On Wednesday 14 July 2004 5:40 pm, Dale Amon wrote:
The test was successful. I'm going to be keeping
a backup copy of the system disk though, just in
case something happens and I have to back out
a dselect that breaks something mission critical
to me...
Newest Mozilla package 1.7.1 will
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:21:31PM -0500, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:00:07 +0200, Dale Amon wrote:
I'd like a black and white clarification of the impact
of the change so I know for certain whether to be
incredibly pissed off at the packager or not:
If I were
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
Indeed, his entire argument consists of
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:33:52AM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:28:56PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not
On Monday 12 July 2004 2:33 am, Magnus Therning wrote:
Will you put those packages somewhere where others can reach them as
well?
Hrm, I need more webspace, my ISP only gives me about 10M
If you roll your own, read the new developer how-to to learn
how to make the debs version -99 that way apt
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:48:32PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2004 2:33 am, Magnus Therning wrote:
Will you put those packages somewhere where others can reach them as
well?
Hrm, I need more webspace, my ISP only gives me about 10M
If you roll your own, read the new developer
On Saturday 10 July 2004 11:29 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
Indeed, his entire argument consists of Me, Debian Developer. you, user.
Me make decision; you no
Excuse the cross posting, but many are discussing on all of these
lists.
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
If I were to dselect today, would I still
be able to print to file a website page
as ps? [Y/N]
Yes. Printing PS to a file is still possible.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:19:03 -0400
Greg Folkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse the cross posting, but many are discussing on all of these
lists.
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
If I were to dselect today, would I still
be able to print to file a website
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Michael B Allen wrote:
My impression was that the PostScript generator had the security
issue
Can someone please state, for the record, definitively and precisely
what this security issue is?
The fact that PS is a turing complete language isn't a security issue,
beyond the
* Don Armstrong:
Perhaps I've missed something, but everything that I've read in the
threads so far amounts to people either assuming that there's an issue
and not defining it, or attempting to figure out where the issue is.
This summary is correct as far as I can see. No real security issue
Has anyone invited our Mozilla packager to participate in this
discussion?
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:29:13PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
Has anyone invited our Mozilla packager to participate in this
discussion?
The numerous bugs that have been filed, and the way they've been dealt
with, would seem to indicate that he's not interested in participating.
--
Marc Wilson
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
Other than someone on PPC
Michael B Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
Other than someone on PPC there haven't been any problem
Michael B Allen([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
Wayne Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
Try it. Just run the Xprint daemon
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Direct print is the only way I can get reliable output here (I have both
options). Almost every time I use Xprint the last part of a line is
Michael B Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Printing through xprint is considerably nicer.
When xprint can finally query CUPS for all the information about my
printer, specifically resolution and paper sizes, I'll grant you
this.
Until then, I have to dive into circa 1985 config file hell
Jamin W. Collins([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Direct print is the only way I can get reliable output here (I have both
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:04:34PM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
Jamin W. Collins([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:49:10AM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:19:14 -0600 Jamin W. Collins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Direct print is
problems.
This brings me to my question: Does anyone have any solid references on
these security problems? Googling and searching the bug database only
yielded a vague claim about a remote exploit (bug #247585).
Well X in general has exploits and if you run a *dm session manager
it's running
Reid Priedhorsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. It was broken for some people.
Fine, but Xprint is broken for me and now I can't print. I don't
think it's appropriate to remove a feature until its replacement is
stable and useable by everyone who could use the old feature.
Personally, I
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:40:12 +0200, Michael B Allen wrote:
Reid Priedhorsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. It had security problems.
This brings me to my question: Does anyone have any solid references
on these security problems? Googling and searching the bug database
only yielded
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 2:32 am, Michael B Allen wrote:
What! The PostScript/default printing was pretty bad but I'm a little
surprised they dumped it entirely as it would require additional setup
to get xprint running. Are you sure?
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct
Brad Sims wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 2:32 am, Michael B Allen wrote:
What! The PostScript/default printing was pretty bad but I'm a little
surprised they dumped it entirely as it would require additional setup
to get xprint running. Are you sure?
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Sims wrote:
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing,
and the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed my
bugreport.
Upstream still supports directs printing, at least as
Brad Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing, and
the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed my bugreport.
