Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian Reference Card Hebrew translation]
Original Message Subject: Re: Debian Reference Card Hebrew translation Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:10:07 + From: W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:41:05AM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote: > >Waiting to hear how it goes. > > ATM, it does not work. In latin8/iso-8859-8 encoding, I get > an error immediately from xsltproc, if I use utf-8 encoding > I get an error somewhere in the LaTeX processing. If you > have information about the "best" values for 'inputenc', > 'fontenc' etc. for LaTeX in Hebrew, please forward this to > me. We will see. Hebrew support works by translating Hebrew chars to some macros for internal representation and later on converting those to Hebrew chars of the relevant Hebrew font in an output encoding, so it should basically have no problem with input encoding. In practice UTF-8 should work well with current sarge packages, IIRC. But then there's another problem. LaTeX uses explicit bidirectional Hebrew, whereas unicode and the rest of the world use implicit bidi algorithm (see RFC1556 for those names). Practically it means that Hebrew words in English text or vice-versa have to be wrapped inside a special macro. I have no idea what is required for Arabic, Farsi and other bidi Languages, though. -- Tzafrir Cohen +---+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---+ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bash, konsole, login shell and suspend.
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 19:30, Dan Armak wrote: > There's also a parameter 'konsole -ls' that starts a login shell. Hmmm... just like xterm(1)... so I started looking for other compatible options: 1. While the konsole --help shows all "long" options starting with a '--' (like getopts_long likes), konsole also accepts the X11 historic single hyphen notation. So the documented 'konsole --ls' is equivalent to the undocumented 'konsole -ls'. Note: I like this design: document modern usage, but silently accept backward compatible syntax. 2. Some other konsole/xterm compatible options (actually some of these were from Xt and not the xterm application per-se): -name, -tn, -title, -display, -geometry, -fg, -bg 3. Conspicuously missing is '-C' (grab /dev/console output), or is it by default? -- Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron ICQ UIN: 16527398 "The speed of light really is too slow nowdays." -- Alan Cox = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: Debian Reference Card Hebrew translation]
Hi Guys, Could you help in answering? LaTeX isn't my field of expertise. -- Regards, Lior Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Guides.co.il Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID) Original Message Subject: Re: Debian Reference Card Hebrew translation Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:10:07 + From: W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lior Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:41:05AM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote: Waiting to hear how it goes. ATM, it does not work. In latin8/iso-8859-8 encoding, I get an error immediately from xsltproc, if I use utf-8 encoding I get an error somewhere in the LaTeX processing. If you have information about the "best" values for 'inputenc', 'fontenc' etc. for LaTeX in Hebrew, please forward this to me. We will see. Cheers, -- W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory upgrade question for hardware gurus
Adir Abraham wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Omer Zak wrote: I would like to know whether it is OK to use a 512MB PC-2700 (333MHz) module in the same system, and whether I can mix both DDRAMs (to have total of 768MB). It is OK. It will do the work. Both modules will work at their lower, agreed speed. PC2100 in this case. To be more exact, they will also synchronize at their agreed burst times (higher burst times, ofcourse). This was one of the important facts, which I needed to know - whether PC-2700 can work where PC-2100 was designed to work (of course, at PC-2100 speeds). The motherboard is BioSTAR MBP4F/03/R04 (or maybe it was M8P4F or U8858). Anyway, I found a mention of U8858 but no further data. According to the U8858 booklet, which I got with the motherboard, it can use PC-1600 and PC-2100 memory modules. I just found some document about it in Biostar's archives. U8588 contains a VIA P4X266A chipset which from its name you can guess that it supports DDRs of up to 266MHz. That is PC2100 as you said. Mea culpa, the booklet which I have indeed refers to U8588, not U8858. Where can I read an up-to-date introduction to those memory issues (PC-2100 vs. PC-2700 vs. 2-year old motherboards)? What would you like to know? speeds are a matter of "negotiation". In addition to the fact above, the other thing which I need to be sure of is that my motherboard would be able to recognize the PC-2700 well enough to work with it (even if at PC-2100 speeds). ... If two memories talk in different speeds, the motherboard will talk with them at the common-minimum speed of the two (i.e. PC2700 chips can speak at PC2100 speeds, so they necessarily can, and actually must do so in order to have the ability to talk with PC2100 chips at their speeds - but not vice versa). I do not mind losing the extra speed of PC-2700 if it is what is required to make it work in my motherboard. However, I would hate to have the existing PC-2100 lose speed, as my PC would be a bit slower than it was previously. ... However - some motherboards, are