On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 04:10, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > You should use ssh-keygen to create a keypair on each machine, and
> > copy the public key from the machine you generated it on to the other
> > machine. This allows quick pas
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 04:10, Peter Cordes wrote:
> > You should use ssh-keygen to create a keypair on each machine, and
> > copy the public key from the machine you generated it on to the other
> > machine. This allows quick pas
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:16:38PM +0100, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
>
> > > It should be locked down and not touched by adduser ("Would You Like To
> > > Make All Homedirs World-Readable?").
> > root is not the regular user. Users need o+x on their h
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 08:16:38PM +0100, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
>
> > > It should be locked down and not touched by adduser ("Would You Like To
> > > Make All Homedirs World-Readable?").
> > root is not the regular user. Users need o+x on their h
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:55:49AM +0100, poczta wrote:
> people, do not respond to 'unsubscribe' messages, 'cause from
> on mail it grows to many messages, so think twice before
> you mail on it. thanks
or at the very least, If you are bound and determined to address this
person's erorr, reply t
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:55:49AM +0100, poczta wrote:
> people, do not respond to 'unsubscribe' messages, 'cause from
> on mail it grows to many messages, so think twice before
> you mail on it. thanks
or at the very least, If you are bound and determined to address this
person's erorr, reply t
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:22:50PM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 at 11:09:49AM -0600, Crawford Rainwater wrote:
> > Thanks to all on the Portsentry issue I had
> > a week ago.
> >
> > Along those same lines, I have two ports I cannot
> > figure out (even looking through th
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:11:00PM +0200, InfoEmergencias - Luis Gómez wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Messing up with sshd_config for all the privsep stuff, I've noticed that
> PermitRootLogin was set to yes in my three woody boxes. I usually
> consider this a problem (although it has been my fault - i shoul
On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 07:50:07PM +0200, Dietmar Goldbeck wrote:
> It is very difficult to help you without error messages, since there
> shouldn't be a problem. openssh 3.0.2 and 3.2.3 play perfectly well
> with each other.
There weren't any error messages, otherwise I would have provided them.
I am trying to use RSA authentication between different machines, but
I'm running into trouble between machines running different versions of
ssh.
Machine A is running unstable with OpenSSH 3.0.2p1, and it is trying to
connect to machine B running stable, with a compiled from source ssh,
version 3
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:21:13AM +0100, Gareth Bowker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:02:34PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > >
> > > You run those service locally on each machine only. You don&
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:21:13AM +0100, Gareth Bowker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:02:34PM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > >
> > > You run those service locally on each machine only. You don&
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:51:38AM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> > After doing some reading about it, the only thing that turns me off to
> > SFS is that you still have to run the usual NFS services for it to work.
&
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:23:28AM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:51:38AM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote:
> > After doing some reading about it, the only thing that turns me off to
> > SFS is that you still have to run the usual NFS services for it to work.
&
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:37:27PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Alan Shutko wrote:
> > An AFS-based setup is used at many places to great effect, especially
> > on untrusted nets, but I don't know how bad setup is. I suspect it's
> > evil.
>
> There is also SFS which works very nic
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:37:27PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Alan Shutko wrote:
> > An AFS-based setup is used at many places to great effect, especially
> > on untrusted nets, but I don't know how bad setup is. I suspect it's
> > evil.
>
> There is also SFS which works very ni
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> (1) Kerberos
> Never used it. Can't advise you.
I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glance at leaves the
impressions that it is ridiculously complicated to set up a
I have a situation where my superiors are leaning heavily on me to make
life more convenient for them by having total availability of data from
a group of machines. They basically want to log into any one machine
within this group with the same password, and be able to access any
disks they choose
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 07:39:43PM -0700, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Two choices for authentication (passwd + shadow):
> (1) Kerberos
> Never used it. Can't advise you.
I've looked at Kerberos, but at least a cursory glance at leaves the
impressions that it is ridiculously complicated to set up
I have a situation where my superiors are leaning heavily on me to make
life more convenient for them by having total availability of data from
a group of machines. They basically want to log into any one machine
within this group with the same password, and be able to access any
disks they choos
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:35:35AM -0500, Jon McCain wrote:
> But changing permissions on the .bash_profile so they don't own it (and
> not in their group) should take care of that problem. They can read it
> all they want, just not change it.
A cleaner solution would be to make it immutable.
(a
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:35:35AM -0500, Jon McCain wrote:
> But changing permissions on the .bash_profile so they don't own it (and
> not in their group) should take care of that problem. They can read it
> all they want, just not change it.
A cleaner solution would be to make it immutable.
