On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:54:20PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
My Apologies Vincent, I didn't mean to post in HTML, but XP Blew up last
night on my laptop, and killed my Netscape preferences, I'm still
recovering. Thantks, I';ve switched to Text mode.
Thank you. Now if you could work on not
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 22:37, Vincent Danen wrote:
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:40:16PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
Can you fix your reply-to's as well? It's irksome that replies aren't going
to the list.
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones
to me are Linux
Vincent Danen wrote:
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:40:16PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
Can you fix your reply-to's as well? It's irksome that replies aren't going
to the list.
I got my reply replaced, I think that there are some settings to replace
the reply-to in some Mailing List Managers as
Vincent Danen wrote:
Smarter minds than mine will have to figure that out. I've used nessus for
scanning a few times, but never really looked at it's internals. I'm sure
you could probably accomplish something with NASL (I think that's what their
scripting language is called).
It would
Albert Whale wrote:
Vincent Danen wrote:
Smarter minds than mine will have to figure that out. I've used
nessus for
scanning a few times, but never really looked at it's internals. I'm
sure
you could probably accomplish something with NASL (I think that's
what their
scripting language
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 06:17, Albert Whale wrote:
Albert Whale wrote:
Vincent Danen wrote:
Smarter minds than mine will have to figure that out. I've used
nessus for
scanning a few times, but never really looked at it's internals. I'm
sure
you could probably accomplish
On Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 09:17:36AM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
Smarter minds than mine will have to figure that out. I've used
nessus for
scanning a few times, but never really looked at it's internals. I'm
sure
you could probably accomplish something with NASL (I think that's
what their
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones to
me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
expect a specific reply in order to accept or reject the applications
which are communicating on the Server.
Even
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones
to me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
expect a specific reply in order to accept or reject the
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:51:58PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones to
me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
expect a specific reply in order to accept or reject
Vox wrote:
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones
to me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
expect a specific reply in order to accept or
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
Vox wrote:
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones
to me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
Vincent Danen wrote:
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:51:58PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones to
me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the Scanning Tools (here I am using Nessus),
expect a specific
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
Could you *please* not use HTML to post to the list? I can't read a
thing of what you saidand by its lenght, it may be worth
reading. So...post as plain text so we all can read what you
say...and I'd actually like to see a
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:13:23PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
My response will be short simply due to the fact that you posted in html and
I can't quote it and can't be bothered to cut-n-paste.
Every Mandrake advisory includes the CVE names for the correlating problem.
Trying using the CVE search
My Apologies Vincent, I didn't mean to post in HTML, but XP Blew up last
night on my laptop, and killed my Netscape preferences, I'm still
recovering. Thantks, I';ve switched to Text mode.
Vincent Danen wrote:
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:13:23PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
My response will be
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 20:29, Vincent Danen wrote:
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:13:23PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
My response will be short simply due to the fact that you posted in html and
I can't quote it and can't be bothered to cut-n-paste.
Every Mandrake advisory includes the CVE names
On September 1993 plus 3676 days Albert Whale wrote:
I guess my point was missed. We don't want to perform queries.
Unless the PHP or HTML Page we pull up from MandrakeSecure Queries the
Data to sort it and correlate the CVEs and the MDKSAs (and RPM names).
This is what the Management Teams
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Vox wrote:
I guess my point was missed. We don't want to perform queries.
Unless the PHP or HTML Page we pull up from MandrakeSecure Queries the
Data to sort it and correlate the CVEs and the MDKSAs (and RPM names).
This is what the Management
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:40:16PM -0400, Albert Whale wrote:
Can you fix your reply-to's as well? It's irksome that replies aren't going
to the list.
I am running a System Scan on Several machines. The interesting ones
to me are Linux Mandrake 8.2 and 9.1.
The issue here is that the
On Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:56:38PM -0700, Jack Coates wrote:
My response will be short simply due to the fact that you posted in html and
I can't quote it and can't be bothered to cut-n-paste.
Every Mandrake advisory includes the CVE names for the correlating problem.
Trying using the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I currently run my laptop at security level 2 (default). I would like to beef
it up but fear wrecking the useability of my system. In the past, if I
simply select security level 3, for instance, it changes enough settings that
basic things like
: Thursday, 3 July 2003 6:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Security and permissions problems
On September 1993 plus 3591 days Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home
contents,
I
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 23:22, Frankie wrote:
yeah, i think that is one thing mandrake could really really improve.
Msec has the potential to be a really fantastic hardning script..