very picky regarding choosing memories with two different speeds, especially old ones. If you don't find any info about it in Google, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You would better put the two memory sticks and check if it works for you, and/or if you have performance drops. I'd warmly recommend you to buy a 256MB PC2700 memory stick instead of the PC2100 in order to get rid of such worries (and in order to stay a bit ahead. PC3300 is becoming a standard, and I expect that PC2700 will start to disappear in the following year). As I said, my PC currently has 256MB memory (PC-2100 DDRAM module). My wish is that after I buy the PC-2700 module, either it works with the existing PC-2100, in which case I have 768MB memory; or they do not work together but the PC-2700 works alone, in which case I have 512MB memory, which is enough for my current needs. Thus, if the PC-2700 cannot work with my motherboard (with or without PC-2100), I'll lose. This is why I asked in this mailing list. Thanks, --- Omer My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory upgrade question for hardware gurus
Well, faster memory *should* work on lower speed slots, however, it doesn't always work. It's issue with the CAS latency, and it might (or might not) fit your current memory. Although it's likely your new memory will work on your board, it is more likely it will not work together with the current memory module. Even more likely that it will work, but crush randomely (which is actually the worst thing which can happen). I would not suggest mixing these modules, and if I were you, I would have tried to keep using the same type of modules, for the best results. Ez. Adir Abraham wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Omer Zak wrote: The motherboard is of 2002 vintage (478 socket, P-4 1.7GHz) and the memory is a single PC-2100 256MB DDRAM module (PC-2100 is rated at 266MHz). My not-so-wild guess is that you have a i845 chipset, or VIA-compatible chipsets. I would like to know whether it is OK to use a 512MB PC-2700 (333MHz) module in the same system, and whether I can mix both DDRAMs (to have total of 768MB). It is OK. It will do the work. Both modules will work at their lower, agreed speed. PC2100 in this case. To be more exact, they will also synchronize at their agreed burst times (higher burst times, ofcourse). The motherboard is BioSTAR MBP4F/03/R04 (or maybe it was M8P4F or U8858). Anyway, I found a mention of U8858 but no further data. According to the U8858 booklet, which I got with the motherboard, it can use PC-1600 and PC-2100 memory modules. I just found some document about it in Biostar's archives. U8588 contains a VIA P4X266A chipset which from its name you can guess that it supports DDRs of up to 266MHz. That is PC2100 as you said. Where can I read an up-to-date introduction to those memory issues (PC-2100 vs. PC-2700 vs. 2-year old motherboards)? What would you like to know? speeds are a matter of "negotiation". If two memories talk in different speeds, the motherboard will talk with them at the common-minimum speed of the two (i.e. PC2700 chips can speak at PC2100 speeds, so they necessarily can, and actually must do so in order to have the ability to talk with PC2100 chips at their speeds - but not vice versa). However - some motherboards, are very picky regarding choosing memories with two different speeds, especially old ones. If you don't find any info about it in Google, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You would better put the two memory sticks and check if it works for you, and/or if you have performance drops. I'd warmly recommend you to buy a 256MB PC2700 memory stick instead of the PC2100 in order to get rid of such worries (and in order to stay a bit ahead. PC3300 is becoming a standard, and I expect that PC2700 will start to disappear in the following year). Regards, Adir. Thanks, --- Omer My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:06:02PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Is this a bet with someone? If so, would consulting a user group be > considered cheating? If so, can I squirm you out of another dinner for > keeping it secret? :-) Heh, there's a real world problem there, trust me. If it wasn't a real world problem, would I rule out kernel changes? that's where all the fun is at! As for squirming another dinner, I like our previous arrangment. Find a bug I don't know about in a given kernel patch I wrote, get dinner ;-) Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: Nah, I consider kernel modules just a semi-organized way of patching the kernel, and kernel changes are not allowed. *insert standard rant about why "oh, we don't modify the kernel, we just load a driver!" doesn't mean squat in Linux, and it very much _does_ modify the kernel* Cheers, Muli Is this a bet with someone? If so, would consulting a user group be considered cheating? If so, can I squirm you out of another dinner for keeping it secret? :-) Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
Agreed, in this specific case. I was thinking ps/top might be doing
something funky with the /proc/$PID/* files they read, but it looks
like a very simple open/read/close, e.g.:
open("/proc/6/cmdline", O_RDONLY) = 8
read(8, "", 2047) = 0
close(8)
So yeah, hooking only open in LD_PRELOAD could work.
Cheers,
Muli
Just to mention that you don't have to set an environment var. You can
also place it in the preload config in /etc.
You can hijack just "open", open an alternative file in /tmp, and unlink
it. This will delete it once the user closes it, leaving you with very
little you need to trace.
