On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:28:07PM +0200, Benny Kleykens wrote:
lacking this skill. Obviously few of you would give a rats-ass but Im
truly considering unsubscribing from this list, this is the second
lenghty flame-war in less than a month... maybe a moderator is needed to
keep this
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:18:10PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 09:33:12AM -0400, Jason Healy wrote:
machine. The machine was locked in the server room, so the only
people who could get to the root password (and the console) were the
people with keys. If you needed
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 10:38:20PM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
My questions are, what's the difference between a normal compilation and a
statically linked one?
Why would you place the C libraries into your chroot tree?
Normal means link against shared libraries. In that case, the program
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 10:38:20PM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
My questions are, what's the difference between a normal compilation and a
statically linked one?
Why would you place the C libraries into your chroot tree?
Normal means link against shared libraries. In that case, the program
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 10:36:49PM +0200, Piotr Krukowiecki wrote:
But what bothers me is where did that file come from?
'test' is in shellutils, but '[' is not in any of package files:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ LANG=en dpkg -S `which [` `which test`
dpkg: /usr/bin/[ not found.
shellutils:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:02:47AM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote:
be SUID, you're safer without it being SUID). Is there any (sane) way
of making it so that programs such as passwd, chsh, etc. don't need to
be SUID?
Not really. Not if you want to ensure that any of the data they can alter
passes
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:34:11PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
Well, it depends. You can never tidy up a rooted box; the same mentality
sort of applies all the way down - if you're setting up a box, why worry
about installing this and uninstalling that, when your original
installation shouldn't
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Debian ought to offer security updates for the stable distribution, but
it doesn't. Instead, it is only offering security updates for the
packages in the stable distribution. That's
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:48:27PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
you know, what I've ment. Debian *distribution* is main and non-US/main
Is that policy or your opinion? Last time I looked, there were still those
pesky other sections on the servers, in the bug system, and so forth.
--
You arguably
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:34:11PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
Well, it depends. You can never tidy up a rooted box; the same mentality
sort of applies all the way down - if you're setting up a box, why worry
about installing this and uninstalling that, when your original
installation shouldn't
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:45:12PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Debian ought to offer security updates for the stable distribution, but
it doesn't. Instead, it is only offering security updates for the
packages in the stable distribution. That's
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:48:27PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
you know, what I've ment. Debian *distribution* is main and non-US/main
Is that policy or your opinion? Last time I looked, there were still those
pesky other sections on the servers, in the bug system, and so forth.
--
You arguably
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
Myriad bugs in bind.
Beaucoup. You meant to say "beaucoup bugs in bind." :-)
Thanks to the team for the prompt action, BTW.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
Myriad bugs in bind.
Beaucoup. You meant to say beaucoup bugs in bind. :-)
Thanks to the team for the prompt action, BTW.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:04:47PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Another option would be to not store the AIDE configuration file anywhere
that the cracker could see it. Without that configuration file, the
cracker would have no way to generate a valid, substitute list of
checksums. This
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:04:47PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Another option would be to not store the AIDE configuration file anywhere
that the cracker could see it. Without that configuration file, the
cracker would have no way to generate a valid, substitute list of
checksums. This
16 matches
Mail list logo