But as it stands now, even on servers i use level 3 and tighten up manually.
it needs a console and/or a X11
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 07:35, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just fought with security settings again last night. I don't yet know if I
have it beat. I could not get things back to even a low/no security level so
I could start over. This is a
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 07:35, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just fought with security settings again last night. I don't yet know if I
have it beat. I could not get things back to even a low/no security level so
I could start over. This is a
El Mié 02 Jul 2003 19:12, Praedor Atrebates escribió:
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home
contents, I tried first changing to security level 3. Someone else
mentioned I could set the home permission to 700.
[...]
I never use Mandrake´s security levels, I don´t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home contents,
I tried first changing to security level 3. Someone else mentioned I could
set the home permission to 700.
Both methods have screwed up my system and I can't seem to
On September 1993 plus 3591 days Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home contents,
I tried first changing to security level 3. Someone else mentioned I could
set the home permission to 700.
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Vox wrote:
On September 1993 plus 3591 days Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home contents,
I tried first changing to security level 3. Someone else mentioned I
On Wed Jul 02, 2003 at 05:12:13PM -0500, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
After I originally found that all users could see other user's home contents,
I tried first changing to security level 3. Someone else mentioned I could
set the home permission to 700.
Both methods have screwed up my
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Vincent Danen wrote:
This was done, IIRC, to allow people to have a ~/public_html/ directory and
allow apache to enter the home directory so as to read ~/public_html/ (which
would allow someone to do something like http://yoursite.com/~preador/).
That's pretty much the
On September 1993 plus 3590 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Vincent Danen wrote:
This was done, IIRC, to allow people to have a ~/public_html/ directory and
allow apache to enter the home directory so as to read ~/public_html/ (which
would allow someone to do something
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jack Coates wrote:
homedirs... I wonder why it decided that read/execute perms
was an ok thing to do.
My mistake. I had msec level 2 on my workstation which is
why it was read/execute perms. Changing to level 3 gives
back the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't have much hope that this message will actually make it to the list but
what the hell (I haven't seen a single message all weekend...AGAIN...I think
I will drop off the list, it is too broken to be of any more use).
For the first time I
Yes, Sympa sucks... but... I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking
about on the other thing. These two are both upgrades from 9.0:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] jack]$ grep home /usr/share/msec/perm.3
/home/ root.root 755
/home/*
On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 19:53, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
For the first time I added a couple more users to my home system. Up 'til now
I was the only user. I found that the default behavior/security (not)
setting allowed all users to access all other user's home directories. No
limits!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 30 June 2003 10:31 am, Robert W. wrote:
On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 19:53, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
For the first time I added a couple more users to my home system. Up
'til now I was the only user. I found that the default
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 12:46:00PM -0500, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
For the first time I added a couple more users to my home system. Up
'til now I was the only user. I found that the default behavior/security
(not) setting allowed all users to access all other user's home
--- Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no call for that unless some idiot user decides
to give other people access to his/her home dir. This
accessibility should be a no-no by default regardless of
distro.
This was done, IIRC, to allow people to have a ~/public_html/
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 12:10:00PM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
[...]
I also believe that a user can enter another user's home dir but will get a
permission denied if they do an ls. Other permissions protect the files in
the homedir. The homedir should have execute-only perms. But, taking a
I also believe that a user can enter another user's home dir but will get a
permission denied if they do an ls. Other permissions protect the files in
the homedir. The homedir should have execute-only perms. But, taking a
quick look, it seems that is not the case. H.
That does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
at all. I went into DrakConf and set the security level to high and
this fixed the horrific insecurity of the default setup, but it also
unfortunately fired up shorewall with settings that prevented me from
being able to access the system
--- Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
homedirs... I wonder why it decided that read/execute perms
was an ok thing to do.
My mistake. I had msec level 2 on my workstation which is
why it was read/execute perms. Changing to level 3 gives
back the appropriate homedir perms.
This
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
I see...but is it really a good idea to permit execute perms to any and
sundry? I used to think that if there were a linux virus/worm to be
concerned about that the worst that could happen under normal
circumstances is that a user who received
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 02:12:35PM -0500, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
at all. I went into DrakConf and set the security level to high and
this fixed the horrific insecurity of the default setup, but it also
unfortunately fired up shorewall with settings that prevented me from
being able
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 01:11:34PM -0700, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
homedirs... I wonder why it decided that read/execute perms
was an ok thing to do.
