Ángel Martín Alganza wrote:
Of course, it is. Again... I was thinking about a LAN... actually, I
think most of the time about two very similar scenarios: my class-
room (I teach BioInformatics) and my brother's WebCafé... in both
places I like to have thin diskless clients booting from floppy as
I got OpenSSH 3.3p1 working today with priv separation, but compression
must be disabled (mmap error.)
A couple of questions:
- 3.3p1 with priv separation wants to have a sshd user and a
sshd group. Those aren't in Bering or Oxygen's passwd/group/shadow
files. I made the
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 08:08, Mike Noyes wrote:
The vulnerability details are now public.
Thanks for the heads-up, Mike. Unfortunately I only subscribe to the
digest, so I got your notice after my post.
Needless to say, I'll be putting together a brand-new *3.4* openSSH lrp
I've compiled new openSSH 3.4p1 lrps based on J. Nilo's packages.
Since they are larger than the patch manager limit,
they are available for download at http://www.nothome.org:8000/
I'll leave the page up until next Friday (5 Jul 2002.)
The md5 sums for the packages are:
I'm curious about /etc/group modification?
I've upgraded two (2) potato's and two (2) woody's. Yes, there is a
new user in passwd/shadow; but, I do not have any new group for
sshd.
Yes, I have seen the instructions for installing manually; but, I
cannot find a reason for the special group.
To sum up many posts and hopefully wrap up this thread...
I've posted a new sshd.lrp at www.nothome.org:8000
The only change is a new /usr/sbin/add-sshd-user script, in response to Charles'
comment that it would be nice to have a script to add the sshd user. The script isn't
pretty, and
In both Oxygen and Bering the /etc/gshadow and /etc/group files appear to have very
different entries. Generally, gshadow is a superset of what is in group.
It looks like cruft from the old LRP (2.0.x kernel) days, but does anyone know of a
good reason why the two should not be in sync?
Better sense tells me I should probably keep quiet, but ...
Back when this discussion came up previously (Dec 2001/Jan 2002?) I
was able to get micro_httpd working with an embedded lua interpreter.
It allows one to write html code with inline lua scripting, like php.
To add some real
One reason I used to use Oxygen a lot is that it has
command recall and filename/directoryname completion
as part of it's shell, which I think is ash. But I
don't get what's different on the other LEAFs. Don't
people use the same shell? Also it has a a working $PWD.
Well, command
It pains me to realize that I've been using command
recall in Ox, DF, and BF for a long time now. The
up arrow works great. My apologies for losing my mind.
Perhaps you aren't losing your mind...
Do you also have the experience that that ash seems
to have problems with the up-arrow command
After (years) of thinking about how to do a php-lite, I finally finished a
cgi for use inside a small web server. I use thttpd on bering, but this
should work wtih weblet (sh-httpd). The code compiles to about 11K with
2.2.5 glibc (yeah, non-standard bering). It compiles much smaller against
Note: I am NOT wanting to start another which package system is best
discussion, I'm just looking for comments, observations you all may
have...
Having used lrp (original), oxygen, Dachstein, bering, and uClib
bering, I'm very familiar with the .lrp package structure. Currently
we have
--- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big thing to consider is the fact that .deb packages were not
made
to re-build the full OS at each reboot, ie: they presume persistent
storage. If you're running your systems off a HDD, that might not
be a
problem for you, at
--- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan,
Would you mind making your diff of apkg available?
Sure. It doesn't do the http/ftp gets like the real apkg did, and the
include/exclude logic is closer to serge's packetfilter than it is to
standard lrp, so it's a little different from
--- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan,
Would you mind making your diff of apkg available?
Mike, I put the package as it exists and some description here
http://www.tetrasec.net/index.cgi?page=ApkgLRP
As always, comments, suggestions welcome.
--- Ray Olszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually no. I meant people other than Erich who are either upstream
developers (e.g., Tom) or packagers (e.g., Charles). That is, the
sorts of
people who will actually have to use, or to ignore (as they have up
to now,
saving the
I put out a sample of a web configuration out for review, its based on
what we are currently using, although somewhat crippled - I just
pulled a few pages out of a running system, and hacked them to work
with UCBering... Screen snapshots and the code are at:
I posted a sample WebUI for review, and back in July 12 one
of the uClibc development team wrote me. I didn't notice the message
until yesterday. The message was a very polite query, and I think a
response to the list is warranted. Basically, it was who are you,
and why won't you release your
I'm (attempting) to write some developer notes (guide) on the webconf
framework. I'm trying to write something in the style of the
bering-uc-developer's guide.The CVS sources for the other chapters don't
list what generated the xml source.
