Re: Philosophy: connecting to a
Linux server
04/06/2007 01:56
AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
On 4/5/07, John Summerfield [EMAIL
On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought lime disease was from squeezing too much of the juice
into a gin
tonic and a backtick there would make one fall off the barstool -
must
fight such a dangerous affliction !!
That condition usually indicates an insufficiency of
On 4/5/07, John Summerfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME.
Including ticks, of course.
Sure, since ticks may transfer lime disease. Would backticks help fight it?
Rob
--
For
Adam Thornton wrote:
On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:13 PM, John Summerfield wrote:
Anyway, HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME.
Including ticks, of course.
Unless you have REALLY pointy shoes, stamping doesn't really help
with ticks. I myself usually use the pliers on my Leatherman.
I
On 4/6/07, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you have REALLY pointy shoes, stamping doesn't really help
with ticks. I myself usually use the pliers on my Leatherman.
Can you mail them to me please? I need to have 360,000 of them in the
fall to undo DST.
Rob
Ivan Warren wrote:
Adam Thornton wrote:
On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:13 PM, John Summerfield wrote:
Anyway, HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME.
Including ticks, of course.
Unless you have REALLY pointy shoes, stamping doesn't really help
with ticks. I myself usually use the pliers on my
Adam Thornton wrote:
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Mark Post wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 5:14 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey cool. It worked. Thanks Mark.
I replaced the other 1: line with this line below.
But it doesn't have the little line
#!/bin/sh
I'd not have that line in ~/.bashrc or ~/.bash_profile or ~/.profile
it's not exactly a script.
Yeah, given that you're using it to set environment variables, you
probably don't want it running in its own shell, do you?
So, yep, just source it. In that case, won't the shebang just
Adam Thornton wrote:
#!/bin/sh
I'd not have that line in ~/.bashrc or ~/.bash_profile or ~/.profile
it's not exactly a script.
Yeah, given that you're using it to set environment variables, you
probably don't want it running in its own shell, do you?
So, yep, just source it. In that case,
Bruce Hayden wrote:
Here is something I've been using on SLES that I got off this list
long long ago. It actually makes the console do a normal login, so
you get the motd message and it even shows up as a login when you run
the who or w commands. However, it still won't display the
/etc/issue
On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:13 PM, John Summerfield wrote:
Anyway, HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME.
Including ticks, of course.
Unless you have REALLY pointy shoes, stamping doesn't really help
with ticks. I myself usually use the pliers on my Leatherman.
Adam
Adam Thornton wrote:
On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:13 PM, John Summerfield wrote:
Anyway, HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME.
Including ticks, of course.
Unless you have REALLY pointy shoes, stamping doesn't really help
with ticks. I myself usually use the pliers on my Leatherman.
I wonder
On 4/4/07, Vic Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This OpenSSH patch[1] is (IMHO) in need of more airplay. AFAIK Gentoo
is the only distro that includes it as part of their OpenSSH package (I
don't have SLES10 or RHEL5 nearby, they may have finally picked it up).
Yes, it does solves some
On 4/4/07, shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh my. If this list is set to not echo posts back to the sender, then you
all have my sincerest apologies. When I did not see my post, I assumed
someone did not like my commentary, and I saw a similar script as the one
I posted. Given that
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:18 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
snip
YOU TOO CAN HELP STAMP OUT BACKTICKS IN OUR LIFETIME
On Apr 4, 2007, at 2:30 AM, Rob van der Heij wrote:
I know some installations automated maintaining copies of
authorized_keys (at least for root) by replication from a master so
that all required public keys were there when needed. But the security
policy was that the user should be able to
I suppose there would be a point in having the default as REPRO for
new subscribers to the list. Not sure we can, but alternatively some
hints in the welcome note could help (Harry?).
It's a list header option (cleverly labeled Default-Options=). Harry
would just need to set it and
Here is something I've been using on SLES that I got off this list
long long ago. It actually makes the console do a normal login, so
you get the motd message and it even shows up as a login when you run
the who or w commands. However, it still won't display the
/etc/issue file unless you put
On 4/3/07, shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds like a recipe for disaster unless you have the tightest of
physical security.
As Mark points out, physical security is not really the issue here. In
most mainframe installations you will find that physical access to the
hardware is very
McKown, John wrote:
This is more generic to Linux than specific to z/Linux, but perhaps you
will indulge me. I am curious as to the best practice to allow a user
to connect to a Linux server.
1) Telnet and use a normal userid/password - nope, ain't gonna happen.
2) SSH and use a normal
That sounds like a recipe for disaster unless you have the tightest of
physical security.
Not in a virtual machine. Access to the console is protected by the VM
security management system, which is usually well-monitored and
well-instrumented. If you can get to the console, the machine is
21:45
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
On Mon, Apr 2, 2007 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick wrote:
If you have an automatic login of root on the console, that should
provide enough
-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
On Mon, Apr 2, 2007 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick wrote:
If you have an automatic login of root on the console, that should
provide enough escape
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 5:14 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey cool. It worked. Thanks Mark.
I replaced the other 1: line with this line below.