I'll just mention that, as far as I know, chkrootkit will find you,
however. Nothing simple you can do about that.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com/
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:41:46PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:15:56PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > > [nitpicking follows] > > [nitpickers are us] The nits have all been picked now, and no disagreements remain. While we're at it though, here's a considerably perverse afterthought: you could mount tmpfs on /proc/ from inside your root-capable program, then copy all files/symbolic links from real /proc/ (using a previously opened dirent entry) to the fake one, and then modifying 'stat', which is what ps/top read. -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:15:56PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> [nitpicking follows]
[nitpickers are us]
> I'm not suggesting replacing the file (impossible in /proc w/o changing
> the kernel or the mounting), I'm suggesting replacing the
> *descriptor*.
I'm not suggesting replacing the file either - I'm suggesting opening
the original file (/proc/.../whatever), but keeping track of its fd,
and in subsequent calls to read, return your own data rather than data
from the file. In some cases (although not the specific one we're
talking about), simply replacing the descriptor is not enough, because
the file being read has some special properties that your "replacement
file" cannot easily emulate. Think ioctl then read on a special device
file, or terminal ioctls on /dev/tty. Either you provide these
functions, or you let them occur on the "real" fd and intervene
elsewhere, or things stop working.
> and will just happily read it all and then close it - you won't have to
> monitor those calls. That makes the whole process much simpler and
> easier to code.
Agreed, in this specific case. I was thinking ps/top might be doing
something funky with the /proc/$PID/* files they read, but it looks
like a very simple open/read/close, e.g.:
open("/proc/6/cmdline", O_RDONLY) = 8
read(8, "", 2047) = 0
close(8)
So yeah, hooking only open in LD_PRELOAD could work.
Cheers,
Muli
--
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
cvs import fails on the /dev directory
Hi, I want to manage a special machine's tree with cvs, but when trying to import the tree with cvs import(... ), cvs aborts soon with this message: cvs [import aborted]: reading dev/eda: No such device or address :-( How do I bypass this? I know of the cvsignore facility but AFAIK it can ignore only filenames patterns, not complete directories/directory regexp's. My current solution is keeping the /dev directory out of the tree, moving it back into the tree only when necessary. This works, but it's ugly... . Anyone knows how to do this nicely? thanks, Boaz. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:42:35PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > Can you surreptitiously modify LD_PRELOAD for the user who'll be running > > ps/top (by modifying their startup files or whatever)? If you can, write > > a tiny library that redirects open() to itself and, in > > case a process is trying to open /proc//stat, writes out a > > similar file in a different private location, opens that instead, and > > returns the descriptor to the process. If your library is tiny enough > > and the argument check is the first thing its modified open() does, no > > one will notice the performance penalty. > > That could work, but probably not with replacing the file, but rather > with hijacking every open/read/close call, keeping hold of which are > referring to to interesting files, and substituting my own > information. I did this once with ptrace, it's not pleasant, but it > works. [nitpicking follows] I'm not suggesting replacing the file (impossible in /proc w/o changing the kernel or the mounting), I'm suggesting replacing the *descriptor*. That way, you can get away with hijacking only the open() call. After you return a descriptor to a different file, one of your own, the original process won't be able to tell the difference, and will just happily read it all and then close it - you won't have to monitor those calls. That makes the whole process much simpler and easier to code. This is how esddsp operates, for instance. It's a program that redirects another program's OSS sound output to the esd daemon (used e.g. by GNOME), so it could be mixed with other streams, outputted to ALSA, etc. The nice touch about it is that it only needs to intercept open() calls on /dev/dsp, and ioctl() calls on the resulting descriptor, because what it substitutes as the return value of the hijacked open() call is the actual socket it has established with the esd daemon, set up for receiving raw sound data. So the original program write()s vast amounts of data to that descriptor, thinking it all goes to /dev/dsp, while it all travels through the socket to the daemon, and those calls need not be hijacked at all, which makes the whole thing go much smoother. -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Memory upgrade question for hardware gurus
