On Monday 13 March 2006 20:07, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:03:24PM -0500, Neal Murphy wrote:
> >The idea is to present information to the server that only the server can
> >decrypt, and that, in theory, only the authorized user could have
> > generated.
>
> Much like an authen
Your message was not posted to the debian-security-announce mailing list.
It has instead been forwarded to the security team and the listmaster team.
The debian-security-announce list is a moderated mailing list on
which security-related announcements are made by the security team for
Debian GNU/L
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:03:24PM -0500, Neal Murphy wrote:
The idea is to present information to the server that only the server can
decrypt, and that, in theory, only the authorized user could have generated.
Much like an authentication system. What's the point of all this over
just authent
On Monday 13 March 2006 09:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:19:30AM -0500, Neal Murphy wrote:
> > It seems kind-of counterproductive to set up SSH for secure access, then
> > advertise to the universe that it's there. Thus my idea:
> >
> > Consider:
> > - sshd listens on
I have a Compaq 9.0 Security Edition SE XP 2000 and my firewall is blocking
my CallWave and some other items I attempt to download. What can I do to
correct this problem?
On 03/13/2006, johannes weiß wrote:
> this is the std config. But it's widely configurable (e.g.:
> --- SNIP (fail2ban.conf, std config) ---
> fwban = iptables -I fail2ban-%(__name__)s 1 -s -j DROP
> fwunban = iptables -D fail2ban-%(__name__)s -s -j DROP
> maxfailures = 5
> bantime = 600
> findt
IGNORE, THIS IS TO ADD YOU TO OUR WHITE LIST.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Schulze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:14 AM
To: Debian Security Announcements
Subject: [SECURITY] [DSA 996-1] New Crypt::CBC packages fix
cryptographic weakness
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
On Monday 13 March 2006 03:58, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi, it seems 128.101.240.212, one of the two remaining security
> mirrors, is unreachable. Other mirrors (non-Debian, like
> 128.101.240.209 and 128.101.240.210, which seem to be right "next
> door") are reachable.
>
> It would be great to get
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:19:30AM -0500, Neal Murphy wrote:
> It seems kind-of counterproductive to set up SSH for secure access, then
> advertise to the universe that it's there. Thus my idea:
>
> Consider:
> - sshd listens on a pre-shared UDP port for 'a knock on the door',
> specificall
Hello list.
I've found out interesting thing using apache and samba on my test server.
I'm not sure if it is a new issue but I couldn't find anything similar
on google.
I've configured apache to serve content from a mounted windows share.
Now the best begins. When I add a backslash ("\") mark at
Hi,
also sprach johannes weiß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.13.1132 +0100]:
I use fail2ban and I'm very happy with it.
Am I correct in assuming that it simply adds rules like
-A fail2ban_chain -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j DROP
this is the std config. But it's widely configurable (e.g.:
---
also sprach johannes weiß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.13.1132 +0100]:
> I use fail2ban and I'm very happy with it.
Am I correct in assuming that it simply adds rules like
-A fail2ban_chain -s 1.2.3.4/32 -j DROP
to iptables whenever 1.2.3.4/32 has too many login failures?
Does it expire entri
Hi Guys,
> [...]
I use fail2ban and I'm very happy with it.
Just my 2 cents, regards,
johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.03.13.1114 +0100]:
> > Hi, it seems 128.101.240.212, one of the two remaining security
> > mirrors, is unreachable. Other mirrors (non-Debian, like
> > 128.101.240.209 and 128.101.240.210, which seem to be right "next
> > door") are reachable.
>
martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi, it seems 128.101.240.212, one of the two remaining security
> mirrors, is unreachable. Other mirrors (non-Debian, like
> 128.101.240.209 and 128.101.240.210, which seem to be right "next
> door") are reachable.
>
> It would be great to get a status update from the admi
Hi, it seems 128.101.240.212, one of the two remaining security
mirrors, is unreachable. Other mirrors (non-Debian, like
128.101.240.209 and 128.101.240.210, which seem to be right "next
door") are reachable.
It would be great to get a status update from the administration
team.
Thanks,
--
Plea
* Neal Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 03:19 -0500]:
> Consider:
[...]
Sounds like putting http://ingles.homeunix.org/software/ost/
into ssh(d).
Nicolas
--
http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:19:30AM -0500, Neal Murphy wrote:
[...]
> My idea is akin to a monastery that has no visible way in or out. If someone
> wants in, he has to know where to knock, using the Super Secret Squirrel
> coded knock. Then he has to wait a bit before he tries to pass his
> cr
On Monday 13 March 2006 01:24, fgeek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > once in a while (say, every two weeks) I get a brute-force
> > login/password scan attempt in my server (i.e., a single ip tries
> > dictionary account names and passwords at random). SSH access is
> > needed by many users, and (RSA/DS
19 matches
Mail list logo
