Re: OpenBSD with RBAC?
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 22:17:23 +0200, Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 02:46:32PM -0500, Lawal, Banji wrote: I was wondering if anyone out there has used OpenBSD with RBAC. From what I have found out so far RBAC is only deployed with FreeBSD. If anyone has any info about this please let me know. You are right, that doesn't work on OpenBSD. You might be interested in systrace, though. It would be nice if somebody was doing something like SeOS for OBSD, though. But, I know, only so much time and so many developers and I don't code, so I'll shut up now.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Diana Eichert wrote: bcw(4) is gone Marcus Glocker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], knows a big deal about wireless LANs. He has been involved in many of our wirelesss driver, he has also written applications for wireless applications like rtunes. He wrote the nostromo webserver. He is certainly the person who knows how to write original code. When it comes to bcw, a piece of hardware for that no documentation exists, he decided to use the docs the linux folks have. He began a rewrite of a bcw driver, inspired by the work of the linux folks. His driver was not working yet, to give him a headstart, he used some code of the linux folks with the clear intent to replace it with his own. Just to make sure this shit works. When I read Michael Buesch's original e-mail, I figured this out. He was probably just using it for testing purposes. I do not call myself a programmer. I just know enough scripting to get my job done, but even I figured this out. It doesn't take a genius. To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs. A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository of code for anyone to use. So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius. The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus, claiming license violations. Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver from the OpenBSD cvs tree. Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users. Thank you, Linux BCW developers! AntiLinuxRant Forget it. I was annoyed by the GPL Nazis and was going to write a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who just don't get it. /AntiLinuxRant
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:53 -0400, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Where is the Open Community is going these days... They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make? Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well? They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?
Re: OpenSSH 4.6 released?
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:42:37 +0100, Sebastian Rother [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Guys... It`s not even avaiable at the mainserver. http://www.openssh.org/openbsd.html - ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/ Nor is it mentioned at the Website, nor is there an announcement Mail. So don4t tell me something about mirrors and foo if you didn`t even take at look at the main FTP-Server 4.6 is simply not released yet. So is undeadly wrong or was the news itself released too early propably? It just never happened that something got released wich is not avaiable. Read the article more carefully; OpenSSH 4.6 has just been released. It will be available from the mirrors listed at http://www.openssh.com/ shortly. ^^^ Released may not be used properly, but the article makes it clear it's not actually available yet.
Re: Mounting ext2 in a loopback device
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:59:03 +, Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: $ sudo mount -t ext2 /dev/svnd0c debian mount: no mount helper program found for ext2: No such file or directory Use ``-t ext2fs''. Miod A See fstab(5) for types of supported filesystems in the already excellent man page would have been helpful. Or is this seen as already overly obvious?
Re: spamd unnecessarily abrasive?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:57:54 -0800, Brian Keefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Feb 20, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Darren Spruell wrote: On 2/20/07, Brian Keefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of a greylisting type of solution, it seems that identification would be especially devastating since the work-around is so trivial. Unless my understanding is very wrong, the whole effectiveness of the solution depends on the spammers not realizing the difference between a normal MTA and one that greylists. The reason that greylisting has been effective is because spammers apparently don't waste resources on maintaining queues and attempting redelivery later. Why worry about redelivery to 500 temporarily failed recipients when in the same time and processor cycles you can delivery to 500,000 more mailboxes? Historically true, but the tighter anti-spam defenses become, the more it's worth it to put a little extra effort into reaching defended mailboxes. Also, if the spammers can figure out the difference between an error because a mailbox is full, user doesn't exist, etc and the fact that they're talking to a greylisting daemon, it's worth it to make the effort if they can bypass a spam filter, where as it's really not worth retrying of a user's mailbox is full or they don't exist. Whether it's worth retrying depends on why the original