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Omer Zak wrote: > The motherboard is of 2002 vintage (478 socket, P-4 1.7GHz) and the > memory is a single PC-2100 256MB DDRAM module (PC-2100 is rated at 266MHz). My not-so-wild guess is that you have a i845 chipset, or VIA-compatible chipsets. > I would like to know whether it is OK to use a 512MB PC-2700 (333MHz) > module in the same system, and whether I can mix both DDRAMs (to have > total of 768MB). It is OK. It will do the work. Both modules will work at their lower, agreed speed. PC2100 in this case. To be more exact, they will also synchronize at their agreed burst times (higher burst times, ofcourse). > The motherboard is BioSTAR MBP4F/03/R04 (or maybe it was M8P4F or U8858). > Anyway, I found a mention of U8858 but no further data. > > According to the U8858 booklet, which I got with the motherboard, it can > use PC-1600 and PC-2100 memory modules. I just found some document about it in Biostar's archives. U8588 contains a VIA P4X266A chipset which from its name you can guess that it supports DDRs of up to 266MHz. That is PC2100 as you said. > Where can I read an up-to-date introduction to those memory issues > (PC-2100 vs. PC-2700 vs. 2-year old motherboards)? What would you like to know? speeds are a matter of "negotiation". If two memories talk in different speeds, the motherboard will talk with them at the common-minimum speed of the two (i.e. PC2700 chips can speak at PC2100 speeds, so they necessarily can, and actually must do so in order to have the ability to talk with PC2100 chips at their speeds - but not vice versa). However - some motherboards, are very picky regarding choosing memories with two different speeds, especially old ones. If you don't find any info about it in Google, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You would better put the two memory sticks and check if it works for you, and/or if you have performance drops. I'd warmly recommend you to buy a 256MB PC2700 memory stick instead of the PC2100 in order to get rid of such worries (and in order to stay a bit ahead. PC3300 is becoming a standard, and I expect that PC2700 will start to disappear in the following year). Regards, Adir. > Thanks, > --- Omer > My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ > > My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. > They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which > I may be affiliated in any way. > WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html > > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bash, konsole, login shell and suspend.
On Monday 30 August 2004 23:25, Oron Peled wrote: > On Monday 30 August 2004 22:14, David Harel wrote: > > How do you make konsole add the -l option to the bash > > invocation or, how do you make things behave as they should? > > on "Settings"->"Configure Konsole" there is a session pane. > You can configure Konsole to run what you want. There's also a parameter 'konsole -ls' that starts a login shell. -- Dan Armak Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:52:51PM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > >Make a process which is running with root capabilities appear in a > >standard ps output as though it belongs to user 'foo'. I can't change > >ps; I can't change the kernel. I can only use the standard POSIX > >APIs. I do have root on the system. > > If compiling a module is allowed, then create a module that creates a > file system which behaves as /proc in everyway (probably using some sort > of "relay") except the /proc/$PID/status of the relvant program. Use a > decpetive name (like "procfs") for your "new" file system to hide the > evidance :-) Nah, I consider kernel modules just a semi-organized way of patching the kernel, and kernel changes are not allowed. *insert standard rant about why "oh, we don't modify the kernel, we just load a driver!" doesn't mean squat in Linux, and it very much _does_ modify the kernel* Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > Can you surreptitiously modify LD_PRELOAD for the user who'll be running > ps/top (by modifying their startup files or whatever)? If you can, write > a tiny library that redirects open() to itself and, in > case a process is trying to open /proc//stat, writes out a > similar file in a different private location, opens that instead, and > returns the descriptor to the process. If your library is tiny enough > and the argument check is the first thing its modified open() does, no > one will notice the performance penalty. That could work, but probably not with replacing the file, but rather with hijacking every open/read/close call, keeping hold of which are referring to to interesting files, and substituting my own information. I did this once with ptrace, it's not pleasant, but it works. Anyway, thank you everyone for the answers and interesting discussions. I think we have pretty much established that there's no easy way to do it. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:21:45PM +0300, Alon Altman wrote: > Can you load a kernel module? If so, you can load one that intercepts the > access to the /proc filesystem. Nope, that as well as any other method of patching the running kernel (there are several...) is covered by the "no kernel changes" bit above. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:52:14PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:33:40PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Muli - could you give a little more background on what are you trying to > > achieve? > > Make a process which is running with root capabilities appear in a > standard ps output as though it belongs to user 'foo'. I can't change > ps; I can't change the kernel. I can only use the standard POSIX > APIs. I do have root on the system. Can you surreptitiously modify LD_PRELOAD for the user who'll be running ps/top (by modifying their startup files or whatever)? If you can, write a tiny library that redirects open() to itself and, in case a process is trying to open /proc//stat, writes out a similar file in a different private location, opens that instead, and returns the descriptor to the process. If your library is tiny enough and the argument check is the first thing its modified open() does, no one will notice the performance penalty. -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:33:40PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Muli - could you give a little more background on what are you trying to > > achieve? > > Make a process which is running with root capabilities appear in a > standard ps output as though it belongs to user 'foo'. I can't change > ps; I can't change the kernel. I can only use the standard POSIX > APIs. I do have root on the system. > Can you load a kernel module? If so, you can load one that intercepts the access to the /proc filesystem. Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540 GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24 -- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- I have to think hard to name an interesting man who does not drink. -- Richard Burton = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Alexander V. Karelin wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Yosef Meller wrote: > > > Alexander V. Karelin wrote: > > > > > > BTW: The Bank Hapoalim site that I'm using as well is even worse... In > > > fact, it does not work at all. It's been 6 months now that Hapoalim tries > > > to fix the problem with wire transfers through internet. > > > > Actually the reason I stay with Poalim and do not move my account to > > Leumi (I have an account there) is the support for Mozilla. > I think they have a different interface for business and private > customers. Business customers, like myself, have to face hell there:( Ha'makor's account is in Poalim, and I have no problems accessing it using Mozilla. Try to login using the standard interface. BTW- I recomment Bank Otsar Hahayal. They use Poalim's internet service, and give great service with regard to commissions (no fixed commissions, and no "line" commission). Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540 GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24 -- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- Never eat more than you can lift. -- Miss Piggy = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:33:40PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Muli - could you give a little more background on what are you trying to achieve? Make a process which is running with root capabilities appear in a standard ps output as though it belongs to user 'foo'. I can't change ps; I can't change the kernel. I can only use the standard POSIX APIs. I do have root on the system. The "standard POSIX API's" (not to mention the "can't change the kernel") is a hard requirement. I though that maybe the /proc filesystem might make it possible to change some process attributes but looking through the kernel source of 2.6.5 (ref: http://lxr.linux.no/source/include/linux/proc_fs.h?v=2.6.5#L71, implementations ref: http://lxr.linux.no/ident?v=2.6.5;i=write_proc_t) I don't see such an interface. FWIW, I thought about it for a couple of days before tossing it to the list, and I don't think it can be one. I'll be happy to be proven wrong ;-) Me too. Cheers, --Amos = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:33:40PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Muli - could you give a little more background on what are you trying to > achieve? Make a process which is running with root capabilities appear in a standard ps output as though it belongs to user 'foo'. I can't change ps; I can't change the kernel. I can only use the standard POSIX APIs. I do have root on the system. FWIW, I thought about it for a couple of days before tossing it to the list, and I don't think it can be one. I'll be happy to be proven wrong ;-) > In general - it sounds like what you are asking for is something > that some rootkits do to conceal their tracks - have you tried > there? Not yet, although it's on my "to investigate" list. It's a long shot, most root kits I'm familiar with hide their processes completely, rather than make them appear to belong to a different user. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Memory upgrade question for hardware gurus
Here's what the 1st match in google's groups section had: PC2100 RAM can run up to 266MHz while PC2700 RAM can run up to 333MHz. The actual speed is dependant on the motherboard. Both can run at lower speeds. The search was for `PC-2100 vs. PC-2700'. Usual disclaimer applies. If no one comes with other/better/qualified answers you might want to dig there yourself. Do report back what you have found and whether your actual experience differs. Thanks. On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:30:29PM +0300, Omer Zak wrote: > My desktop has 256MB memory, and nowadays the swap area gets used once > in a while (RedHat 8.0 together with Mozilla, httpd and mysqld). > So, I would like to add more memory to the computer. > > The motherboard is of 2002 vintage (478 socket, P-4 1.7GHz) and the > memory is a single PC-2100 256MB DDRAM module (PC-2100 is rated at 266MHz). > > I would like to know whether it is OK to use a 512MB PC-2700 (333MHz) > module in the same system, and whether I can mix both DDRAMs (to have > total of 768MB). > > The motherboard is BioSTAR MBP4F/03/R04 (or maybe it was M8P4F or U8858). > Anyway, I found a mention of U8858 but no further data. > > According to the U8858 booklet, which I got with the motherboard, it can > use PC-1600 and PC-2100 memory modules. > > Where can I read an up-to-date introduction to those memory issues > (PC-2100 vs. PC-2700 vs. 2-year old motherboards)? > Thanks, > --- Omer > My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ > > My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. > They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which > I may be affiliated in any way. > WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html > > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:48:53PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: Depending on whom you wish to deceive (human or another program) and how clever they are, you may want to try something as simple as (oh-dear-God-I-don't-believe-I'm-gonna-say-it) naming uid 0 something other than 'root' on that system. No go, I'm afraid. Naming uid 0 something else breaks everything that expects uid 0 to be named root. Also, simply adding another user named 'foo' and giving him uid 0 breaks, because the standard tools show the first name in /etc/passwd that has a given uid. Depending on which one I put first, root or foo, all uid 0 processes will appear to belong to one of them. Muli - could you give a little more background on what are you trying to achieve? In general - it sounds like what you are asking for is something that some rootkits do to conceal their tracks - have you tried there? Cheers, --Amos = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:48:53PM +0300, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:56:50PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > Salutations! > > > > I would like to have a process that will > > - run with de-facto root priviledges (can do anything root can do) > > - appears to be running under a different user with standard ps / top > > and friends > > Depending on whom you wish to deceive (human or another program) and how > clever they are, you may want to try something as simple as > (oh-dear-God-I-don't-believe-I'm-gonna-say-it) naming uid 0 something > other than 'root' on that system. No go, I'm afraid. Naming uid 0 something else breaks everything that expects uid 0 to be named root. Also, simply adding another user named 'foo' and giving him uid 0 breaks, because the standard tools show the first name in /etc/passwd that has a given uid. Depending on which one I put first, root or foo, all uid 0 processes will appear to belong to one of them. Cheers and thanks, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:56:50PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > Salutations! > > I would like to have a process that will > - run with de-facto root priviledges (can do anything root can do) > - appears to be running under a different user with standard ps / top > and friends Depending on whom you wish to deceive (human or another program) and how clever they are, you may want to try something as simple as (oh-dear-God-I-don't-believe-I'm-gonna-say-it) naming uid 0 something other than 'root' on that system. -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Memory upgrade question for hardware gurus
My desktop has 256MB memory, and nowadays the swap area gets used once in a while (RedHat 8.0 together with Mozilla, httpd and mysqld). So, I would like to add more memory to the computer. The motherboard is of 2002 vintage (478 socket, P-4 1.7GHz) and the memory is a single PC-2100 256MB DDRAM module (PC-2100 is rated at 266MHz). I would like to know whether it is OK to use a 512MB PC-2700 (333MHz) module in the same system, and whether I can mix both DDRAMs (to have total of 768MB). The motherboard is BioSTAR MBP4F/03/R04 (or maybe it was M8P4F or U8858). Anyway, I found a mention of U8858 but no further data. According to the U8858 booklet, which I got with the motherboard, it can use PC-1600 and PC-2100 memory modules. Where can I read an up-to-date introduction to those memory issues (PC-2100 vs. PC-2700 vs. 2-year old motherboards)? Thanks, --- Omer My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which I may be affiliated in any way. WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:33:30PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004, Nadav Har'El wrote about "Re: I'm not the process you think I > am": > > You can try doing this with Linux's little-known "capabilities" feature. > > This allows you to have any user id, but with some of root's capabilities, > > like binding any network address or writing any file (for example) > > magically turned on. For your protection, you can even enable some capabilties > > but not others. > > On second thought, while it's easy to have a root (uid 0) owned process > with lesser privelges (useful for enhanced security), it's less clear how > to use the "capabilities" mechanism to elevate the capabilities of a non- > root process. capsetp (controlling another process) might not be allowed > on standard kernels; And setuid et al. might clear all the capabilities > while changing the uid :( That's actually solvable, since in my scenario, I have a parent process that's setuid 0, which can elevate the capabilities of the target process after making it setuid user. But see my other mail on why capabilities aren't a good solution at this stage. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:21:47PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > You can try doing this with Linux's little-known "capabilities" feature. > This allows you to have any user id, but with some of root's capabilities, > like binding any network address or writing any file (for example) > magically turned on. For your protection, you can even enable some capabilties > but not others. I'm well aware of capabilities, and it was working "as advertised", it would've done the work. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The kernel support is supposedly there, but the userspace tools are broken and have been broken for a long time. See http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0404.0/0338.html for example. Also AFAICR capabilities are not retained accross exec, which is something I need. Thanks, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004, Nadav Har'El wrote about "Re: I'm not the process you think I am": > On second thought, while it's easy to have a root (uid 0) owned process > with lesser privelges (useful for enhanced security), it's less clear how > to use the "capabilities" mechanism to elevate the capabilities of a non- > root process. capsetp (controlling another process) might not be allowed > on standard kernels; And setuid et al. might clear all the capabilities > while changing the uid :( Sorry for answering myself like this... I noticed that a program "sucap" already exists (at least on my old Redhat) that does exactly what I suggested: changing the user name without losing the capabilities. Unfortunately, like I feared, it uses capsetp() and that doesn't work on an unmodified kernel... If you want to use it you'll need to modify your kernel to enable CAP_SETPCAP by default - see instructions in http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5737 This is usually considered a security hole, however. Good luck in finding a better solution. -- Nadav Har'El| Tuesday, Aug 31 2004, 14 Elul 5764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Experience is what causes a person to http://nadav.harel.org.il |make new mistakes instead of old ones. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
