Re: Some more port closing questions
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:09:28AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:49:44 -0400 On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. Boy...you should get together withthe folks on debian-devel that say the install asks TOO many questions for a beginner to Linux...it would make a good flame war G It seems like you could just have a mode w/o many/any questions and a mode that asks all the questions that are available -- i.e. Beginners can have a beginner's mode of installation, and non-beginners can have a non-beginner installation mode...no? You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 5th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgp9H2axWITx9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some more port closing questions
Paul Hampson wrote: On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:09:28AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:49:44 -0400 On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. Boy...you should get together withthe folks on debian-devel that say the install asks TOO many questions for a beginner to Linux...it would make a good flame war G It seems like you could just have a mode w/o many/any questions and a mode that asks all the questions that are available -- i.e. Beginners can have a beginner's mode of installation, and non-beginners can have a non-beginner installation mode...no? You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) We didn't without. This is already implemented in the installer and in the package handling systems. Try $ dpgk-reconfigure debconf regards, Thiemo Nagel
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 11:58:59AM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote: Paul Hampson wrote: You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) We didn't without. This is already implemented in the installer and in the package handling systems. Try $ dpgk-reconfigure debconf Hehe. I realise this... It was supposed to be funny I dunno, I try, really I do... -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 5th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgpVVxAXlKb0v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some more port closing questions
Paul Hampson wrote: On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 11:58:59AM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote: Paul Hampson wrote: You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) We didn't without. This is already implemented in the installer and in the package handling systems. Try $ dpgk-reconfigure debconf Hehe. I realise this... It was supposed to be funny I dunno, I try, really I do... LOL - humor apparently is wasted on me Thiemo
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Paul Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:17:10 +1000 On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:09:28AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:49:44 -0400 On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. Boy...you should get together withthe folks on debian-devel that say the install asks TOO many questions for a beginner to Linux...it would make a good flame war G It seems like you could just have a mode w/o many/any questions and a mode that asks all the questions that are available -- i.e. Beginners can have a beginner's mode of installation, and non-beginners can have a non-beginner installation mode...no? You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? No. Nice description of what exists currently (-; I just mean something you choose at the beginning of the installation process to circumvent the entire question asking process -- I'm not asking for this -- perhaps I should learn not to respond to comments in posts w/ Gs in them... Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) Nice sarcasm (-;
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 07:12:54AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Paul Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:17:10 +1000 On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:09:28AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems like you could just have a mode w/o many/any questions and a mode that asks all the questions that are available -- i.e. Beginners can have a beginner's mode of installation, and non-beginners can have a non-beginner installation mode...no? You mean like maybe assigning different questions different priorities, and letting the user choose the priority which a question needs to have before it is asked, with some default assumed otherwise? No. Nice description of what exists currently (-; I just mean something you choose at the beginning of the installation process to circumvent the entire question asking process -- I'm not asking for this -- perhaps I should learn not to respond to comments in posts w/ Gs in them... I dunno if that could work, since there'd be questions you _need_ answers for... To my mind, the priorities system _should_ be able to handle this, if everyone's priorities are correct. On the other hand, maybe support for a scripted install (get answers from NFS mounted file IP.debanswer or something...). I mean, _that_ is something MS Windows was doing quite well 7 years ago. The OEM Win95 install process was: Put NE2K card jumpered to 300/10 into computer. Put bookdisk into computer. Boot. Wait 30 minutes or however long it took Remove bookdisk and NIC (unless customer purchased a NIC) Put in box, hand to customer. When the customer takes it home, Win95 goes What's your Name? What's your CD-Key? Welcome to Windows If you mean something like that (Probably not that last 'End User Experience' bit) then it _is_ something Debian's lacking. And it would certainly help take Debian into the consumer world, especially now that we've gotten Woody out the door. Although I still think that such a thing should be achievable with the priorities. Excellent idea. I can't see how we could get this far without such a system. ;-) Nice sarcasm (-; (It was sarcasm in a nice way. I didn't think you'd not noticed the existence of the question priorities. I just thought it sounded similar enough to be amusing) PS. I suspect this isn't really a -security discussion anymore. But I also suspect it's not really going to go much further after this anyway. -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 5th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. --- pgpxDHO99AaoL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:24:50AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, From: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:21:18 -0700 Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Kind of off-topic here, but I've been wondering for a while [1] whether the portmap package would be made to not install by default. I'd been wondering the same thing. Beyond that, I've been hoping that, at some point in the future, Debian won't cause network daemons to autostart in the default runlevel just because they've been installed. E.g., maybe the dpkg --configure step could prompt for that decision. Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; Apart from the starting by default issue: Why not just remove the appropriate symlinks S* in the directory /etc/rc2.d/ (or whatever runlevel you get into by default). Keep the scripts in /etc/init.d so you can start them by hand later. M -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Mathias Palm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:23:55 +0200 On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:24:50AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, From: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:21:18 -0700 Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Kind of off-topic here, but I've been wondering for a while [1] whether the portmap package would be made to not install by default. I'd been wondering the same thing. Beyond that, I've been hoping that, at some point in the future, Debian won't cause network daemons to autostart in the default runlevel just because they've been installed. E.g., maybe the dpkg --configure step could prompt for that decision. Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; Apart from the starting by default issue: Why not just remove the appropriate symlinks S* in the directory /etc/rc2.d/ (or whatever runlevel you get into by default). Keep the scripts in /etc/init.d so you can start them by hand later. I used to do this but after a while I got tired of doing it manually and having to think about the implementation details of runlevels (i.e. the S* and K* stuff). It's really an interface issue (apart from the default issue). On a related note, I just ran dselect and noticed rcconf -- may be that's what I want (-; I'll have to check that out.