My mistake. I had msec level 2 on my workstation which is
why it was read/execute perms. Changing to level 3 gives
back the appropriate
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 16:38, Vincent Danen wrote:
On Mon Jun 30, 2003 at 01:11:34PM -0700, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
homedirs... I wonder why it decided that read/execute perms
was an ok thing to do.
My mistake. I had msec level 2 on my workstation which is
why it was read/execute
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 20:47, Jack Coates wrote:
...
Betcha you'd upgraded from 9.0 to 9.1, because I just found out from
today's festivities that both of the machine's I've done it on are now
at msec 2.
oops, spoke too soon -- only one of those actually changed its level.
--
Jack Coates
Just installed 8.2, nice work guys.
After configuring the environment, I'm noticing a few quirks. One, I
cannot run iptables to NAT my Private Network.
Secondly, where did Portsentry go? Id does not appear anywhere in the 7
CD set! What is everyone else using?
--
Albert E. Whale - CISSP
Never mind, we'll make do with the 8.1 version and rebuild it!
Please put this back in the Distribution.
Albert E. Whale wrote:
Just installed 8.2, nice work guys.
After configuring the environment, I'm noticing a few quirks. One, I
cannot run iptables to NAT my Private Network.
Has anyone tried out PureSecure from Demarc (demarc.com)? I've got that
running on my machine (free for individual users) and man, it's just
amazing. It uses Snort to monitor your network, MySQL to log
everything, and ties it all together in a sweet web front end. It also
does MD5 checksums on
Thanks for the plug, perhaps I should give it a try. i'll let you know what I think.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone tried out PureSecure from Demarc (demarc.com)? I've got that
running on my machine (free for individual users) and man, it's just
amazing. It uses Snort to monitor your
On Fri, 31 May, at 15:40:59 -0400, Albert E. Whale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the plug, perhaps I should give it a try. i'll let you know what I think.
Word. I'd heard that the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake used their
stuff on all of their nodes during the games, so I know it's
One question is your version of Putty using ssh1 or ssh2. The only
reason I ask is that someone today showed me that the reason someone (a
possible customer) was having trouble ssh'ing into a test server was
because Putty (the version he had) used ssh1. If your's does.. get a
newer one. 2 is a
I had my security level on high and everything worked fine. I changed it
to higher and now I cannot ssh into my server. I then changed it to
paranoid and I cannot ssh into my server nor does my webbased e-mail
work. (using squirrelmail from squirrelmail.org).
How do I go about making some minor
On May 19, 2002 19:34, Jay wrote:
I had my security level on high and everything worked fine. I changed it
to higher and now I cannot ssh into my server. I then changed it to
paranoid and I cannot ssh into my server nor does my webbased e-mail
work. (using squirrelmail from squirrelmail.org).
When you install a fresh copy of LM 8.2 and you set it to 'higher'
security through the installation you can get different sequrity options
for the users and for the system. When i tried this a few weeks back i
could not login directly as root (sure that was because of the
configuration) so
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:11:54PM -0400, Brian York wrote:
When you install a fresh copy of LM 8.2 and you set it to 'higher'
security through the installation you can get different sequrity options
for the users and for the system. When i tried this a few weeks back i
could not login
hi oscar,
afaik, the DIRECTORY permission drwx--x--x would
permit you to go to that directory but you cant see
(r) or write (w) any files on it... however, if you
know a certain file exists there, though you cant see
it thru normal 'ls -l', you can see the file by
specifying the filename you
Hi all,
Maybe it is a security issue, or may be I'm wrong.
I'm running LM 8.2
In msec 3 level (more secure), the folder permissions for /home/* is
711, in other words, drxw--x--x
Then, as NOT root, I can do it, for example:
*
[oscar@localhost oscar]$ cd /home
[oscar@localhost home]$ ls
At 02:22 PM 3/6/02 -0500, you wrote:
Heyo,
Ok, this is going to sound VERY windowsish, but how do I remove all
internet security from my LM box? I don't want any filters, and
restrictions, nothing on this box. It's not a security concern for me as
I'm sitting behind a VERY expensive firewall,
Heyo,
Ok, this is going to sound VERY windowsish, but how do I remove all
internet security from my LM box? I don't want any filters, and
restrictions, nothing on this box. It's not a security concern for me as
I'm sitting behind a VERY expensive firewall, which has yet to fail me
at this point.