Incidentally, it appears the upstream Linux builds still have direct PS
support.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am
Okay, who wants to fork the Mozilla family?
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jacob S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Sims wrote:
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct printing,
and the lack of postscript wasn't a bug and they closed my
bugreport.
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
Wayne Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jacob S.([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Sims wrote:
I am, I was told that mozilla no longer supports direct
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 7:52 pm, Wayne Topa wrote:
am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
You could install the upstream version via their installer... it still uses
postscript/default. Be advised however that
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
Reid Priedhorsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. It was broken for some people.
Fine, but Xprint is broken for me and now I can't print. I don't
think it's appropriate to remove a feature until its replacement is
stable and
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:29:39 -0400
Travis Crump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may
be that you can't enable both direct printing and xprint at the same
time,
No. That is not true. To run Xprint you start the Xprt daemon and
export XPRTSERVERLIST=:2 (or some alternative display not used). When
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:15:36PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't.
XPrint works for some people, and for others it doesn't. XPrint is
*not* an arguably superior product, so why is that choice forced on
people?
Direct print is the
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:52:37 -0400
Wayne Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am also running firefox 0.8 but it was installed with apt-get. I am
stuck with Xprint with no postscript/default. :-(
Try it. Just run the Xprint daemon (/etc/init.d/xprint start?), find out
what display it's running on
security problems.
This brings me to my question: Does anyone have any solid references on
these security problems? Googling and searching the bug database only
yielded a vague claim about a remote exploit (bug #247585).
Thanks,
Reid
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Howdy, folks--
I'm kind of new to the mailing list thing,
so pardon me if I'm not doing this right.
I'm currently working on a system that runs
a lot of Slackware boxes, but I'd like to move
over to Debian (for what, I assume, are obvious
reasons = ). I've noticed, however, that the passwd
Andrei == Andrei Ivanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can instead deny them telnet access in /etc/hosts.deny
with something like:
in.telnetd: ALL
Andrei That would refuse telnet access to everyone, and she would not be able
to
Andrei telnet to the box from somewhere else to administer it
lena wrote:
Hello!
I am a newbie with administrating my own Debian server, and got problems
that got to do with security.
I have 20 different users that got both ftp and telnet access to the server
/using it for web publishing/. I would like to add they got access to their
root
On 18-Jul-99 John Foster wrote:
That is all handled via granting permissions to their /home directories
and establishing a path for these users that allows the access to only
those prgs that you want them to use.
If a user knows the path to some program that is not in their path, could they
Hopefully this gets back to whoever asked originally..
You could roll a solution using chroot() to move the user into their
home dir - all it costs is the disk space to recreate the bin and lib
trees.
Carl
You can do this with proftpd. There is a DefaultRoot directive that will
chroot to a dir on a per-group basis. I have the same situation with a
group of web publishers. The first step was to define a virtual host (this
particular server is restricted to internal use only). Then each user is
added
Hello!
I am a newbie with administrating my own Debian server, and got problems
that got to do with security.
I have 20 different users that got both ftp and telnet access to the server
/using it for web publishing/. I would like to add they got access to their
root directory and all directories
On 17-Jul-99 lena wrote:
Hello!
I am a newbie with administrating my own Debian server, and got problems
that got to do with security.
I have 20 different users that got both ftp and telnet access to the server
/using it for web publishing/. I would like to add they got access to their
You can instead deny them telnet access in /etc/hosts.deny
with something like:
in.telnetd: ALL
That would refuse telnet access to everyone, and she would not be able to
telnet to the box from somewhere else to administer it (if needed). So
change the shells.
Andrew
lena == lena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lena I am a newbie with administrating my own Debian server, and got problems
lena that got to do with security.
If you are new to this, go to your local bookshop, and check the
Practical UNIX Internet Security (O'Reilly).
Especially if your living
Pere Camps [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
I've just installed innd and besides the tipical allowing of
access for some hosts that I guess it must exists, are there any other
security considerations I should follow?
Well this is not easily answered, to be more exact a complete answer
Hi!
I've just installed innd and besides the tipical allowing of
access for some hosts that I guess it must exists, are there any other
security considerations I should follow?
I've noticed that it runs as user 'news' which is an advantage.
TIA!
-- p.
49 matches
Mail list logo