Alexander V. Karelin wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Yosef Meller wrote: Alexander V. Karelin wrote: BTW: The Bank Hapoalim site that I'm using as well is even worse... In fact, it does not work at all. It's been 6 months now that Hapoalim tries to fix the problem with wire transfers through internet. Actually the reason I stay with Poalim and do not move my account to Leumi (I have an account there) is the support for Mozilla. I think they have a different interface for business and private customers. Business customers, like myself, have to face hell there:( As always in these arguments - I have only positive things to say about First International Bank's (aka "fibi") support for Mozilla. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I'm not the process you think I am
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004, Nadav Har'El wrote about "Re: I'm not the process you think I am": > You can try doing this with Linux's little-known "capabilities" feature. > This allows you to have any user id, but with some of root's capabilities, > like binding any network address or writing any file (for example) > magically turned on. For your protection, you can even enable some capabilties > but not others. On second thought, while it's easy to have a root (uid 0) owned process with lesser privelges (useful for enhanced security), it's less clear how to use the "capabilities" mechanism to elevate the capabilities of a non- root process. capsetp (controlling another process) might not be allowed on standard kernels; And setuid et al. might clear all the capabilities while changing the uid :( Please tell us if you find a solution. -- Nadav Har'El| Tuesday, Aug 31 2004, 14 Elul 5764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |From the Linux getopt(3) manpage: "BUGS: http://nadav.harel.org.il |This manpage is confusing." = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Yosef Meller wrote: > Alexander V. Karelin wrote: > > > > BTW: The Bank Hapoalim site that I'm using as well is even worse... In > > fact, it does not work at all. It's been 6 months now that Hapoalim tries > > to fix the problem with wire transfers through internet. > > Actually the reason I stay with Poalim and do not move my account to > Leumi (I have an account there) is the support for Mozilla. I think they have a different interface for business and private customers. Business customers, like myself, have to face hell there:( > > I haven't tried to do anything fancy with it lately, but I can't > remmember having any problems with it. > > -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
Alexander V. Karelin wrote: BTW: The Bank Hapoalim site that I'm using as well is even worse... In fact, it does not work at all. It's been 6 months now that Hapoalim tries to fix the problem with wire transfers through internet. Actually the reason I stay with Poalim and do not move my account to Leumi (I have an account there) is the support for Mozilla. I haven't tried to do anything fancy with it lately, but I can't remmember having any problems with it. -- "No, I do not contain myself," were the final words from the set of self-excluding sets. :-) = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not the process you think I am
Salutations!
I would like to have a process that will
- run with de-facto root priviledges (can do anything root can do)
- appears to be running under a different user with standard ps / top
and friends
Any ideas on how to achieve this? I tried setting the real UID to X
and the effective UID to 0 (root), but the process appears as root's
in ps. Sample code attached:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#include
#include
#include
static const uid_t root = 0;
static const uid_t user = 2252; /* whatever */
static inline void printid(const char* prompt)
{
printf("%s: pid %d, ruid %d, euid %d\n",
prompt, getpid(), getuid(),
geteuid());
}
int main(void)
{
int ret;
pid_t pid;
printid("starting");
pid = fork();
if (pid < 0) {
perror("fork");
exit(1);
} else if (pid == 0) {
/* child */
printid("child");
ret = setresuid(user, root, user);
perror("setresuid user, root, user");
printid("child after setresuid");
pause();
exit(0);
}
printid("father");
return 0;
}
Cheers,
Muli
--
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: OT: changing banks and customer service (was: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004, Ira Abramov wrote about "OT: changing banks and customer service (was: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla)": > I think I actually PREFFER a bank with no online access these days... Why? Especially when with "social engineering" much more damage could be done to you over the phone, not over the Internet? In most banks, I can actually call your banker, pretend to be you (assuming you two do not have a very close relationship and he/she doesn't remember your voice), tell them a sob story, and convince them to transfer a large sum of money to my account. I've seen it done (when the caller was the real owner of the account, of course, but still the caller had no real way to prove his identity to the banker). P.S. according to Alon Altman's comment in my Haifux presentation yesterday, the only Israeli bank remaining without online access is Bank Hadoar. -- Nadav Har'El| Tuesday, Aug 31 2004, 14 Elul 5764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Always keep your words soft and sweet, http://nadav.harel.org.il |just in case you have to eat them. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
