CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2013:0703
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0703.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
proxy squid?
has probado a bloquear los puertos que necesita skype?
Suerte
El día 3 de abril de 2013 00:11, César Martinez
cmarti...@servicomecuador.com escribió:
Estimados esperando que todos se encuentren bien paso aquí a explicar mi
problema, tengo un proxy centos 5.9 funcionando bien las
Hola gracias por responder si pero no me funciona o de pronto sabes
cuales no más son para poder verificar?
Gracias nuevamente
César
proxy squid?
has probado a bloquear los puertos que necesita skype?
Suerte
El día 3 de abril de 2013 00:11, César Martinez
cmarti...@servicomecuador.com
Podrías poner en iptables como política por defecto DROP y *abrir*
solamente lo que necesites. A saber: necesitas una conexión al puerto 80?
La abres. Una conexión por FTP? Idem. Y todo el resto que muera. Así
tendrías un firewall realmente eficiente, que se quede con lo justo y
necesario.
El 4
Gracias el problema es que ya tengo el firewall configurado y es
bastante largo cambiarlo, de pronto podrías sabes cuales son los puertos
que usa skype?
César
On 04/04/13 11:56, Héctor Herrera wrote:
Podrías poner en iptables como política por defecto DROP y *abrir*
solamente lo que
Estimados.
Estoy notando que al final de cada archivo editado con vim, aparece, en la
ultima linea, los caracteres
80ý5:q^M
Alguna idea por donde comenzar a buscar?
Yo estoy re perdido
--
Diego - Yo no soy paranoico! (pero que me siguen, me siguen)
Con una busqueda rapida puertos skype firewall, me tira este link :
https://support.skype.com/es/faq/FA148/que-puertos-debo-abrir-para-poder-usar-el-skype-en-windows
Tambien, mas drastico, es bloquear las ips de los servers de skype
66.235.180.9
66.235.181.9
80.160.91.12
80.161.91.25
Hi,
QUESTION:
what implications are there when using the root or a root type of
account via a port-forwarding ssh-tunnel inside (or on top of)
another non-root type of user's ssh-tunnel ?
Is such double layer of encryption brings more security or system
still vulnerable same as single layer of
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Eero Volotinen wrote:
http://blog.acsystem.sk/linux/brute-force-attack-dovecot-imap-server-blocking-ip-with-tcp-wrappers
Much thanks for the link; there is this one also:
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/LoginProcess (you need to go to the very bottom)
so, I think that process
Bry8 Star wrote:
Hi,
QUESTION:
what implications are there when using the root or a root type of
account via a port-forwarding ssh-tunnel inside (or on top of)
another non-root type of user's ssh-tunnel ?
Is such double layer of encryption brings more security or system
still vulnerable
Odd problem. Two 6.4 boxes, and a user's home directory is automounted.
/etc/passwd are identical... but once mounted on the other server, if we
su - to that user, what we see is an old UID of his, from a while back
(years?), while on the home directory server, it's the current, correct
UID.
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Odd problem. Two 6.4 boxes, and a user's home directory is automounted.
/etc/passwd are identical... but once mounted on the other server, if we
su - to that user, what we see is an old UID of his, from a while back
(years?), while on the home directory server, it's
Hi,
sorry if this has been covered, I searched google for this but can't find an
answer (maybe I am trying the incorrect search terms).
What is bind97?
What are the differences between bind97 and bind?
thanks
Jobst
--
Fortune: No such file or directory.
| |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach,
Just some different versions. Here you go,
bind.x86_64 30:9.3.6-20.P1.el5_8.5 base
bind97.x86_64 32:9.7.0-17.P2.el5 base
As you can see, bind is 9.3.6-20.P1, and bind97 is 9.7.0-17.P2.
Banyan He
Blog: http://www.rootong.com
Email:
14 matches
Mail list logo