But it doesn't have the little line in the console that makes us feel
all warm and fuzzy that the
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Mark Post wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 5:14 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey cool. It worked. Thanks Mark.
I replaced the other 1: line with this line below.
But it doesn't have the little line in the console that
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:
Seriously, folks. It's Linux, not Solaris: /bin/sh is POSIX-
compliant (boy, was I surprised last week when some of my POSIX
scripts barfed-and-died on.
Er, I seem to have forgotten what I was doing there.
barfed-and-died on Solaris 10)
is
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Thornton
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:20 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:
Seriously, folks. It's Linux
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
In-Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Marcy Cortes wrote:
Hey cool. It worked. Thanks Mark.
I replaced the other 1: line
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Kielek, Samuel wrote:
That's because on Linux, /bin/sh is typically just a symlink to
/bin/bash. I would imagine if you were to use bash on your Solaris
machine the result would be what you were expecting. And vice
versa, if
you were to actually use the real bourne
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], shogunx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
oh, and by the way, thakns for the censorship, and snarfing my script as
your own. dick.
Were you directing this vitriol at anyone in particular? I can't say I've seen
anyone engaging in
That's the second obtuse comment I've seen out of you today. Clearly
uncalled for.
shogunx wrote:
oh, and by the way, thakns for the censorship, and snarfing my script as
your own. dick.
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone:
:11 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Kielek, Samuel wrote:
That's because on Linux, /bin/sh is typically just a symlink to
/bin/bash. I would imagine if you were to use bash on your Solaris
machine the result
On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Kielek, Samuel wrote:
I guess all I was trying to indirectly point out was that this
behaviour
is caused by the fact that Solaris has the heirloom Bourne shell as
/bin/sh (which existed prior to POSIX.2). By the way, the XPG version
(/usr/xpg4/bin/sh) on Solaris does
Oh my. If this list is set to not echo posts back to the sender, then you
all have my sincerest apologies. When I did not see my post, I assumed
someone did not like my commentary, and I saw a similar script as the one
I posted. Given that assumption, I assumed I was speaking to whomever did
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 16:11 +0200, Rob van der Heij wrote:
We did it slightly different with an experimental patch to OpenSSH
that allows for the public keys to be kept in LDAP. That means there's
only one place where the public key is held. That LDAP server would
allow the end-user to upload
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 16:11 +0200, Rob van der Heij wrote:
We did it slightly different with an experimental patch to OpenSSH
that allows for the public keys to be kept in LDAP. That means there's
only one place where the public key is held. That LDAP server would
allow the end-user to upload
On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:10 PM, shogunx wrote:
Oh my. If this list is set to not echo posts back to the sender,
then you
all have my sincerest apologies. When I did not see my post, I
assumed
someone did not like my commentary, and I saw a similar script as
the one
I posted. Given that
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Thornton
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:04 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Kielek, Samuel wrote:
I guess all I was trying to indirectly point out was that this
behaviour
On Apr 3, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Kielek, Samuel wrote:
I just noticed there is a man page on solaris that details its
standards
compliance. Try 'man standards' for the somewhat lengthy details. Here
is the bit I found most relevant:
If the behavior required by POSIX.2, POSIX.2a, XPG4, SUS, or
This is more generic to Linux than specific to z/Linux, but perhaps you
will indulge me. I am curious as to the best practice to allow a user
to connect to a Linux server.
1) Telnet and use a normal userid/password - nope, ain't gonna happen.
2) SSH and use a normal userid/password - well,
On Apr 2, 2007, at 8:45 AM, McKown, John wrote:
2) Or should the user do the ssh-keygen on his workstation, then give
the public key to the administrator to put in the user's
~/.ssh/authorized_keys file?
Yes.
3) How do you give the key to the other person? USB thumb drive? Email
shudder? I
Hi, John.
- Original Message Follows -
From: McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Philosophy: connecting to a Linux server
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:45:53 -0500
This is more generic to Linux than specific to z/Linux,
but perhaps you will indulge me. I am
On 4/2/07, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) How do you give the key to the other person? USB thumb drive? Email
shudder? I guess that emailing a public key would not be bad. True?
The only requirement is that the admin can be certain that this is
indeed the public key of user A and
On 4/2/07, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7) I think the above removes the ability to do an su to the
userid by any other user than root. True?
Removing the password certainly would.
Tee hee hee. If you have an automatic login of root on the console,
that should provide enough
Rick wrote:
If you have an automatic login of root on the console, that should
provide enough escape for when all other things fail.
How are you setting that up? I've looked and it wasn't obvious to me.
Thanks in advance.
Marcy Cortes
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
On Mon, Apr 2, 2007 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick wrote:
If you have an automatic login of root on the console, that should
provide enough escape for when all other things fail.
How are you setting that up? I've looked and it wasn't
That sounds like a recipe for disaster unless you have the tightest of
physical security.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Mark Post wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2007 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick wrote:
If you have an automatic login of root on the
On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 1:31 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], shogunx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds like a recipe for disaster unless you have the tightest of
physical security.
For z/VM guests, you have to get past the physical security, and know the
userid and password of the Linux
48 matches
Mail list logo
