Linux-Misc Digest #283, Volume #27 Sun, 4 Mar 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: source for basic utils like ftp/cp/mv... where? ("Peter T. Breuer")
DHCP communication problem ("Tom Edelbrok")
Re: small linux distro ("Michael Westerman")
Re: How to auto login ? (Jean-David Beyer)
setting up a printer? (Michael Roy Fox)
Re: DIR_COLORS (Dowe Keller)
Re: DHCP communication problem (Bit Twister)
Re: DIR_COLORS (David Efflandt)
FreeBSD-->Linux box OK, not ViceVersa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Virus checker for Linuix? (Robert Heller)
Re: Linux & Win share mail files on dual boot pc (Dmitri Shleifman)
Re: setting up a printer? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Virus checker for Linuix? (Jean-David Beyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: source for basic utils like ftp/cp/mv... where?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:19:31 +0100
Alex K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>>
> [lotsa arrogance snipped]
The arrogance (as you call it) is on both sides. It's called
"thinking you are in the right". Unfortunately for you, I AM right.
>> I hope you have learned something, if only to use your own head before
>> sticking it out in an untenable position and getting it bitten off by
>> all and sundry.
> well i cant deny that you have made more biting than answering.
> would be nice if you had put all that energy into a few straightforward
> answers, instead of pseudorethorical bs like "think about it".
For the UMPTEENTH time. The answer is simple: the answer is in the
SRPM, because that is where the original source is, and the original
source contains the address of where it came from, and the SPEC file
also contains that data too. What have you got between your ears? Are you
not capable of understanding this?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Tom Edelbrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DHCP communication problem
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:38:43 GMT
I have a problem with "pump" not being able to get an IP address assigned
via DHCP. I log the packets in ipchains to see what's happening and it looks
weird. Can anyone tell me if these packet transfers look OK? By the way,
pump works once in about every 10 times successfully. The rest of the time
it times out as I'll describe below:
1) I set up IPCHAINS to allow and log everything on every interface,
(internal LAN and external internet).
2) I type "pump -i eth1", because "eth1" is my external internet interface
NIC.
3) Using a "tail -f /var/log/messages" I monitor the traffic on eth1. I get
the following:
output ACCEPT eth1 PROTO=17 0.0.0.0:68 255.255.255.255:67
input ACCEPT eth1 PROTO=17 0.0.0.0:68 255.255.255.255:67
These above two lines get repeated ad infinitum until after about a minute
"pump" says that the operation failed! Each time I try pump I get about 30
or 40 of the above messages, always in a pair as I have shown. Then
eventually pump will mysteriously work and get an address, as though by
chance.
I have a book (Linux Firewalls by Robert Ziegler) where he says on page 117
that a normal DHCP exchange is as follows:
0.0.0.0:68 outbound to 255.255.255.255:67
0.0.0.0:67 inbound to 255.255.255.255:68
He calls the second line a DHCPOFFER indicating a servers willingness to
function as a server to this DHCP client. So then why do I get 0.0.0.0:68
inbound to 255.255.255.255:67? Is this what is causing my problem? It's
almost as though the remote DHCP server that should be assigning an address
thinks that it is a client trying to get an address. Can anyone explain
this? Why does the packet come inbound from port 68 rather than 67, and is
destined for 67 rather than 68???
Thanks in advance,
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Michael Westerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: small linux distro
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:46:22 +1000
> > a distro that is smaller than, say 100 MB, has Xwindows (I need a
> > graphical browser) and supports PCMCIA for my network card.
> >
> > The lap top has 24 MB of ram, and it's a 486DX4.
> >
> > Any suggestions welcome!
>
> Slackware will fit, not comfortably, but it will fit....recomend you save
> space by every means necissary including going with libc5 instead of
> glibc....read the howto on installing linux on a zip disk for ideas of
what
> to install.
Tiny linux basd on slack 4.0 is what i us it has x.
I use it on a 486 dx4 16 mb ram. 200 mb hd which is full because i went
overboard istalling services
>
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to auto login ?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:51:11 -0500
Arctic Storm wrote:
>
> Is there a way to setup the boot process, so that one of the accounts will
> be automatically logged in,...
> I have RedHat 7 and Ximian GNOME. When I boot, I'm presented with the
> Ximian login window, so that I can enter the account name and password.
> I would like the regular user account to login automatically.
> Thanks.
I never tried it, but I suppose you could have a startup script at the
end of file (if you are running Red Hat Linux) /etc/rc.d/rc.local that
started up a process on one of the virtual terminals that was a
logged-in shell for that user.
I suggest not doing it, though, as that would mean that anyone who
turned on the machine could do anything that that logged in user could
do.
