Linux-Misc Digest #160, Volume #19 Wed, 24 Feb 99 05:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: Under Hack Attack! (Glenn Valenta)
how to mound iso9660 file systems? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SiS 530 Graphics Chip, no hair ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Problems running shell scripts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: postsrcipt utility wanted (Bob Tennent)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: Under Hack Attack! ("Howard")
Re: Canon LBP660 (Grant Taylor)
Midnight Commander (Harry)
setting /home/~ as root ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Telnet and rlogin as root (PC^God)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Glenn Valenta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,linux.admin.isp
Subject: Re: Under Hack Attack!
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 07:36:02 GMT
"M. Buchenrieder" wrote:
>
> Jukka-Pekka Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >Here at school we have a linux box, and due to
> >increased security needs telnetting to the box is no longer available.
> >Instead we use ssh for remote connections. It should be a lot safer than
> >telnet.
>
> [...]
>
> It is. Telnet connections transfer plain-text passwords. ssh doesn't .
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
> Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
> Note: If you want me to send you email, don't mungle your address.
My experience is that once they gain root access, they replace a bunch of
executables like ls and df and such that always gives them access even though
you have changed your system to block these guys.
I would re-load everything and only use ssh to log in with. Shutdown all
services as well and use the tcp wrappers package.
--
Glenn Valenta Engineering @ http://www.coloradostudios.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~gavalent/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Work mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: how to mound iso9660 file systems?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:51:41 GMT
Hi,
Is there a way enable linux to re-mount the cdrom drives
( iso9660 file systems )? When the linux was installed
the first time, the iso9660 file system was enabled but
suddenly it is no longer enabled and the file system does
not appear in the proc/filesystems.
Thanks in advance.
John
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SiS 530 Graphics Chip, no hair
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:48:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rob O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> try the suse X stuff - at
> www.suse.com
> it has an x server for SiS chips that works
>
> have fun
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob O'Connell - "Work is the curse of the drinking class" - Oscar Wilde
> lab#: (608) 2659467 mob#: (608) 3473838 home#: (608) 2519918
> Work address: Plasma Physics, 1150 University Ave., Madison WI 53706
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aida.physics.wisc.edu/~oconnell
>
>
Thanks Rob;
I have learned a thing or two about the sis chips in the last few days.
The sis 530 integrated chipset uses a video subsystem chip #'rd 6306 which is
functionally the same as the 6326 graphics chip installed on pci video cards.
However, the 6306 is not supported in the latest x server build, but the 6326
is, so I am going to download the source for the 3.3.3.1.5 build from suse
and grep the 6306 into it and tell the server to handle it as it would the
6326. I understand that this will enable the server to talk to the chip.
I appreciate your response, I was losing muy rapido
John Pierce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problems running shell scripts
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:27:00 GMT
I am trying to install the Frontpage Server extensions on RedHat Linux 5.2. I
do not seem to be able to run the install shell script. It looks like a
standard Bash script, but when I try to run it I get a "No such file or
directory" error. The file permissions are set to execute, I own the file and
directory, I preface the command with "./", other bash scripts seem to run
correctly (if I create them) and I am trying to run it as Root. All to no
avail.
I tried deleting the entire contents of the file and writing a simple script
to replace them, #! /bin/sh ls -la
but I got the same error. I deleted the file and recreated it from scratch
with the same name and permissions and --Voila! It worked just fine.
Anyone got a clue as to what I am missing here?
--Stephen Barner
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: r d t@c s.q u e e n s u.c a (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: postsrcipt utility wanted
Date: 22 Feb 1999 20:24:48 GMT
On 22 Feb 1999 18:34:21 GMT, Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
>
>I seem to remember that there was a utility that takes a .ps file and
>outputs the same file but "squeezed" so that two pages in the original are
>put side to side to make up one page only...
pstops, mpage
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:42:34 GMT
WHS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>NF Stevens wrote:
>
>> The only thing that the GPL and LPGL prevent is the proprietisation
>> of open source code. Anyone who bases their work on an LGPL
>> library knows that the code wont suddenly change and become
>> proprietory, forcing them either to either develop their own alternative
>> or pay licensing fees. That guarantee could be make all the difference.
