Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which
debian has backported int
Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which
debian has backported int
Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which
debian has backported into the 2.4.21 k
Mark Devin wrote:
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which
debian has backported into the 2.4.21 kernel so
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which debian
has backported into the 2.4.21 kernel sources.
I
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which debian
has backported into the 2.4.21 kernel sources.
I just recompiled my kernel today w
Mark Devin wrote:
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which debian
has backported into the 2.4.21 kernel sources.
I just recom
I have been running a custom compiled 2.4.21 kernel using the kernel
source package from Adrian Bunk's site on Woody. I had an ipsec link
setup and it was working well using the Kame implementation which debian
has backported into the 2.4.21 kernel sources.
I just recompiled my kernel today wi
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 23:32, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 at 14:26:33 +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2003 at 7:00, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> >
> > > To be brief, I don't usually come accross that there is an exploit for
> > > only effective to debian boxes. Plus, There a
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 23:32, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 at 14:26:33 +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2003 at 7:00, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> >
> > > To be brief, I don't usually come accross that there is an exploit for
> > > only effective to debian boxes. Plus, There a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Devin wrote:
| It looks as though someone is trying to crack my box through ssh.
OK, now I realise that it is an ssh scanner.
See: http://www.monkey.org/~provos/scanssh/
Why is it that the Debian version of sshd gives out any information
about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It looks as though someone is trying to crack my box through ssh. This
is what logcheck emailed me:
- -- snip --
Jun 16 04:36:02 jack sshd[20026]: Connection from 212.202.204.149 port 2323
Jun 16 04:36:03 jack sshd[20027]: Connection from 212.202.204
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Devin wrote:
| It looks as though someone is trying to crack my box through ssh.
OK, now I realise that it is an ssh scanner.
See: http://www.monkey.org/~provos/scanssh/
Why is it that the Debian version of sshd gives out any information
about its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It looks as though someone is trying to crack my box through ssh. This
is what logcheck emailed me:
- -- snip --
Jun 16 04:36:02 jack sshd[20026]: Connection from 212.202.204.149 port 2323
Jun 16 04:36:03 jack sshd[20027]: Connection from 212.202.204.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, I have been seeing lots of people on this list recommend using the
grsecurity kernel patch. Now I want to give it a go, but I see that
there is also a lsm patch and I also remember lids being recommended in
the past by others.
I would like to le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, I have been seeing lots of people on this list recommend using the
grsecurity kernel patch. Now I want to give it a go, but I see that
there is also a lsm patch and I also remember lids being recommended in
the past by others.
I would like to learn
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 23:27, IC0N wrote:
>
> Checking `lkm'... You have 1 process hidden for readdir command
> You have 1 process hidden for ps command
> Warning: Possible LKM Trojan installed
>
> Sometimes I get 2 or 3 processes, sometimes NONE
>
If a process is created between the output of ps
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 23:27, IC0N wrote:
>
> Checking `lkm'... You have 1 process hidden for readdir command
> You have 1 process hidden for ps command
> Warning: Possible LKM Trojan installed
>
> Sometimes I get 2 or 3 processes, sometimes NONE
>
If a process is created between the output of ps
I need to come up with some solutions for remotely monitoring the
security of a server which is off-site. There is no direct connection
from the main office to this box except using the internet backbone.
I see two immediate issues:
1. I need to setup some method for receiving system logs from
19 matches
Mail list logo