On Wed Feb 27, 2002 at 07:21:49PM -0800, David Guntner wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a list or address to report things like this
directly to Mandrake. I'm posting this here in the hopes that one of the
Mandrake employees on the list will forward it to the appropriate people
within the
There doesn't seem to be a list or address to report things like this
directly to Mandrake. I'm posting this here in the hopes that one of the
Mandrake employees on the list will forward it to the appropriate people
within the company.
http://security.e-matters.de/advisories/012002.html is
Hi all mandrake users I hav to isues
1) For some reason i can´t make use of SSH when i install Mandrake with
High security it just says ssh: arnold.math.ku.dk: Temporary failure
in name resolution. If i configure it with medium security this is not
a problem.
2) Can i run a console
On Tue Feb 05, 2002 at 09:18:25AM +0100, Lars Roland Kristiansen wrote:
Hi all mandrake users I hav to isues
1) For some reason i can´t make use of SSH when i install Mandrake with
High security it just says ssh: arnold.math.ku.dk: Temporary failure
in name resolution. If i
Has anyone been able to access the 8.0 Security Updates using Software
manage? I know I have not been able to. I can access Cooker via the software
manager but it gives me no sites under security updates. I ended up
downloading and installing with Fvh
--
Thank you.
A couple questions...
I selected medium security when I installed Mandrake 8.0. My root mailbox
fills up, seemingly as a result, with security auditing messages about world
writeable files being found:
Jun 14 04:04:43 localhost : Security Warning: World Writeable files found :
Jun 14
is there any security measure (script/device) that may prevent computers
in my home network to communicate with each other?
I used to have a working network, but something happen that terminated
the communication betwwenthe 2. I think it happened after installing
linx-bastille. i think i
My question is simple, I'm running 8.0 now and I'm getting deeply into these
three books which are:
1. Linux Security Tools
2. Hacking Linux Exposed
3. Real World Linux Security
My question is can there be to much security?? I have a dial up modem, and
nothing really important on my box except
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Gavin wrote:
I would like to know if you or anyone else in the expert group have ever
used the progeam called JOHN THE RIPPER to I want to install it and do some
security checks (passwords for other users) . If you have used it before
could you please give me the
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Gavin wrote:
it suggested I try using it to see how secure the passwords my friends
employees are using.
Btw, you need to get explicit permission from the owner of the machines
before undertaking any sort of security audit. Not doing so can result in
prison time and huge
I would like to know if you or anyone else in the expert group have ever
used the progeam called JOHN THE RIPPER to I want to install it and do some
security checks (passwords for other users) . If you have used it before
could you please give me the pro's and con's using this software.
A
Hi . sorry if this seems a bit repetive,
Working my way through the local network here replacing argumentive german
s/w with Mandrake !.
no firewall on this machine, so ipchains not running, for some reason
/etc/services dos'nt seem to be being read.
Using xinetd and not inetd as on the other
yup they work !! and pretty well someone decided to hammer hell out of this
box last night, and just to play safe I put in paranoid mode.
I noticed that after switching it back to Medium so I can work on it easily,
not everything that was altered went back to its original state.
Like
richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I need to be able to telnet in when at work to check the system...
well, see what /etc/inetd.conf says. If it does not say:
telnet stream tcp nowait root/usr/sbin/tcpd in.telnetd
somewhere, or it has a '# in front of it, you'll need to add or
I notice the same problem. As a recall anonomous ftp and maybe also http
access was disabled. Also, non-root console users could no longer log into
the GUI. So I, too, am very interested in the answer to how we can
reestablish the complete Medium (level 3?) setup after doing msec 5. This
Hello there,
Anyone knows of a good starting point to define security policies for a
company?.
I am thinking of security in the network, backup, passwords, maintence etc.
I wood be glad for some pointers to the work of others, could be examples
from other companies.
Anyone have experience with
Okay, well the Security Announce is working for me gain; just got the
glibc advisory. Thanks for the work Vincent, and sorry if I was overly
critical.
Dave.
Vincent wrote:
At this point the going is slow to find a fix because that individual
is gone for the week, but rest assured we are
On Wed Jan 17, 2001 at 01:47:49PM -0600, duane voth wrote:
My intention is not to critizise but to offer an idea and
help balance the sense of urgency.
I understand.
One expects to be the first notified
of Mandrake security issues when one is subscribed to
Mandrake's security-announce.
On Thu Jan 18, 2001 at 05:35:50PM -0500, b5dave wrote:
Okay, well the Security Announce is working for me gain; just got the
glibc advisory. Thanks for the work Vincent, and sorry if I was overly
critical.
