belong
>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:19:18PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2024 01 Apr 14:01 -0500, Andy Smith wrote:
[...]
> Until now, who anticipated this? I'm sure there are security
> researchers who have and it's likely that I'm not well-read enough on
> this topic to have seen it discussed.
Thank you all for your responses.
On 2/4/24 12:41, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:06:40PM -0400, e...@gmx.us wrote:
>
> The command-line equivalent is "dpkg -L", to list the files that belong
> to an installed package.
I should note that down somewhere... I'm sure I've come
* On 2024 01 Apr 16:55 -0500, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:00:29 +
> Andy Smith wrote:
>
> > In my view a great example of the "people other than me just need to
> > get good" fallacy merged with the group of people predisposed to
> > hate systemd.
> >
> > It could have
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 07:00:29PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:33:37AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > From what I have read, lzma is not a direct dependency of openssh. It
> > turns out that it lzma is a dependency of libsystemd and that
> > relationship
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:07:47 +1030
Christian Gelinek wrote:
> I have ImageMagick installed, but only the `convert` binary is in my
> path.
>
> Other binaries like `magick` are not. Where can I find them, why
> aren't they installed?
man imagemagick
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
Am 27.03.2024 um 22:30 schrieb Lee:
> oof. Are there instructions somewhere on how to make Debian secure by
> default?
To be honest: I did not read this thread, as my spidey senses got
tingling. IMHO Even the idea/concept, that such a thing would be
possible, is broken.
Sounds like: Get me a
Hi,
I have ImageMagick installed, but only the `convert` binary is in my path.
Other binaries like `magick` are not. Where can I find them, why aren't
they installed?
Thanks,
Christian
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:19:18PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> I've no idea of Jacob Bachmeyer's bias toward systemd, if any,
> other than "katamari" apparently refers to a Japanese video game I
> know absolutely nothing about.
I also don't know anything of Bachmeyer and very little of
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:34 AM Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> * On 2024 31 Mar 20:46 -0500, Andy Smith wrote:
> > In the xz case the further you go looking for a root cause the wider
> > the implications are:
> >
> > Q: Why was there a back door in sshd?
> > A: Because some malicious code was linked to
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:33:37AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> From what I have read, lzma is not a direct dependency of openssh. It
> turns out that it lzma is a dependency of libsystemd and that
> relationship affected openssh.
>
> Jacob Bachmeyer in analysis
>
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 13:50:22 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Joe writes:
> > I think this was amply demonstrated by Heartbleed, where the
> > offending code was examined by *one* other pair of eyes, before
> > approval was granted for inclusion in OpenSSL.
>
> The "many eyes" phase comes after
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:00:29 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> In my view a great example of the "people other than me just need to
> get good" fallacy merged with the group of people predisposed to
> hate systemd.
>
> It could have been any direct or indirect dependency of sshd here.
> I'm quite sure
Joe writes:
> I think this was amply demonstrated by Heartbleed, where the offending
> code was examined by *one* other pair of eyes, before approval was
> granted for inclusion in OpenSSL.
The "many eyes" phase comes after release.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Joe writes:
> Which didn't happen, at least not for two years.
It happened eventually, which is my point.
> I would suggest that for any software as critical as OpenSSL, more
> than one pair of eyes would have been appropriate *before* release.
I would suggest that critical projects such as
On 4/1/24 03:10, DdB wrote:
Am 01.04.2024 um 07:44 schrieb David Christensen:
Please post a console session that identifies the ISO you are using,
verifies the checksum, burns the ISO to a USB flash drive, and compares
the ISO against the flash drive.
Ok, in the meantime, i came to similar
Am 01.04.2024 um 18:52 schrieb David Christensen:
> A bad USB flash drive would explain why you cannot boot the Debian
> installer. Please buy a good quality USB 3.0+ flash drive and try again.
A friend of mine just let me use an external CD-Drive with the netboot
image. This is already the
* On 2024 01 Apr 14:01 -0500, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:33:37AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > From what I have read, lzma is not a direct dependency of openssh. It
> > turns out that it lzma is a dependency of libsystemd and that
> > relationship affected openssh.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 01:45:07 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> "enough eyes make all bugs shallow"
> doesn't hold true unless the process is actually providing those
> eyes.
>
I think this was amply demonstrated by Heartbleed, where the offending
code was examined by *one* other pair of eyes, before
hallo Darac,
Darac Marjal writes:
> On 01/04/2024 07:55, Felix Natter wrote:
>
> hello debian-users,
>
> I configured autofs for /home:
>
> * -fstype=nfs,rw,soft,bg,intr SERVER:/share/&
>
> Just to point out that this is "/share", not "/home". You might have set
> user's home directories to be
At http://deb.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-amd64/ we can find
files with SHA256 sums of packages. Unfortunately they are only 2 weeks
old. Is this possible to have little older files? (For example month or
2)?
KJ
--
http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html
* On 2024 31 Mar 20:46 -0500, Andy Smith wrote:
> In the xz case the further you go looking for a root cause the wider
> the implications are:
>
> Q: Why was there a back door in sshd?
> A: Because some malicious code was linked to it.
>
> Q: How did malicious code get linked to it?
> A: Its
Am 01.04.2024 um 07:44 schrieb David Christensen:
>
>
> A computer with a 6-core processor, 64 GB memory, and 9 drive bays/
> ports that cannot boot USB? That does not make sense.
Why not?
>
>
> Please post a console session that identifies the ISO you are using,
> verifies the checksum,
On 01/04/2024 07:55, Felix Natter wrote:
hello debian-users,
I configured autofs for /home:
* -fstype=nfs,rw,soft,bg,intr SERVER:/share/&
Just to point out that this is "/share", not "/home". You might have set
user's home directories to be /share/, but you've not
mentioned that explicitly.
On 2024-04-01, DdB wrote:
>> A computer with a 6-core processor, 64 GB memory, and 9 drive bays/
>> ports that cannot boot USB? That does not make sense.
>
> Why not?
Perhaps because usb boot is available since a very long time
> *should* is the correct word. The board being over 10 years old,
Debian-user is a mailing list provided for support for Debian users,
and to facilitate discussion on relevant topics.
Codes of Conduct
* The list is a Debian communication forum. As such, it is subject to both
the Debian mailing list Code of Conduct and the main Debian Code of
hello debian-users,
I configured autofs for /home:
* -fstype=nfs,rw,soft,bg,intr SERVER:/share/&
But now the login as "admin" does not work any more, since
it tries to mount SERVER:/share/admin -> Is it possible to exclude
a user from automounting?
The workaround [1] I use is this:
admin
30 matches
Mail list logo