If you require a login for all users, it is somewhat more difficult to
turn on the machine and get logged in. It can definately be done, and
you can acquire root priviledges, but you have to know a bit to do
that.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 7:45pm up 2 days, 2:51, 4 users, load average: 2.28, 2.14, 2.02
------------------------------
From: Michael Roy Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: setting up a printer?
Date: 04 Mar 2001 19:45:34 -0500
I have Linux release 2.4.2 and a Hewlett Packard Deskjet 842c printer.
Can anyone give me step by step instructions as how to set up my
printer?
Thanks,
Michael
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dowe Keller)
Subject: Re: DIR_COLORS
Date: 4 Mar 2001 16:53:23 -0800
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:08:12 -0500, John Prokopek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can someone tell me why when I start an xterm as my normal user account
>my dir_colors are not used but when I "su" dir_colors are used?
>
>thanks
perhaps root's .bashrc has something like
alias ls="ls --color=auto"
in it.
>"The bus came by and I got on
>thats when it all began ...."
Was Cowboy Neil at the wheel? :-))
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sierratel.com/dowe
---
And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files
were world readable and writable, so they chmod 600 their files.
- Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bit Twister)
Subject: Re: DHCP communication problem
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:54:40 GMT
Go here, answer all the questions, save a copy of the generated
firewall script to see where you could go wrong.
http://linux-firewall-tools.com/linux/firewall/index.html
I used DENY, hardcoded external addresses, logged everything.
As part of the instruction and if you read the script, it will
give several suggestions as to where you install the firewall
and turn on IP Masquerading if you need it.
You might want to read Armoring Linux
http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/linux.html
and http://www.securityportal.com/lasg/
and http://www.securityportal.com/lskb/articles/
and http://www.cert.org/advisories/
and http://www.memeticcandiru.com/colsfaq.html#5.6
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:38:43 GMT, Tom Edelbrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a problem with "pump" not being able to get an IP address assigned
>via DHCP. I log the packets in ipchains to see what's happening and it looks
>weird. Can anyone tell me if these packet transfers look OK? By the way,
>pump works once in about every 10 times successfully. The rest of the time
>it times out as I'll describe below:
>
>1) I set up IPCHAINS to allow and log everything on every interface,
>(internal LAN and external internet).
>2) I type "pump -i eth1", because "eth1" is my external internet interface
>NIC.
>3) Using a "tail -f /var/log/messages" I monitor the traffic on eth1. I get
>the following:
>
>output ACCEPT eth1 PROTO=17 0.0.0.0:68 255.255.255.255:67
>input ACCEPT eth1 PROTO=17 0.0.0.0:68 255.255.255.255:67
>
>These above two lines get repeated ad infinitum until after about a minute
>"pump" says that the operation failed! Each time I try pump I get about 30
>or 40 of the above messages, always in a pair as I have shown. Then
>eventually pump will mysteriously work and get an address, as though by
>chance.
>
>I have a book (Linux Firewalls by Robert Ziegler) where he says on page 117
>that a normal DHCP exchange is as follows:
>
>0.0.0.0:68 outbound to 255.255.255.255:67
>0.0.0.0:67 inbound to 255.255.255.255:68
>
>He calls the second line a DHCPOFFER indicating a servers willingness to
>function as a server to this DHCP client. So then why do I get 0.0.0.0:68
>inbound to 255.255.255.255:67? Is this what is causing my problem? It's
>almost as though the remote DHCP server that should be assigning an address
>thinks that it is a client trying to get an address. Can anyone explain
>this? Why does the packet come inbound from port 68 rather than 67, and is
>destined for 67 rather than 68???
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Tom
>
>
--
The warranty and liability expired as you read this message.
If the above breaks your system, it's yours and you keep both pieces.
Practice safe computing. Backup the file before you change it.
Do a, man command_here or cat command_here, before using it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Subject: Re: DIR_COLORS
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:08:12 -0500, John Prokopek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can someone tell me why when I start an xterm as my normal user account
>my dir_colors are not used but when I "su" dir_colors are used?
Maybe you are trying to set an alias in ~/.bash_profile (or /etc/profile)
instead of in ~/.bashrc (or /etc/bashrc) where it belongs.
Simply running an xterm does not necessarily do a login. But running a
shell command does read the appropriate rc file(s). So any aliases should
be set in the shell's rc file, not the login or profile.