>
>Bollocks. Not all GPL'ed software is going to be available to everyone.
>In particular, high priced derivatives of GPL'ed software with companies
>asking customers not to release software/executables will effectively
>give proprietary software (yes, this does happen). In low cost niche
>markets, the same can and probably does happen.
The context of my remark above was about the release of something
like nfs; where interoperability with the rest of the market was important.
A version which is not distributed is not going to make any difference
in this case.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:42:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
[snip]
>Again, the GPL is kind of a pro-marketeer, and anti-programmer license.
Again the same old fact free diatribes. There is nothing anti-programmer
in the GPL. It merely enables the original programmer to control the
use of his/her software. In that sense it is pro-programmer.
[snip]
>I am not the one with the agenda here, other than to make it clear that
>GPL isn't a reasonable license for everyone.
You are the one with the agenda. We all know that the GPL isn't
the right license for all situations. You seem to be of the opinion
that it is not right for _any_ situation. You seem to be against
people retaining control of the software that they have written.
In that sense you are anti-programmer.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:42:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
>>
>> The only thing that the GPL prevents but which BSD license allows
>> is for one developer to exploit the work of another developer by
>> taking code which was given as "free for use" and turning it
>> into a proprietory product which is no longer free (under any
>> definition of the word free).
>>
>:-). So, you are pro-marketeer exploitation, but against other
>developers? You just might start getting it.
The point is that with BSD and GPL you cannot stop it, so there
is no point making an issue of it. Claiming that GPL is bad (in
relation to BSD) because it allows it is nonsense because
BSD also allows it.
Futhermore I am not against other developers. Only against
those who wish to take something that is freely available and
deny others access to it.
>>
>> The BSD license may be "cool"
>> for _some_ developers because it allows them to put together
>> a proprietory product with less work then would otherwise be
>> the case; but it provides nothing to the original developer.
>>
>It is cool, because it ends up being a mass of free software
>for everyone to use, and profit from. Not just the ones who
>are on the ends of the food chain. You forget that the pie
>expands, it isn't fixed size.
But if all the derivations end up as proprietory then the pool
does not expand. Actually it contracts because the freely
available software is of relatively less use.
>
>>
>> And exactly what is it in the BSD style license which
>> prevents the "marketeers" from doing exactly the same
>> thing with BSD code? Nothing, except that you don't
>> notice that their doing it, because the code has
>> been rewrapped under a proprietory label.
>>
>Heh :-). I like the marketeers, but the programmers should
>also be on even footing, right?
That depends what you mean by even footing. GPL still
allows the original author to retain rights to create a
proprietory offshoot of his/her own work. Do you object
to this?
>
>>
>> Except that the GPL forces
>> those companies to acknowledge their indebtedness
>> to the original authors.
>>
>Except that the GPL limits the productivity of other
>programmers, and eventually can taint a work so bad
>that the original author cannot use it in a proprietary
>fashion (effectively not owning it anymore.) The marketeers
>win!!! Can you say patsy? I thought you could :-).
The original author can _always_ use their own work
in further proprietory derivations. It also protects the
original author in that it prevents others from deriving
proprietory works from it.
>
>>>
>>>The marketeers are dependent on the developers who
>>>are giving *it* away for free.
>>
>> Exactly the same as happens with BSD except you
>> don't notice it because one copyright notice when
>> the machine boots is all that is required.
>>
>Who cares about copyright notices? I care about income
>for programmers. I also care about a mechanism for innovation
>being compensated. I care much less about mass marketing,
>because it will take care of itself (and has been by the
>use of GPL against the middle layer, but often most innovative
>programmers.)
