he updates,
I'd be covered. Since this appears to not be the case, is there
something that can be done to make this fact more readily apparent to
users?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.c
t of Debian.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."-Groucho Marx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
2.17 kernel.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."-Groucho Marx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Mike Dresser writes:
"William R. Ward" wrote:
I've replaced the legit usernames and IP's with "xxx" but left them in
for context. I'm worried that the "date" entries are a consequence of
some hacker activity, but I have been unable to find any other
symptom
?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."-Groucho Marx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Olaf Meeuwissen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William R. Ward) writes:
One way to test if you have been hacked is to run an MD5 checksum of
key binaries and look to see if it's been replaced by the intruder.
Is there any place where the MD5 sums of individual executable files
(not the .deb
could confirm it that way.
It's not perfect, but given the policies you have to live with, it may
be the only type of solution you can come up with.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
to the final location.
Does such a beast exist? If not, I think it should. It should
probably obey the /etc/alternatives preferences for editors, too.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
William R Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any kind of wrapper that can be used to allow sudo to grant
editing access to only one file? I am thinking of something similar
to vipw or visudo, but with security in mind; following this basic
algorithm:
1. Using user privileges, Copy
like your sucpaliases? Or should a C equivalent be written
instead?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-
If you're not part of the solution, you're part
to replace /etc/aliases w/o giving um root access
Of course, the idea is to give certain permissions to certain users
without giving away the farm. That's what sudo's all about.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
at all; if you do, change the IP addresses to
whatever is appropriate for your system.)
Directory proxy:*
order deny,allow
deny from all
allow from 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0
/Directory
HTH.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* William R. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.11.29 18:00:40-0800]:
Question: Is it generally considered secure enough to sudo a bash
script like your sucpaliases? Or should a C equivalent be written
instead?
no. especially not the quick'n'dirty
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
* William R. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-12-04 11:56]:
Because the thread originated there.
I haven't seen it before here. Do you really mean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Those are two totally different things Maybe you have to resend
your message
be covered. Since this appears to not be the case, is there
something that can be done to make this fact more readily apparent to
users?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit
.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.-Groucho Marx
.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.-Groucho Marx
Mike Dresser writes:
William R. Ward wrote:
I've replaced the legit usernames and IP's with xxx but left them in
for context. I'm worried that the date entries are a consequence of
some hacker activity, but I have been unable to find any other
symptoms. I did a web search and did not find
?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.-Groucho Marx
Olaf Meeuwissen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William R. Ward) writes:
One way to test if you have been hacked is to run an MD5 checksum of
key binaries and look to see if it's been replaced by the intruder.
Is there any place where the MD5 sums of individual executable files
(not the .deb files
libc6 and other important shared libraries that I don't
want to upgrade because it would destabilize the whole system.
What I'd like to see is some kind of snapshot status where it was
linked against the stable versions of all the common libraries etc.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL
at all; if you do, change the IP addresses to
whatever is appropriate for your system.)
Directory proxy:*
order deny,allow
deny from all
allow from 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0
/Directory
HTH.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net
could confirm it that way.
It's not perfect, but given the policies you have to live with, it may
be the only type of solution you can come up with.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
to the final location.
Does such a beast exist? If not, I think it should. It should
probably obey the /etc/alternatives preferences for editors, too.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
William R Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any kind of wrapper that can be used to allow sudo to grant
editing access to only one file? I am thinking of something similar
to vipw or visudo, but with security in mind; following this basic
algorithm:
1. Using user privileges, Copy
like your sucpaliases? Or should a C equivalent be written
instead?
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-
If you're not part of the solution, you're part
to replace /etc/aliases w/o giving um root access
Of course, the idea is to give certain permissions to certain users
without giving away the farm. That's what sudo's all about.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wards.net/~bill
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* William R. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001.11.29 18:00:40-0800]:
Question: Is it generally considered secure enough to sudo a bash
script like your sucpaliases? Or should a C equivalent be written
instead?
no. especially not the quick'n'dirty
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
* William R Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-12-03 00:50]:
Right; but assuming one takes care of this kind of issue, is there
anything inherently unsafe about running shell scripts through sudo?
shell scripts usually call other programs - whose behavior could be
most
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
* William R. Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-12-04 11:56]:
Because the thread originated there.
I haven't seen it before here. Do you really mean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and not debian-security@LISTS.debian.org?
Those are two totally different things Maybe you have to resend
30 matches
Mail list logo