I understand the concern, Dave, believe me! Especially in light of
this worm (talk
Vincent,
Vincent Danen wrote:
ago. If this has been going on for a month, then someone should have
said something. However, on the same token, two individuals now have
indicated that they did in fact recieve messages, so it makes it even
more unclear. Unfortunately, the timing is very bad
My intention is not to critizise but to offer an idea and
help balance the sense of urgency.
Vincent Danen wrote:
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 04:23:15PM -0500, b5dave wrote:
One expects to be the first notified
of Mandrake security issues when one is subscribed to
Mandrake's security-announce.
Has anyone else been seeing traffic on the Security lists? I have seen
several posts on Bugtraq from Mandrake Security about updates but nothing
on the Mandrake lists. Anyone have any ideas?
--
Matthew Micene A host is a host from coast to coast,
Systems Development
Matthew,
Has anyone else been seeing traffic on the Security lists?
I joined both the Mandrake security announce and security discuss lists
just before the new year, and there was some brief traffic. Since then,
however, nothing. Last week linuxtoday (http://www.linuxtoday.com/) was
full of
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 11:01:45AM -0500, Matthew Micene wrote:
Has anyone else been seeing traffic on the Security lists? I have seen
several posts on Bugtraq from Mandrake Security about updates but nothing
on the Mandrake lists. Anyone have any ideas?
We're looking into it. I have
if it's any help, the last advisory I got was the "slocate" one of
Dec 18/2000.
dave.
We're looking into it. I have my suspicions that something has
changed with sympa and it is rejecting the mails silently so this
didn't actually come to my attention until about two days ago. We
hope to
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 12:10:49PM -0500, b5dave wrote:
if it's any help, the last advisory I got was the "slocate" one of
Dec 18/2000.
Yeah, that's what I've been told. I think it's sympa rejecting mail
based on "no-no" words like un_subsc_ribe (underscores are there to
prevent this message
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 11:32:02AM -0500, b5dave wrote:
Has anyone else been seeing traffic on the Security lists?
I joined both the Mandrake security announce and security discuss lists
just before the new year, and there was some brief traffic. Since then,
however, nothing. Last week
fwiw i had a whole a load on jan11th plus one today and others previous, does
this mean that may be some i have missed or are only some folk not seeming to
get them?
bascule
On Tuesday 16 January 2001 4:45 pm, you wrote:
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 11:01:45AM -0500, Matthew Micene wrote:
Has
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 06:52:58PM +, bascule wrote:
fwiw i had a whole a load on jan11th plus one today and others previous, does
this mean that may be some i have missed or are only some folk not seeming to
get them?
You got a whole bunch? Do you recall what they were for? I posted
Vincent,
No, that is not the case at all. It's not useless and it's not
dangerous. We're just having some difficulty with it.
Sorry, but I must disagree. One expects to be the first notified
of Mandrake security issues when one is subscribed to
Mandrake's security-announce. There's an
On Tue Jan 16, 2001 at 04:23:15PM -0500, b5dave wrote:
No, that is not the case at all. It's not useless and it's not
dangerous. We're just having some difficulty with it.
Sorry, but I must disagree. One expects to be the first notified
of Mandrake security issues when one is
When I choose "medium" security from Drakconf I noticed that a few things
change. One problem that I had was with public_html accounts on the
webserver. I also had a problem with NFS mounts. My question is where are
these changes controlled.
Andy
Keep in touch with
When I choose "medium" security from Drakconf I noticed that a few things
change. One problem that I had was with public_html accounts on the
webserver. I also had a problem with NFS mounts. My question is where are
these changes controlled.
cd /etc/security/msec
Thanks... Dan.
Keep
services. will the secure kernel still allow those basic connections
without too much trouble?
matthew
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy Judge
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [expert] Security levels
I have the followen lines in the messages log files this is malicius attack
?
Dec 3 23:20:15 linux inetd[17048]: connection from 200.176.106.246
Dec 3:23:35:05 linux PAM_pwdb[17124]: (su) session opened for user nobody
by (uid=99)
and much more =
Maximo Monsalvo
Guspamar S.A
Responsable
On Monday 04 December 2000 10:48 am, you wrote:
and much more =
More logs would be helpful to really determine if there was a break in,
however maybe the questions below can give you a place to start looking.
Dec 3 23:20:15 linux inetd[17048]: connection from 200.176.106.246
Dec 3:23:35:05
: [expert] Security
Since re-subscribing to this list I have noticed
an increase of un-authorized attempts to access my
main Linux Server. It may be only a coincedence,
however perhaps sharing a few of our log files
could be useful to see if there is a pattern.
Not everything which would overwhelm
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
