From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/sudo, run
ssh -X localhost. It'll tunnel your X apps
From Ivan Brezina on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
Another possibility is:
su -c vim-gtk
you can also use xhost +username for allowing users to connect to our
Xserver. But this does not work for me on Debian.
xhost is for working with connections coming over tcp. :0.0 uses
a named socket
Indeed. My mistake. I just verified that X wasn't listening in to
tcp/6000, xhost +'ed, and su -'ed, setup the display variable, and it
worked.
NM. I'm wrong. Seems something on this guy's end is borken.
-Joseph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as Microsoft, we will never take a company
From Norbert Preining on Friday, 08 November, 2002:
I think that vim-gtk tries to open a window, recognizes that this
doesn't work (authorization) and starts normal text mode vi.
Probably the easiest way to do this is, instead of using su/sudo, run
ssh -X localhost. It'll tunnel your X apps
Indeed. My mistake. I just verified that X wasn't listening in to
tcp/6000, xhost +'ed, and su -'ed, setup the display variable, and it
worked.
NM. I'm wrong. Seems something on this guy's end is borken.
-Joseph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as Microsoft, we will never take a company
From Jan Niehusmann on Friday, 18 October, 2002:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:24:31AM -0400, R. Bradley Tilley wrote:
Can someone explain why 'apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade' is not
sufficient to keep a debian system secure and updated?
Of course, if the hacker managed to modify files on
IMHO there is no lack of interesting ideas - what we really need are
implementations.
Ja. I just have to find the time. :)
apt-check-sigs is a nice proof-of-concept, and the debsigs stuff could
also improve security significantly. Together, I'd say they'd suffice to
make the debian mirrors
From Jan Niehusmann on Friday, 18 October, 2002:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:24:31AM -0400, R. Bradley Tilley wrote:
Can someone explain why 'apt-get update apt-get dist-upgrade' is not
sufficient to keep a debian system secure and updated?
Of course, if the hacker managed to modify files on
IMHO there is no lack of interesting ideas - what we really need are
implementations.
Ja. I just have to find the time. :)
apt-check-sigs is a nice proof-of-concept, and the debsigs stuff could
also improve security significantly. Together, I'd say they'd suffice to
make the debian mirrors
It should also be noted that OpenSSH 3.0.2 (the most current
stable version) does not log when tcp wrappers' hosts_access()
succeeds. I filed a bug and a patch for it,
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65
From Will Aoki on Saturday, 12 January, 2002:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at
It should also be noted that OpenSSH 3.0.2 (the most current
stable version) does not log when tcp wrappers' hosts_access()
succeeds. I filed a bug and a patch for it,
http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65
From Will Aoki on Saturday, 12 January, 2002:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at
From Hernan Del Boca on Monday, 07 January, 2002:
i have problems with the ssh server..
im trying to connect to a server via ssh but i dont want the server to ask
for the password.
It should also be noted that, if using RSA keys, you will be prompted for
a password if the password for the RSA
From Hernan Del Boca on Monday, 07 January, 2002:
i have problems with the ssh server..
im trying to connect to a server via ssh but i dont want the server to ask
for the password.
It should also be noted that, if using RSA keys, you will be prompted for
a password if the password for the RSA
From Florian Weimer on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
It's clear to me we need a virtual package for pgp implementation
that both pgp and gnupg can
From Hubert Chan on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joseph == Joseph Pingenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joseph So why not create in the virtual package an actual wrapper
(well, because then it wouldn't be a _virtual_ package, but ignoring
that...)
Heh
From Hubert Chan on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
Joseph == Joseph Pingenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
below). Although if you volunteer to make it happen... :-)
Hubert Changing all the packages to work properly wouldn't be a simple
Hubert task. (Not saying that it's a bad idea, though.)
Joseph
From Florian Weimer on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
It's clear to me we need a virtual package for pgp implementation
that both pgp and gnupg can provide.
From Hubert Chan on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joseph == Joseph Pingenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joseph So why not create in the virtual package an actual wrapper
(well, because then it wouldn't be a _virtual_ package, but ignoring
that...)
Heh. How
From Hubert Chan on Thursday, 21 June, 2001:
Joseph == Joseph Pingenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
below). Although if you volunteer to make it happen... :-)
Hubert Changing all the packages to work properly wouldn't be a simple
Hubert task. (Not saying that it's a bad idea, though.)
Joseph Aside
From Pat Moffitt on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
-Original Message-
From: Noah L. Meyerhans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Doesn't it really depend on the use of the machine and the competency of the
admin? Can (should) options be made for say Firewall, Personal System,
Default or by experience
From Pat Moffitt on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Pingenot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: rlinetd security
[snip]
While we're at it, it'd be nice if the packages (on an update)
didn't re
From Dale Southard on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
Actually, your version is a little more complex than the IRIX version.
Under IRIX there are seperate files for each service, rather than a
single file with on/off entries for each service. In other words
`echo on /etc/config/xdm` and `chkconfig xdm
From Pat Moffitt on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
-Original Message-
From: Noah L. Meyerhans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doesn't it really depend on the use of the machine and the competency of the
admin? Can (should) options be made for say Firewall, Personal System,
Default or by experience
From Pat Moffitt on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Pingenot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:54 AM
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: rlinetd security
[snip]
While we're at it, it'd be nice if the packages (on an update
From Dale Southard on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
Hrm. That could be rather easy to implement. The guaranteed
way to see if something's going to be started or not, though,
is still /etc/rc?.d
If you want to, you can replace them and create an easy
script, such as
--/sbin/chkdconfig--
From Dale Southard on Tuesday, 19 June, 2001:
Actually, your version is a little more complex than the IRIX version.
Under IRIX there are seperate files for each service, rather than a
single file with on/off entries for each service. In other words
`echo on /etc/config/xdm` and `chkconfig xdm
26 matches
Mail list logo