Re: Some more port closing questions
On 30 Jul 02 23:24:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; # update-rc.d -f somedaemon remove AIUI the reasoning is that if you install a package including a daemon you are assumed to want the daemon to run. update-rc.d allows you to modify that assumption. Frank -- Home Page: URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/ Not the Scientology Home Page: URL:http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Frank Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:33:37 + (UTC) On 30 Jul 02 23:24:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; # update-rc.d -f somedaemon remove From update-rc.d(8), I take it this: removes any links in the /etc/rcrunlevel.d directories to the script /etc/init.d/name. The script must have been deleted already - update-rc.d checks for this. I don't think that's what I want -- I want the software installed, just not started by default. I believe it's not that uncommon to install some software for testing purposes (at least this is often the case for me) -- in this kind of situation, you don't necessarily want the software to be running all of the time. In addition, if you're using a laptop which you power on and off w/ regular frequency (such as a few times a day), all daemons starting up at boot presents an inconvenient situation. Relying on myself to turn things off whenever I boot is prone to error and writing custom scripts to automate this is not a good practice from a maintenance perspective. IMHO it really ought to be part of the OS' capabilities. Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. I particularly like NetBSD's approach of not enabling any network daemons by default -- it requires an explicit decision on the part of the system administrator to have a network daemon start up. Just me two cents (-;
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 07:06:09PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] imagined: On a related note, I just ran dselect and noticed rcconf -- may be that's what I want (-; I'll have to check that out. rcconf is simple and works very well for me - FYI. Cheers, Raymond -- You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve free software. -Richard M. Stallman, Free Software Foundation, http://www.fsf.org pgp3s5jFI6yz3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, From: Frank Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:33:37 + (UTC) On 30 Jul 02 23:24:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; # update-rc.d -f somedaemon remove From update-rc.d(8), I take it this: removes any links in the /etc/rcrunlevel.d directories to the script /etc/init.d/name. The script must have been deleted already - update-rc.d checks for this. I don't think that's what I want -- I want the software installed, just not started by default. [snip] The -f takes care of that. It makes the update-rc.d ignore the check for an init-script in /etc/init.d regards, Thomas -- Every increase in the size of government necessitates a decrease in an individual's freedom. -- Christian Harold Fletcher Riley
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think that's what I want -- I want the software installed, just not started by default. (...) FYI: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6 I wonder why I wrote it? :) Javi
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. Boy...you should get together withthe folks on debian-devel that say the install asks TOO many questions for a beginner to Linux...it would make a good flame war G -- Phil PGP/GPG Key: http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ wget -O - http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ | gpg --import
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Thomas J. Zeeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:55:25 +0200 (CEST) On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, From: Frank Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:33:37 + (UTC) On 30 Jul 02 23:24:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-; # update-rc.d -f somedaemon remove From update-rc.d(8), I take it this: removes any links in the /etc/rcrunlevel.d directories to the script /etc/init.d/name. The script must have been deleted already - update-rc.d checks for this. I don't think that's what I want -- I want the software installed, just not started by default. [snip] The -f takes care of that. It makes the update-rc.d ignore the check for an init-script in /etc/init.d Thanks for pointing that out (-;
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:49:44 -0400 On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps update-rc.d or rcconf (as I posted earlier) can be used to get the desired behavior -- but I do think that being asked by default at installation time whether to start stuff up at boot time is better behavior than the current behavior. Boy...you should get together withthe folks on debian-devel that say the install asks TOO many questions for a beginner to Linux...it would make a good flame war G It seems like you could just have a mode w/o many/any questions and a mode that asks all the questions that are available -- i.e. Beginners can have a beginner's mode of installation, and non-beginners can have a non-beginner installation mode...no? Frankly, I don't like have to answer the same questions over and over though -- I'm hoping the automated installation procedures improve so I can just use those (I'm not complaining mind you). In the mean time, I've found that partimage is finally usable for my current situation (-;
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:00:51 +0200 On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:25:40PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think that's what I want -- I want the software installed, just not started by default. (...) FYI: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6 I wonder why I wrote it? :) It's a nice explanation of the current state of things, isn't it? Did you read what I wrote about testing and have you noticed the comments about starting by default issue? I wonder why I wrote some of them? (-; Seriously though, I think in this case it comes down to a difference in philosophy. I'll just shut up and make do.