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/ http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FreeBSD-->Linux box OK, not ViceVersa
Date: 5 Mar 2001 00:58:09 GMT
I have two boxes networked, fitzi (FreeBSD) and linus (Linux). I can ping
and rlogin from fitzi to linus, but not the opposite. Here is the output
of netstat -r on linus:
Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
192.168.1.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.3 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.5 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
168.191.205.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
default 168.191.205.2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
linus is 192.168.1.3, fitzi is 192.168.1.5. All local IP's are listed
correctly in /etc/hosts. What do I need to do to trouble shoot this
problem?
===========================================
John Meshkoff johnm at sivakalpa dot org
remove 'johnpipe' in 'From:' to reply
http://www.sivakalpa.org/johnpipe/
"I do not know that I know the self fully,
neither do I know that I know him not"
...from the Upanishads
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus checker for Linuix?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 19:03:03 -0600
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
In a message on Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:13:23 +0100, wrote :
"TB> Chris Gordon-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"TB> [in reply to Jean-David Beyer]
"TB> > Thanks for this comprehensive reply. I have already disabled inetd, as I
"TB> > don't need to run any of its services on my desktop PC.
"TB>
"TB> > Similarly I don't need to run sendmail at this stage, so I don't.
"TB>
"TB> > My main concern was in relation to viruses in attachments or on CDs. Its
"TB> > good to hear that most of these are not aimed at causing damage to Linux
"TB> > systems. I hope this situation will last.
"TB>
"TB> As it has for the last twenty-odd years? There are no viruses for unix,
"TB> by virtue of its design. This is a faq. Check the unix-faq or the
"TB> linux-faq. Hmmm .. the word "virus" does not even _appear_ in the
"TB> security HOWTO, which shows you the state of things!
"TB>
"TB> (It does appear in the diskless-howto, since they point out there that
"TB> no disk = no virus. Mind you, there are no viruses, so, so what!).
"TB>
"TB> You could as root write anywhere on disk. So you can see that there's
"TB> no point to a virus per se: the objective of malicious people is
"TB> to get root privileges. Once there they can turn your data to crumble
"TB> toast, or simply steal your love letters and your credit card number.
"TB> So security is about preventing people becoming root. Read the security
"TB> howto.
Right. Note that under Win9x, *all* programs run with all of the effective
privs that root would have under UNIX/Linux. 'Becoming root' under
Win9x is effectly a done deal, so the then question moves one to
actually doing (bad) things. Under UNIX, a virus can't do anything (bad)
unless it is run as root. Even if you are the only user of the machine,
you should not log in as root -- it is easy to create a personal
non-priviledged account. This not only protects you from viruses, it
also protects you from casual typographical errors. It also means you
can customize your environment and still have a 'reserved' environment
(root's) in case you manage to 'paint yourself into a corner' and need
to repair things (although mostly you should be able to do most repairs
without being root).
Note that the 'notorious' UNIX 'viruses', were never 'viruses' as such,
but were worms or trojan horses, both of which are somewhat different.
Until recently (thanks to Microsoft's Outlook Express), worms were rare
under MS-Windows, since MS-Windows is not an operating system than is
(commonly) functional as both a server and a client on a network -- 99%
of MS-Windows boxes are pure clients. UNIX worms make use of security
holes in network services to do their thing. Since Linux is open
source, these security holes tend to get plugged *before* the hackers
figure out how to make use of them. Also successful UNIX worms tend to
far harder to write then most MS-Windows viruses or MS-Windows VBasic
E-Mail worms. The people who write these things are rarely very clever
programmers -- highly skilled programmers have better (and usually more
interesting) things to do -- the writers of the MS-Windows viruses or
MS-Windows VBasic E-Mail worms tend to be High School kids with lots of
free time and not really much real experience in programming and little
education in programming. Also, Microsoft seems to be doing things which
tend to make it *easy* for unskilled programmers to write MS-Windows
viruses or MS-Windows VBasic E-Mail worms -- I don't know if this is
incompetence, ignorance, or a side effect of (often pointless)
'creeping featurisum'.
"TB>
"TB> Peter
"TB>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
Posted Via Nuthinbutnews Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
==========================================================
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION **
==========================================================
http://www.nuthinbutnews.com
------------------------------
From: Dmitri Shleifman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
netscape.communicator.unix,netscape.general,netscape.public.admin,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.admin,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Linux & Win share mail files on dual boot pc
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 01:24:32 GMT
Hi,
I am glad you have the same idea as mine. I havn't realized it yet.
So, if Netscape uses different set of summaries, the solution is to
create mirror on Linux that will contain links to each file on Windows.
I am going to try it soon. Please let me know if you get a better
solution.
Dmitri
Stevenson wrote:
>
> My goal is to be able to get/send mail from my ISP whether logged in as
> Linux or Windows AND have 1 single set of mail files that I can examine
> from either Linux or Windows. I work about 1/2 the time booted on
> each, so this would be handy.
