On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:46:56PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
The point is it's not needed, it's in BLFS where it belongs.
Yes, but this way it is known at the time when it would be most
convenient. I personally don't see it as being any different than
linking to a hint and it is a powerful tool
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:54:34AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
This would work. I would use [command] tags for the word 'sed' and
I would for sure make the '-e ...' stuff in a [literal] tag so that
it is all on one line though.
Hrmm, literal, eh? I used para, but I'll make a render with
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:57:56AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Exploiting weak passwords are the single most widely used method to
gain access to a machine.
FWIW, the SANS Top 20 lists weak passwords as the 5th likeliest
vulnerability in Windows, and the 3rd likeliest in Linux. For linux,
Randy McMurchy wrote:
From a technical standpoint Jim, you are just simply wrong. Exploiting
weak passwords are the single most widely used method to gain access to
a machine.
What's needed is a way to enforce a password scheme, passwords greater
than 8 characters, must contain alpha
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:01:51AM -0600, Archaic wrote:
Hrmm, literal, eh? I used para, but I'll make a render with literal. I'm
guessing by the name of the tag, that parameter would not be used?
Literal, by itself, doesn't seem to influence line wrapping, but I do
prefer the font used with
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:17 CST:
Not something that checks a word file, I would go for a password scheme
enforcement solution for shadow or even a replacement of shadow altogether.
Well great, Jim. We are getting somewhere. You obviously agree that a
solution to provide
Okay, give a look:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~archaic/lfs-trunk/chapter06/shadow.html
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:25 CST:
Literal, by itself, doesn't seem to influence line wrapping,
I suppose I shouldn't have made literal, so [literal] :-)
I was more thinking of things like [screen][userinput] type
tags that force stuff to be on one line and be 'literal' (as to
Archaic wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:33 CST:
Okay, give a look:
That looks good. The only thing is perhaps:
s/add/insert/ in the sentence. No telling how many folks will try
to add (append) the -e script to the command instead of inserting
where it belongs.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld
The only solution right now is to add PAM with this module
http://www.openwall.com/passwdqc.
So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS,
which I'm not sure the community will support.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:32:32AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I was more thinking of things like [screen][userinput] type
tags that force stuff to be on one line and be 'literal' (as to
what is encapsulated).
Hrmm. Well if it is deemed to be more accurate using screen tags as
opposed to
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 01:40 CST:
So you will need to get support for adding PAM and cracklib to LFS,
which I'm not sure the community will support.
It was about 50-50 running with the CrackLib idea, however, some of
the positives about CrackLib were adamant that PAM could
DJ Lucas wrote:
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x ${1}' gives the proper result. It looks as if
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x ${1}' gives the
Archaic wrote:
I think PAM is evil. ;)
Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
passwords.
-- Bruce
--
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
LFS to confirm this?
Got permissions 1000:1000, and used 7.0-cross-lfs-20050720-x86_64
plus BLFS-stuff from www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/.
Would this have affected the build in any serious way?
Hi all,
Not sure who takes care of Bugzilla but if someone could add a
GCC4 category to the 'Versions' that are used to describe which
book the bug is noted in, it would be good. I added a bug that
is specific to the GGC4 branch, but could find no way to really
identify it as such.
--
Randy
On 8/8/05, Jens Olav Nygaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Can anyone check and see if this is the case on a recent build of
LFS to confirm this?
Got permissions 1000:1000, and used 7.0-cross-lfs-20050720-x86_64
plus BLFS-stuff from
El Lunes, 8 de Agosto de 2005 08:42, Archaic escribió:
Hrmm. Well if it is deemed to be more accurate using screen tags as
opposed to just para tags, that is easily fixed, but since we aren't
actually typing in the command as seen, but rather inserting it into
another command, I don't know if
My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
as reported by 'date' compared to 'hwclock --show'.
(The hw clock seems to be reasonably accurate.)
(The gain also seems to be dependent on what I do, eg., if
the system is just idle, the system clock doesn't gain as
much.)
Googling
Hi Folks.
After successfully building LFS-6.1 from the profiles - thanks a lot for the
great work you put into both - and then rebuilding everything with the
information you put on the errata page - thanks again, this is a good idea -
I can't help thinking something like this would be nice for
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Not sure who takes care of Bugzilla but if someone could add a
GCC4 category to the 'Versions' that are used to describe which
book the bug is noted in, it would be good. I added a bug that
is specific to the GGC4 branch, but could find no way to really
identify it
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Torsten Vollmann wrote:
Hi Folks.
I think of this because I want to run a stable LFS on my main system but if a
package is updated and put into LFS-trunk I'm always wondering if it could be
applied to LFS-stable, too, or if it would mix up the build process because
the
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
snip
Any ideas?
Yep, I just use ntp (see BLFS). My hardware clock seems to gain even
when the system is switched off! I have a bootscript that syncs the
clock to an ntp server at bootup, ntpd runs
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Well, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the debate about adding CrackLib
to LFS. There was a bunch of ideas thrown around. It seemed healthy for
the list.
Yep, I enjoyed it too. I was supposed to post my summary over the
weekend, but Real Life got in the way as
Randy,
Have your verified that the bug with cracklib that was posted in
BLFS from a long time back has been fixed. Here is what I remember of
the bug. I know this issue had to deal with PAM but we had some
complaints about it not working without PAM, the cause was due to
cracklib being a
Ken Moffat wrote:
Hi Torsten,
I think you're overlooking a couple of things
Sad but true most times. Well, it's always worth a try :-)
- editors upgrade packages and do any testing them with the current
book. Nobody, AFAIK, is testing package updates against the last stable
book,
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 08/08/05 15:26 CST:
Have your verified that the bug with cracklib that was posted in
BLFS from a long time back has been fixed. Here is what I remember of
the bug. I know this issue had to deal with PAM but we had some
complaints about it not working
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some suggestions on how to fix the FontConfig
instructions. Currently, they are broken if you have DocBook-utils
installed, but don't have the SGMLSpm Perl module or JadeTeX
installed.
Here is what happens if for example you have
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jens Olav Nygaard wrote:
My system clock seems to gain an extra five minutes per hour,
snip
Any ideas?
Yep, I just use ntp (see BLFS). My hardware clock seems to gain even
when the system is switched off! I have a bootscript that syncs the
DJ Lucas wrote:
Never mind. $$ is not actually incrementing, but I don't know what
processes pidof is finding when running that script. Creating a second
functions script with only statusproc and getpids using the same 'pidof
-o $$ -o $PPID -x ${1}' gives the proper result. It looks as if
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:08:44AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Smiley noted, but do you really think this? In many cases it is
unnecessary, but it is really useful in others. For instance, in a
distributed system it is the only way I know of to use LDAP centralized
passwords.
Radius and
DJ Lucas wrote:
Okay..I'm not sure how (if) this affects the LSB function for pidofproc,
And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2. I've tested it to the best
of the amount of time availible, but it should be correct.
DJ Lucas wrote:
Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
And it really should have been attached :-)
-- DJ Lucas
--- lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2-orig/lfs/init.d/functions 2005-07-05 01:09:05.0 -0500
+++ lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2/lfs/init.d/functions 2005-08-08
And I did break it in a rather obvious way. Attached should be a
working patch against lfs-bootscripts-3.2.2.
No patch-o attach-o. :D
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
35 matches
Mail list logo