Some more port closing questions
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 the LDP) on how to close or shut down their related services. They are as follows: 111/tcp sunrpc 111/udp sunrpc 113/tcp auth 1024/tcp kdm 1024/udp unknown (I am guessing this is with the kdm one) Advice appreciated, thanks in advance. --- Crawford The I.T.E.C. Company P.M.B. 146 368 South McCaslin Boulevard Louisville, CO 80027 USA (303) 604-2550 (voice) (866) 604-2550 (toll free) (303) 664-0036 (fax) http://www.itec-co.com
Re: Some more port closing questions
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 the LDP) on how to close or shut down their related services. They are as follows: 111/tcp sunrpc 111/udp sunrpc I believe there is something in /etc/init.d/mountnfs* that deals with this (portmap) 113/tcp auth Check in /etc/identd.conf 1024/tcp kdm check your KDM config under /etc/X11/... 1024/udp unknown (I am guessing this is with the kdm one) -- Phil PGP/GPG Key: http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ wget -O - http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ | gpg --import
Re: Some more port closing questions
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 the LDP) on how to close or shut down their related services. They are as follows: 111/tcp sunrpc 111/udp sunrpc I believe there is something in /etc/init.d/mountnfs* that deals with this (portmap) Actually in woody, portmap is its own package, so if you don't need it, just remove the package. Rob
Re: Some more port closing questions
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 19:09, 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 the LDP) on how to close or shut down their related services. They are as follows: 111/tcp sunrpc 111/udp sunrpc I think you can just unistall portmap to close this two ports. Probably you don't need it. -- The chains are broken and the door is open wide Our eyes adjusting to the light that was denied And the voices ringing out now Sing of freedom And bring a sense of wonder http://www.es.debian.org/intro/about.es.html
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Ruben Porras [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: 30 Jul 2002 20:50:42 +0200 On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 19:09, 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 the LDP) on how to close or shut down their related services. They are as follows: 111/tcp sunrpc 111/udp sunrpc I think you can just unistall portmap to close this two ports. Probably you don't need it. Kind of off-topic here, but I've been wondering for a while [1] whether the portmap package would be made to not install by default. Not likely I suppose. [1] Since before it became its own package actually...I'd been hoping it would be made its own package and then not installed by default...
Re: Some more port closing questions
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Kind of off-topic here, but I've been wondering for a while [1] whether the portmap package would be made to not install by default. I'd been wondering the same thing. Beyond that, I've been hoping that, at some point in the future, Debian won't cause network daemons to autostart in the default runlevel just because they've been installed. E.g., maybe the dpkg --configure step could prompt for that decision. I'm sure this is a more-complex matter than it seems, but perhaps the possibility could be borne in mind for future consideration. -- Cheers,Remember: The day after tomorrow is the third day Rick Moen of the rest of your life. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some more port closing questions
Hi, From: Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more port closing questions Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:21:18 -0700 Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Kind of off-topic here, but I've been wondering for a while [1] whether the portmap package would be made to not install by default. I'd been wondering the same thing. Beyond that, I've been hoping that, at some point in the future, Debian won't cause network daemons to autostart in the default runlevel just because they've been installed. E.g., maybe the dpkg --configure step could prompt for that decision. Ah, that would be nice too. I know that the first thing I usually do when I boot my laptop is to stop a bunch of daemons that started up at boot (-;