So why the diatribes against marketeers? They don't choose
which license a piece of software is release under. They
don't use the GPL against programmers. Any body of software
which is freely distributable will provide the opportunity to
set up and make money from distribution.
>
>>
>> No one is forcing the developers to work on GPL code.
>> Red Hat and others are paying developers to extend
>> the GPL code base.
>>
>So, are they up to even 1% of the codebase yet? Didn't
>think so...
So when it does reach 1% you will accept that the GPL
is a good thing (TM).
>
>>>
>>>The funny thing is that with some support companies,
>>>you technically pay for support, and you dont' get access
>>>to GPLed works unless you pay for the support. That
>>>is a mis-definition of support. (This sounds more
>>>and more like Clinton -- whatever the definition of
>>>"is" "is.")
>>
>> I'm sure the FSF would be very interested in this. That
>> is, assuming you have hard evidence to back up your
>> claims.
>>
>Yep. I have asked support companies for the GPLed works
>that they give to customers. They don't have to, because
>they won't give me binaries. They win!!! With GPL, the
>endpoints always win over developers. It is because
>developers ask for no respect, when they sell out to
>GPL'ites.
So what you are saying that if you are prepared to be
slightly underhand about it (i.e. not distributing the
derived work) you can make money on works
derived from GPL. You are attacking the GPL
because it does what you want it to do. What a
strange world we live in.
>
>>
>> As long as you maintain a clear separation between what is
>> and what is not GPL then you can make all the investment
>> you want, without any problem. The problem is that you
>> want to use someone else's work as your code base and
>> the GPL won't allow you to do that.
>>
>You shouldn't use "you" in the above statement. Derived
>works are tainted by the GPL (per RMS.) Until case law
>is created, that is probably a good thing to believe.
Isn't your whole problem with the GPL that you (and others)
cannot create proprietory derived works from GPL code.
Unless I am mistaken on this the word "you" in the above
seems to me to be totally appropriate.
>
>>
>> OK. Once a piece of code is free for use (gratis) then it stays
>> free for use (gratis). No-one can come along and take that
>> code and turn it into a proprietory product. AFAIAC that is
>> a benefit of the GPL.
>>
>Do you believe the last sentence that you said? Wow!!! I thought
>that restrictions are restrictions and encumberances, and not
>a "benefit." Since violating that doesn't hurt ANYONE, then
>there seems to be a fallacy somewhere... Can you find it?
>"IS IS". :-).
Of course it hurts the original author. They made the source
code available on the understanding that it would not end
up in a proprietory product. Or are you one of those believe
that there is nothing wrong with software piracy?
>
>>>>
>>>Newly derived works can include significant amounts of creative
>>>effort. GPL and you ignore the cost of that. That is okay,
>>>but it also isn't free, and the programmers need to realize
>>>that there are strong economic motivations to keep them in
>>>the GPL fold, if they fall into it.
>>
>> If you want to make a proprietory product don't base it on
>> GPL code; write it yourself.
>>
>If you want to produce free software, don't base it on GPL
>code, write it yourself. If you want to profit from your
>inventiveness, then don't base it on GPL, write it yourself.
Wow. You seem finally to have grasped the basic concepts.
>It seems that writing code based upon GPLed works is a loosing
>investment, since it appears to show little confidence in ones
>own creative abilities.
There are many other bad investment decisions you can take.
Wanting to derive proprietory code from GPL isn't the only one.
Norman
------------------------------
From: "Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Under Hack Attack!
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:15:45 -0000
Also look for processes that are suid root. This is the easiest way to
create a root jumper. Also it will not log in the sulog.
As the other posts mention these may be simly copies of ksh or sh however,
hiding them as ls, cp etc gives the users a reasonable amoun tof stealth.
As mentioned before - reload time
Regards
H
M. Buchenrieder wrote in message ...
>Jukka-Pekka Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>Here at school we have a linux box, and due to
>>increased security needs telnetting to the box is no longer available.