Shachar, 1) Yashir Ha Rishon is a branch of Leumi. It's official banking ID is 10-678. 2) Their site doesn't work with IE either, btw. I'm using it once in a while, but there are a lot of functions that do not work. And when it comes to something like foreign exchange operations - it's impossible. You actually have to know by heart all their special IDs for different currencies And so on, and so on. 3) Since the Internet service is free of charge (in reality it is not, but that's the status of the service) it's very hard to make them change anything. The only hope is that someone would finaly break into that site, turn it upside down and make these people redo it completely, from the security model to the last function. BTW: The Bank Hapoalim site that I'm using as well is even worse... In fact, it does not work at all. It's been 6 months now that Hapoalim tries to fix the problem with wire transfers through internet. On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Meir Kriheli wrote: > > > I had a problem using the old site since mozilla 1.4 (or 1.5 - can't > > remember) - couldn't login (they were accesing a form in javascript as > > it was global var, instead of using document.getElementById). > > > > After some nagging to their tech support and their complaints department > > the old site works again (tested with firefox 0.9.3). > > > > For the new site, it's still a no-go. After numerous complaints, I got > > the following reply: > > > > It's the managers decision (not fixing the new site). > > > > When asked why, the reply was: that's the decision, without explanations > > or valid reasons. > > > > Cheers > > They didn't give me much more, but a little more. See > http://www.consumer.org.il/ > > I have closed my account with Hayashir Harishon due to their indifferent > behavior. MAYBE Leumi will be better. > > Shachar > > -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: SS>> I have closed my account with Hayashir Harishon due to their SS>> indifferent behavior. MAYBE Leumi will be better. Isn't Hayashir and Leumi the same company? Their web banking seem to be indentical, even the same login works for it, and Hayashir seems to be just a branch of Leumi given separate name. Yes they are. I'm with HaYashir, but access the accounts via Leumi's site. They use different front ends to the same system. BTW, it is interesting - how many people actually would switch banks because of better internet service? I'm now using Hayashir Hrishon because I'm not linked to particular physical branch this way, but does some bank present better alternative for the web service? Same issue here. I'd switch if I had the time to mess with it. -- Meir Kriheli http://mksoft.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: changing banks and customer service (was: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla)
Quoting Shachar Shemesh, from the post of Tue, 31 Aug: > > They didn't give me much more, but a little more. See > http://www.consumer.org.il/ > > I have closed my account with Hayashir Harishon due to their indifferent > behavior. MAYBE Leumi will be better. well, I'm sorry that of all the banks you could have chosen you went for the Yashir's big daddy, I have been a customer of theirs for the last 14 years but for the last 5 years they have annoyed me several times with horrible service and actual intentional damage that I believe cost me several hundred if not almost 2000 shekels. I have therefore decided to leave this bank myself (I have moved to a different branch but It was just a new and different set of agrevations), and am looking these days at the options. It is quite possible that none of the big banks will win but instead one of the smaller ones. Israel has several tiny banks that are said to have good personal service and low-to-no comission fees. They live happily with the bits interest of your money, as they should, not charging you dozens of shekels for a few printed pages of reports, and on the other hand they don't launch multimillion dollar campaigns on TV out of my pocket. They may have poor web access or none, but I find the level of the online banking systems in Israel lacking in so many ways it's really sad. As a side note, I worked for a while with a company that did security audits to production online banking systems, and heard horror stories that caused me to give up the idea of using online banking as a whole. For instance, one of the big banks comissioned a zero-knowledge audit (no access to backend sources and such, only crack attempts through regular Internet access), after a while they set a meeting with the auditor, who opened the meeting by logging into his personal bank account (as he happend to be a customer of that bank). "What are you demonstrating?" asked one of the bank's employees, and the answer came "well, I am logged in to my bank account. I don't have a password for that account, but that's only half the problem. the other half is that I never asked to have online access to it. with even the most basic security design, it should never have been accesible to the web front end, with or without a password!!", and that was just the beginning... I think I actually PREFFER a bank with no online access these days... -- A fruitcake dessert short of a meal Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bank Leumi's old site - works (again) with mozilla
SS>> I have closed my account with Hayashir Harishon due to their SS>> indifferent behavior. MAYBE Leumi will be better. Isn't Hayashir and Leumi the same company? Their web banking seem to be indentical, even the same login works for it, and Hayashir seems to be just a branch of Leumi given separate name. BTW, it is interesting - how many people actually would switch banks because of better internet service? I'm now using Hayashir Hrishon because I'm not linked to particular physical branch this way, but does some bank present better alternative for the web service? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells phone +972-54-6524945 /\ JRRT LotR. whois:!SM8333 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
