I received a mail with this subject from localhost, and with what I suppose it
is the diff between wtmp and its previous version. What I'd like to know is
how I can rebuild the file to see what's been the change and the logins
deleted?
Also.. what is the daemon that sends this messages?
I received a mail with this subject from localhost, and with what I suppose it
is the diff between wtmp and its previous version. What I'd like to know is
how I can rebuild the file to see what's been the change and the logins
deleted?
Also.. what is the daemon that sends this messages?
A Saturday 07 December 2002 2:37, David B Harris va escriure:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:09:59 +0100
Albert Cervera Areny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it isn't really that the hole system runs 8% slower. Sorry for my
first explanation... Now I think it is an overhead which is afordable
seeing
A Saturday 07 December 2002 2:37, David B Harris va escriure:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:09:59 +0100
Albert Cervera Areny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it isn't really that the hole system runs 8% slower. Sorry for my
first explanation... Now I think it is an overhead which is afordable
seeing
I've read in slashdot
(http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/02/2035207) that openbsd has
included stack-smashing protection using the ProPolice
(http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/) patch for GCC 3.2
I think it would be a great idea to use this patch with debian too as soon
protection from a quantifiable risk. I dont want to see the
kernel go the way of MS's kernel ,one huge bloated mess.
Lets see some papers/justification for this item, it may not be needed in
all situations.
regards
Thing
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:29, Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
I've read
I've read in slashdot
(http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/02/2035207) that openbsd has
included stack-smashing protection using the ProPolice
(http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/) patch for GCC 3.2
I think it would be a great idea to use this patch with debian too as soon
protection from a quantifiable risk. I dont want to see the
kernel go the way of MS's kernel ,one huge bloated mess.
Lets see some papers/justification for this item, it may not be needed in
all situations.
regards
Thing
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:29, Albert Cervera Areny wrote:
I've read
Debian testing and unstable use it too..
-- Missatge transmès --
Subject: Re: Squirrel Mail 1.2.7 XSS Exploit
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:51:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DarC KonQuesT said:
Sorry if you receive two of these.
Debian testing and unstable use it too..
-- Missatge transmès --
Subject: Re: Squirrel Mail 1.2.7 XSS Exploit
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:51:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
DarC KonQuesT said:
Sorry if you receive two of
I suppose this vulnerability affects also debian. I've already changed the
setuid bit in chfn and chsh though it is supposed to be difficult to exploit.
-- Missatge transmès --
Subject: RAZOR advisory: Linux util-linux chfn local root vulnerability
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
11 matches
Mail list logo