>>Instead we use ssh for remote connections. It should be a lot safer than
>>telnet.
>
>[...]
>
>
>It is. Telnet connections transfer plain-text passwords. ssh doesn't .
>
>Michael
>--
>Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
> Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
> Note: If you want me to send you email, don't mungle your address.
------------------------------
From: Grant Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canon LBP660
Date: 22 Feb 1999 13:41:48 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Student) writes:
> From my work I may buy a brand new, never used laser printer. It is
> a relatively modern LBP660. Since I am a fervent Linux user, I want
> to verify whether it is possible to print most of the stuff I
> produce under Linux.
> - PostScript. Read the Printing HOWTO, which is now three weeks
> old. Followed all links, but did not find an answer whether the
> printer could use postscript. It carried lots of Win9X and WinNT
> compatible stickers, which is not a good sign. However, PS drivers
> exist.
Ah, then you've missed last week's new feature in the HOWTO: a printer
compatibility listing. Hopefully someday soon the HOWTO web sites
will be updated.
Luckily, the printer compatibility list is also online, with more
details than fit in the HOWTO. The HOWTO URL below will take you
there. The HOWTO there is also always up-to-date.
The LBP-660 was not listed, but I've added it. It falls into the
"Paperweight" category, I'm afraid. It appears to offer PCL emulation
for up to 300dpi, but that emulation seems to be in the Windows driver
("NT not supported" and "PCL emulation in software", says the specs
page). It certainly is for the LBP-460, so I'm satisfied that your
prospective printer almost certainly won't work with Linux.
That said, the printer compatibility list does now include a good
number of inexpensive lasers which DO work with Linux, as well as
loads of color inkjets. Some of Brother's lasers are probably the
cheapest, if you're on a budget. Unfortunately, the low-cost NEC
SuperScript series is only partially supported...
As for the various things you want to print, Postscript encompasses
them all. In a few cases, there may be more efficient ways to print,
CPU time and memory wise (whatever that's worth), but if you can print
Postscript then you can print pretty much anything.
--
Grant Taylor - gtaylor@picante<dot>com - http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/
Cellphone information: http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/cell/
Libretto information: http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/portable/
Linux Printing HOWTO: http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/
------------------------------
From: Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Midnight Commander
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:19:17 -0500
I'm new to Linux and Midnight Commander is the only "Explorer-like"
file utility I've come across, but I'm having a hard time with it.
Is it worth persevering with? Here are a couple of problems I have
with it that someone might be able to help with:
If I type the following letters to describe a file filter, they come
out in the following order:
I type P-C-I
It comes out P-I-C (after the second letter, the cursor keeps moving
back)
The second problem is that I can't figure out how to "get info" on a
file. If I use the right pane as info and the left as a listing, and
highlight a file on the right pane, the left pane does not change.
I've tried experimenting with different ways of getting info, but
haven't worked out how to do it yet.
Harry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: setting /home/~ as root
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:44:54 GMT
Forgive me if this is a FAQ, but is there an easy
way to prevent (via shell login and ftp login)
a user from changing to a directory above their
home directory? For instance, we've got some
files that have to reside in world-readable
directories underneath an account's /home/~/webpages
directory, for Apache to be able to see them
(they're protected by .htaccess and .htpasswd),
but we'd just as soon not have any old user with
a shell account able to go snooping through them...
Thanks!
=================================================
R. Christopher Harshman: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: PC^God <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Telnet and rlogin as root
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:48:24 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ronald Hovens wrote:
>
> I am not able to telnet or rlogin to my linux box: when I try to login
> as root I get erromessage Login incorrect.
> However, if I try a 'normal' user, it works!
>
> Is this normal/what can I do about it?
>
some distros (like redhat) disable remote root login by default, since
it may be a security threat. You can change that default (I don't
recommend it) by editing the /etc/security/access.conf (correct me if
I'm wrong on this) file.
-- PC^God --
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