Obviously editing xml by hand with bare vi
On Friday 24 September 2004 12:53 pm, Mike Noyes wrote:
What is the status of webconf?
The current version in cvs provides a web version of lrcfg and the backup
script. It works for me, but hasn't been tested much.
I've received a number of good suggestions from the uClibc-Bering crew, and as
On Friday 01 October 2004 12:20 pm, Thorsten von Eicken wrote:
development seems to have ceased in 2002. Is Bering-uClibc the way to go
now? Thanks!
Thorsten - Santa Barbara
Hello!
I made the switch from Oxygen for two reasons:
A) Bering-uClibc appears to be the only product in active
A web-based configuration package for Bering-uClibc is available at:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/leaf/devel/nangel/webconf/lrp/webconf.lrp
This package provides the monitoring functions of weblet and adds web-based
tools to perform all of the steps found in the various installation
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588alloc_id=12065op=click
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588alloc_id=12065op=click
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588alloc_id=12065op=click
To allow third-party plugins for webconf, I would like to propose the
following:
webconf plugins have the name LWP (Leaf [Webconf | Web] [Plugin |
Package])
The format is a gzipped tar archive with
/var/webconf/www/*.cgi
/var/webconf/conf/*.webconf
For instance, the dropbear.lwp could
On Monday 08 November 2004 18:05, Erich Titl wrote:
I ported haserl to glibc 2.0.7, a few mods were needed to make it compile
Thanks!
I posted your fixes on sourceforge - the new release is 0.7.2
What is the reason for pwcrypt as opposed to htpasswd from mini-httpd?
BTW... if you want to
An updated webconf.lrp for Bering-uClibc is now available at:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/leaf/devel/nangel/webconf/lrp/webconf.lrp
This version has the following new features:
+The mini_httpd web server no longer needs to be root (you can now use the
default sh-httpd user)
+The
Thanks for all the positive feedback on webconf so far. There is a
suggestion that webconf.lrp (core) be just a weblet replacement, and the
current expert menu set be moved into webconf.lwp.
The reason is situations where an admin wants to give a customer read-only
rights to web pages for
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 04:06, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
To make webconf a full weblet replacement, there are some things to
enhance:
- add 'pretty shorewall logs'
You mean the table format (parsefw)? or is there more?
- simplify log file viewing by not opening a separate window
I was
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 04:06, Luis.F.Correia wrote:
To make webconf a full weblet replacement, there are some things to
enhance:
- add 'pretty shorewall logs'
The version in CVS now has an attempt at parsing the shorewall logs. My
initial reaction was pretty firewall formatting
Beta 3 of webconf.lrp for Bering-uClibc is now available. This version splits
out the weblet functions from extra plugins.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/leaf/devel/nangel/webconf/lrp/webconf.lrp
contains only weblet-like monitoring functions, plus tools to back up the
modules. The
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 08:07, Erich Titl wrote:
Nathan
Would you consider to split off haserl and pwcrypt from webconf.lrp.
IMHO this would make webconf extremely portable.
Erich,
My first reaction was but that's what makes it go! Its like removing pluto
from ipsec.lrp or pppd from
Erich, Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:56, Erich Titl wrote:
Nathan
I am trying to upgrade webconf to the latest beta and to my environment.
A few questions arise.
- The left menu bar in my case has a Networking and a System entry along
with entries for
On Friday 17 December 2004 10:06, Erich Titl wrote:
Nathan, Roger
Do you believe there is a way to synchronize this work, so we won't do
parallel stuff and avoid portability issues.
cheers
Erich
Hi Erich,
I guess we need to communicate clearly through this list, but do you have any
Hi Roger,
On Thursday 16 December 2004 10:16, Roger E McClurg wrote:
thought that I might be able to help in developing LWPs. I was wondering
who was currently working on LWPs and which ones they are working on. If
there is a particular LWP that needs attacking, I'd be glad to give it a
Hi list,
This is mainly for the uClibc folks, and its really a uClibc related question,
but since I'm using buildtool.pl, I'll ask here first.
I'm trying to compile haserl in the buildtool.pl environment. (K.-P. gave me
working buildtool.mk cfg files, so that part works.)
buildtool.pl
Since malloc is a pretty common function... is there a standard trick to
getting the ./configure script to work correctly? I'm a newbie at autoconf
too - so if there's a test I should put there, that's fine...
You could try removing AC_FUNC_MALLOC in the configure.ac script.