(
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 07:23:35AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>
> also sprach Rob VanFleet
> > On this list (I beleive) I saw someone mention the use of /bin/passwd
> > as a shell for mail-only users so they can easily change their password
> > without having
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 07:23:35AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
>
>
> also sprach Rob VanFleet
> > On this list (I beleive) I saw someone mention the use of /bin/passwd
> > as a shell for mail-only users so they can easily change their password
> > without having
On this list (I beleive) I saw someone mention the use of /bin/passwd as
a shell for mail-only users so they can easily change their password
without having to ask someone. Is this a secure option, or am I missing
some glaring problems? If so, what are some other possible solutions?
Thanks,
Rob
On this list (I beleive) I saw someone mention the use of /bin/passwd as
a shell for mail-only users so they can easily change their password
without having to ask someone. Is this a secure option, or am I missing
some glaring problems? If so, what are some other possible solutions?
Thanks,
Rob
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:24:45PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > i think Linus has already approved the patch. im not sure yet when will
> > it arrive though..
>
> Yes, the email linked to by that /. posting :
>
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/archive.pl?id=1&mid=221337&start=2
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 12:24:45PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > i think Linus has already approved the patch. im not sure yet when will
> > it arrive though..
>
> Yes, the email linked to by that /. posting :
>
>
>http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/archive.pl?id=1&mid=221337&start=2
I seem to be having a small problem with something in the
logcheck.ignore file. The default setup for the logcheck package under
debian already contains this entry in logcheck.ignore to avoid reporting
this common cron job:
/USR/SBIN/CRON\[.*\]: (mail) CMD ( if \[ -x /usr/sbin/exim \]; then
/usr
I seem to be having a small problem with something in the
logcheck.ignore file. The default setup for the logcheck package under
debian already contains this entry in logcheck.ignore to avoid reporting
this common cron job:
/USR/SBIN/CRON\[.*\]: (mail) CMD ( if \[ -x /usr/sbin/exim \]; then
/us
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:26:50PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> option "pgp_create_traditional". That option might help you very much,
> but instead I would suggest that the other MUA's get fixed.
Um, wouldn't that be every other MUA asid from mutt and maybe one or two
others?
-Rob
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:26:50PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> option "pgp_create_traditional". That option might help you very much,
> but instead I would suggest that the other MUA's get fixed.
Um, wouldn't that be every other MUA asid from mutt and maybe one or two
others?
-Rob
--
To U
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:19:42PM +0200, Martin Domig wrote:
> Is there a way to make mutt send inline PGP messages instead of the
> MIME attachment form?
Well, this is a little kludgy, but it works. Put this in your .muttrc:
# Inline encryption
macro compose \CE "Fgpg -ea\ny"
# C
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:19:42PM +0200, Martin Domig wrote:
> Is there a way to make mutt send inline PGP messages instead of the
> MIME attachment form?
Well, this is a little kludgy, but it works. Put this in your .muttrc:
# Inline encryption
macro compose \CE "Fgpg -ea\ny"
#
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > If you're upgrading for
> > > security and bug fixes, you use upgrade.
>
> In michael's defense, take this entry from the apt-get mapage:
>
>dist-upgrade
> dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > If you're upgrading for
> > > security and bug fixes, you use upgrade.
>
> In michael's defense, take this entry from the apt-get mapage:
>
>dist-upgrade
> dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the
Exactly. It is more of a special case to *not* want a server to start
at boot rather than the other way around. To those who think that
apt-get install apache is too easy, then why is apt-get remove apache
too hard?
-Rob
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 04:00:43PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On Sun
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:59:47AM -0500, chandler wrote:
> Similarly, after a recent apt-get dist-upgrade (intended to grab security
> updates only,
Then why did you dist-upgrade? I think it's pretty self-explanatory
that if you're upgrading from one distribution to another (like from
stable t
Exactly. It is more of a special case to *not* want a server to start
at boot rather than the other way around. To those who think that
apt-get install apache is too easy, then why is apt-get remove apache
too hard?
-Rob
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 04:00:43PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On Su
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:59:47AM -0500, chandler wrote:
> Similarly, after a recent apt-get dist-upgrade (intended to grab security
> updates only,
Then why did you dist-upgrade? I think it's pretty self-explanatory
that if you're upgrading from one distribution to another (like from
stable
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> And whose going to teach them? Certainly not an OS that makes it as
> easy as 'apt-get install apache' !
Well, your solution of making it more obfuscated and difficult will
cause even more of a problem. M
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> And whose going to teach them? Certainly not an OS that makes it as
> easy as 'apt-get install apache' !
Well, your solution of making it more obfuscated and difficult will
cause even more of a problem.
42 matches
Mail list logo