delivery attempt failed. Right now it's probably still not worth doing, since there are so few greylisting systems deployed. Eventually it might be worth it. It (in practice, apparently) matters not to the spammer if they've got an antispam measure returning a 45x error or a legitimate MTA. If you were a spammer, and thought that working around 450s from spamd was worth wasting resources on to reattempt delivery, why wouldn't you just reattempt delivery on any temporary error under the hopes that it will succeed? See above. By definition a temporary error will go away at some point if you reattempt delivery. Depends what the error was. For every point that someone has brought up against greylisting (from since it was originally proposed by Harris in 2003), it continues to work effectively. So while people adopts this sky-is-falling-spammers-will-figure-it-out-soon mentality, the numbers don't lie. Greylisting has been, still is, and will continue to be for some time at least an effective measure. This is the part where I believe I'm being misunderstood. I'm not saying that greylisting is necessarily bad, and I'm not saying that it's ineffective. What I am saying is that I think it could be even more effective if it was more difficult for spammers to recognize a difference between unprotected and protected systems. How spammers are behaving right now doesn't necessarily predict how they're always going to behave. A particular technique for fighting spam has to be pretty wide-spread before spammers will spend the time to figure out the flaws. I've worked in e-mail for about 8 years, starting with a hosting company that had millions of e-mail boxes and hundreds of thousands of domains, then two different e-mail security companies. The one thing I've noticed is that no one method of fighting spam is a panacea. Originally when Beysian filtering was proposed, it was supposed to be the Final Ultimate Solution for Spam and everyone was gushing on all the usenet groups and mailing lists about how great it was and how they never got a single piece of spam any more. A lot of commercial solutions rushed to include Beysian-based techniques, but eventually spammers overwhelmed it and you don't hear much about it any more since it's just not effective as spam evolved. Recently spammers have taken to sending image based spam. I'm sure anyone who follows spammers is familiar with it, but it's pretty sophisticate and is pretty successful at evading OCR-based systems. Any way, the point is that nothing is perfect and, in my experience, you have to keep evolving the techniques to stop spam as the spammers evolve their techniques to avoid being blocked. Obviously in the case of greylisting and spamd, the goal is to avoid being put on the blacklist in the first place, and one way to do that would be resending to avoid being assumed a spammer. When I first started fighting spam, all the spammers had to pay for their rackspace, DNS hosting, bandwidth, etc and usually they had to pay above average prices because of all the headaches they caused for their providers. Now they've evolved to using botnets and the vast majority of spam comes from such systems, so the bandwidth costs are gone and the hosting costs are pretty much limited to how much they have to pay the criminals for the botnet CC passwords. It's not a matter of cost any more, it's a matter only of efficiency. If they make
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:58:00 +0100, mickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:06PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:18:16PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote: | On 14/02/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Artur Grabowski wrote: | Stephan A. Rickauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |I did read your FAQ but I can't see how it rebuts what has |just been said. You seem to be happy with signing NDAs. If the |result is a readable and understandable GPL'ed driver, |companies will be even less motivated to release programming |documentation. This will lead to a GPL-lock-in since you |simply replace the vendor not willing to share specifications |with an NDA'ed GPL developer not willing to share those, but |GPL code only. | | Which is exactly what the GPL people want since that's the whole | point of the license. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the | GPL. Duh. | | Nah, RMS doesn't want this. A lot of `GPL people' don't want this | at all. | | This deal is meant to divide. | | | And this discussion isn't? There are already plenty of divisions within the | FOSS world - between the F and OS of FOSS, between Linux and BSD, between | the various BSDs. It's not as if TdR started OpenBSD to continue | contributing to NetBSD, is it? | | And yet when a driver is released under the BSD licence, which conflicts | with the GPL, when do we hear the bitching about it on the BSD side? Wait, | what's that? Oh, we don't? When vendors open up their docs, all profit. When one signs an NDA, in the end, no one profits. Besides, what is keeping Linux from including BSD licensed drivers ? I was under the impression that they have done this in the past. How does a BSD licensed driver conflict with the GPL ? I've heard that the two-clause BSD license should be compatbile with the GPL... oh come fucking on! do not start this bsd vs gpl crap again! How long have you people been reading these lists? When are people going to realize that Han is just a troll.