--
Thanks
On Monday 04 April 2005 10:49, Andrea Galmacci - awd wrote:
Just to give continuity to my previous announcement, this is to confirm my
committment to port my scripts collection for Shorewall (already published
as a tarball for 'standard' distros that could use apache + sudo) under
webconf -
I will be happy to post your webconf plugins in with the existing plugins for
you. (Currently they are stored in my leaf devel cvs tree.)
If you write a webconf plugin and would rather keep it somewhere else, thats
fine too - if you drop me a note I'll put a pointer in the cvs tree giving
Noyes wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 16:07, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
I will be happy to post your webconf plugins in with the existing plugins
for you. (Currently they are stored in my leaf devel cvs tree.)
If you write a webconf plugin and would rather keep it somewhere else,
thats fine too
17:08, K.-P. Kirchdörfer wrote:
Hi Nathan,
be careful with moving - that's a good place for beta's and new
developements...
I'd suggest a lwp reository in nolibc or something like that.
kp
Am Mittwoch, 6. April 2005 23:02 schrieb Nathan Angelacos:
Mike,
I'm all for anything
2005 10:31, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 04:55, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
There are two different things in the present webconf cvs repository:
Source code for the core; and I assume that it could go in config (or
stay under devel/nangel)
binary lrps lwps; and for the binary
Mike,
I would like write access (I just tried to commit something and just got an
access denied message.)
I think you could also add the core Bering-uClib core team as well.
Thanks.
On Friday 22 April 2005 10:55, Mike Noyes wrote:
Nathan,
I had the SF staff move webconfig source. Please
On Thursday 12 May 2005 11:10, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 05:43, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
I would like write access (I just tried to commit something and just got
an access denied message.)
I think you could also add the core Bering-uClib core team as well.
Nathan,
Done
(I'm including this only to the developer list since it is probably more a
developer issue.)
Eric House submitted a patch to logfiles.cgi that allows the pretty-formatted
shorewall logs to be sorted by any column (nice!)
I committed everything to CVS today, including a new webconf.lrp, so its
This is just a post to document some differences in webconf.lrp,
depending on where it comes from.
The short version is: If you use Bering-uClibc, use the webconf.lrp
included with Bering-uClibc. (e.g. you don't need to do anything, and
can ignore the rest of this message.)
In the cvs tree,
I have posted a pdf containing an idea for a configuration management system,
and would appreciate any extra peer review cycles you folks could spare:
http://www.tetrasec.net/data/itsyconfigurationmanagementsystem.pdf
The basic concept is to take configruation management of LEAF routers to the
Mike,
I fully recognize that nobody else is stepping up as Documentation/Website
Admin, and we all appreciate the job you are doing. I hope you'll take
these as comments of what one person sees could make things a little better.
Its just my perspective - and you are more than welcome to
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 12:48, Mike Noyes wrote:
Also it would be
nice if the contents of Nathan's CVS space could be moved to a more
generic place (I think we need Kp for this).
This requires opening a SR with the SF staff. Any one of our project
admins can do this.
Clarfication -
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 13:40, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:09, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
What's NOT in leaf/src/config/webconf is all of the .lwp's (anything
beyond webconf.lrp / webconf.lwp)Perhaps there's a place for them in
the same spot.
Nathan,
How about a new
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 17:19, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 12:50, Nathan Angelacos wrote:
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:03, Eric Spakman wrote:
Who is going to put the available lwp packages in
leaf/bin/config/webconf? Just a question.
I can take care of the ones
Hi Eric,
--- Eric Spakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Yes you do lose, having the configs in separate files but you
solve alot
of other things.
There is a very big problem with seperating the configs from the
packages
itself. You loose the consistency between the two. For
Bering uClibc team,
Eric alerted me to the broken backup packages webconf. (sorry)
While looking at it, I have a quick question re the new backup system.
Should it be possible to backup moddb/configdb to any of the destinations
in /var/lib/lrpkg/pkgpath.disks, or does it now just use the
Hi Eric,
I just posted the source and binary versions of webconf.lrp and webconf.lwp.
Your changes to lrcfg.back.cgi were heroic. I decided to shortcut the whole
thing and make webconf (backup, at least) work with Bering uClibc *only*.
(Since Bering uClibc is the only one being updated at
Tom Eastep wrote:
Natanael Copa wrote:
Have you thought of lua? should give you better performance than perl
and would still be small enough for embedded. I can't say I have been
looking at the shorewall code, but lua is very table oriented, which
might be good for your table based config
56 matches
Mail list logo
