--
Florian Hinzmann private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65
Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
Hi,
Just thought I'd chip inn some support for LDAP. Also a kerberos
pointer:
www.bayour.com has a very good ldap+kerberos howto for debian written by
Turbo Fredrikson.
Also you should check out directory administrator for admining your
directory. A simple ldap client for administrating ldap use
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> I suspect that if all your boxes are running Debian that your life will
> be made easier by all the Debian kerberos packages.
This is an interesting thread, and this comment just gave me an idea.
What if you use FreeS/WAN (or really, any sort of IPsec)?
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:23:17AM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:14:26PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > Two choices (I like lists :) ):
> >
> > (1) use libpam-ldap:
>
> i recommend this.
I also recommend this.
> > (2) don't use libpam-ldap:
> > You don't have
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:04:01PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> > (1) Kerberos
> > Never used it. Can't advise you.
>
> I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glance
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:14:26PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Two choices (I like lists :) ):
>
> (1) use libpam-ldap:
i recommend this. Even though the current pam system is a pain to
modify.. if you modify one file and it gets updated in the package it
will nag about it.. you can't tell if
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> (1) Kerberos
> Never used it. Can't advise you.
I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glance at leaves the
impressions that it is ridiculously complicated to set up a
hi ya
why not do the following ???
make one machine be your primary NIS server...
- all passwds defined there...
all other machines uses the NIS server for passwd authentication
and turn on ssh logins ( ~/.shosts ) w/o checking passwd
use automounter for /n//directories
Rob VanFleet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They basically want to log into any one machine within this group
> with the same password, and be able to access any disks they choose
> from any pariticular machine (within this group).
An AFS-based setup is used at many places to great effect, especia
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:22:12PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> What if you use FreeS/WAN (or really, any sort of IPsec)? It can be set
> up in a mode that's called "opportunistic encryption" that will use IPsec
> for communication when it's available and allow other traffic to proceed
> as norma
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:02:56PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> I work for several University astronomers who basically want something
> like what they're used to at other places: a pure sun shop, running
> NIS and NFS.
Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
(1) Kerberos
Never used
I have a situation where my superiors are leaning heavily on me to make
life more convenient for them by having total availability of data from
a group of machines. They basically want to log into any one machine
within this group with the same password, and be able to access any
disks they choose
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> I suspect that if all your boxes are running Debian that your life will
> be made easier by all the Debian kerberos packages.
This is an interesting thread, and this comment just gave me an idea.
What if you use FreeS/WAN (or really, any sort of IPsec)
Hi,
Just wanted to make it clear the the email i sent about Neomail was
purely to let other people know about a program that i thought was worth
mentioning, it had nothing to do with Ernie Miller and was not intended
to be SPAM.
Im sorry if i have caused you problems Ernie this is the last t
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:04:01PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> > (1) Kerberos
> > Never used it. Can't advise you.
>
> I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glanc
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> (1) Kerberos
> Never used it. Can't advise you.
I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glance at leaves the
impressions that it is ridiculously complicated to set up
hi ya
why not do the following ???
make one machine be your primary NIS server...
- all passwds defined there...
all other machines uses the NIS server for passwd authentication
and turn on ssh logins ( ~/.shosts ) w/o checking passwd
use automounter for /n//directories
Rob VanFleet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They basically want to log into any one machine within this group
> with the same password, and be able to access any disks they choose
> from any pariticular machine (within this group).
An AFS-based setup is used at many places to great effect, especi
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:02:56PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> I work for several University astronomers who basically want something
> like what they're used to at other places: a pure sun shop, running
> NIS and NFS.
Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
(1) Kerberos
Never used
I have a situation where my superiors are leaning heavily on me to make
life more convenient for them by having total availability of data from
a group of machines. They basically want to log into any one machine
within this group with the same password, and be able to access any
disks they choos
Hi,
Just wanted to make it clear the the email i sent about Neomail was
purely to let other people know about a program that i thought was worth
mentioning, it had nothing to do with Ernie Miller and was not intended
to be SPAM.
Im sorry if i have caused you problems Ernie this is the last th
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:53:16PM +0200, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> Debian usually patches the (security) bug, without going straight to the
> new upstream release, but only upgrading the package number
That's only the case with stable. In unstable, there is no reason not
to go straight to the new
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:53:16PM +0200, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> Debian usually patches the (security) bug, without going straight to the
> new upstream release, but only upgrading the package number
That's only the case with stable. In unstable, there is no reason not
to go straight to the ne
"Peter Lieven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the testing/unstable tree
> already patched
> against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" security
> hole?
yes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.n
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:34, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Is there any reason why there is no OpenSSH 3.1 package for debian available
> yet?
> is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the testing/unstable tree
> already patched
> against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" sec
Is there any reason why there is no OpenSSH 3.1
package for debian available yet?
is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the
testing/unstable tree already patched
against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" security
hole?
thanks
Peter
"Peter Lieven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the testing/unstable tree already
>patched
> against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" security hole?
yes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netf
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:34, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Is there any reason why there is no OpenSSH 3.1 package for debian available yet?
> is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the testing/unstable tree already
>patched
> against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" securi
Is there any reason why there is no OpenSSH 3.1
package for debian available yet?
is the "OpenSSH_3.0.2p1" version avaiable in the
testing/unstable tree already patched
against the "March 7, 2002: Off-by-one error in the channel code" security
hole?
thanks
Peter
29 matches
Mail list logo
