Renat Golubchyk wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the
same. The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened? Did
something go wrong in the emerge process? There's no sign of any
attackers.
They are always the same since net.eth0 (and all other net.<interface>)
is a symlink to net.lo.
then that's what broke. net.lo looks like it should and my net.eth0
looks like:
relay2 ~ # more /etc/init.d/net.eth0
#!/sbin/runscript
# Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/rc-scripts/init.d/net.lo,v 1.10
2004/04/21 17:09:18 vapier Exp $
start() {
ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} up"
/sbin/ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 up 2>/dev/null
/sbin/route add -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 \
gw 127.0.0.1 dev lo 2> /dev/null
eend 0
}
stop() {
ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} down"
/sbin/ifconfig ${IFACE} down &>/dev/null
eend 0
}
I thought they were the same because I was debugging one machine over
the telephone and looking at a couple of different machines for examples
and things got a mite confused. In other words, it's wrong just not the
wrong way I thought it was.
--- eric
--
[email protected] mailing list