>
> I have a dual boot pc with one of the windows partitions read/writeable
> to linux. Win 95, Redhat Linux 6.2, Intel pentium desktop.
> I could upgrade to W2K, but have no compelling reason, yet.
>
> I have Netscape 4.75 working under Windows.
> I have Netscape 4.72 working under Linux (can be upgraded to 4.75).
>
> I almost have it working but I think Netscape uses a different set of
> summary files for Linux & windows. I might be able to softlink the
> linux name to the windows name.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to use MS Outlook on Windows (let's not get
> sidetracked with MS comments) & Netscape or Mozilla on Linux.
>
> I thought I'd run it past a couple netscape & linux newsgroups before
> proceeding, in case anyone else has already done it or finds it
> interesting. This is the 1st time I've looked under the hood at
> email.
>
> My ultimate goal is quick, consistent access to my email. Maybe I'm
> barking up the wrong tree. Maybe there's a different solution.
> Any advice is appriciated.
>
> Chuck Stevenson
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: setting up a printer?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 02:10:31 +0100
Michael Roy Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have Linux release 2.4.2 and a Hewlett Packard Deskjet 842c printer.
> Can anyone give me step by step instructions as how to set up my
> printer?
Nope. What, for example, do you plan on connecting it to? The network?
The printer port? If the latter, which printer port (is it)? How is
that port set in your bios?
Read the Printing HOWTO.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus checker for Linuix?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 20:48:10 -0500
Robert Heller wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> In a message on Mon, 5 Mar 2001 00:13:23 +0100, wrote :
>
> "TB> Chris Gordon-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "TB> [in reply to Jean-David Beyer]
> "TB> > Thanks for this comprehensive reply. I have already disabled inetd, as I
> "TB> > don't need to run any of its services on my desktop PC.
> "TB>
> "TB> > Similarly I don't need to run sendmail at this stage, so I don't.
> "TB>
> "TB> > My main concern was in relation to viruses in attachments or on CDs. Its
> "TB> > good to hear that most of these are not aimed at causing damage to Linux
> "TB> > systems. I hope this situation will last.
> "TB>
> "TB> As it has for the last twenty-odd years? There are no viruses for unix,
> "TB> by virtue of its design. This is a faq. Check the unix-faq or the
> "TB> linux-faq. Hmmm .. the word "virus" does not even _appear_ in the
> "TB> security HOWTO, which shows you the state of things!
> "TB>
> "TB> (It does appear in the diskless-howto, since they point out there that
> "TB> no disk = no virus. Mind you, there are no viruses, so, so what!).
> "TB>
> "TB> You could as root write anywhere on disk. So you can see that there's
> "TB> no point to a virus per se: the objective of malicious people is
> "TB> to get root privileges. Once there they can turn your data to crumble
> "TB> toast, or simply steal your love letters and your credit card number.
> "TB> So security is about preventing people becoming root. Read the security
> "TB> howto.
>
> Right. Note that under Win9x, *all* programs run with all of the effective
> privs that root would have under UNIX/Linux. 'Becoming root' under
> Win9x is effectly a done deal, so the then question moves one to
> actually doing (bad) things. Under UNIX, a virus can't do anything (bad)
> unless it is run as root. Even if you are the only user of the machine,
> you should not log in as root -- it is easy to create a personal
> non-priviledged account. This not only protects you from viruses, it
> also protects you from casual typographical errors. It also means you
> can customize your environment and still have a 'reserved' environment
> (root's) in case you manage to 'paint yourself into a corner' and need
> to repair things (although mostly you should be able to do most repairs
> without being root).
>
[snip]
Actually, while it is certainly a good thing to normally use a
non-root account, using such an account does not prevent "you" from
being harmed by a bad thing from the internet. If you were to pick up
a harmful program and run it under UNIX or Linux, it WOULD harm "you",
but it would not harm anyone else on your machine.
For the truely paranoid, you should have an account that you use only
for browsing the Internet, reading e-mail, and so on. Only as the user
of this account should you attempt to use and study any doubtful
software. THen if this user gets wiped out by some kind of bad
program, no-one else would be hurt. (I am not that paranoid.)
Another advantage of running as a non-root user is that if you make a
mistake, the effects of the mistake are contained. If I am in / and I
do rm -fr *, I can remove only files I own in directories whose
contents I am permitted to change. If I am root, I would have to
prepare to re-install the system or restore it all from a backup tape.
If I am just an ordinary user, I would need to restore only my own
files, a much easier job.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 8:40pm up 2 days, 3:46, 4 users, load average: 2.22, 2.17, 2.12
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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
******************************
