Kevin Stam wrote:
... failed to satisfactorily explain why running a specific application
in a VM is more secure then running it in a standard OS. It's nonsense that
you think it's more secure that way. It saves a lot of money, yes -- you
don't necessarily want a separate box just to run an
Peter Hessler wrote:
try enabling acpi at the bootloader prompt..
boot -c
enable acpi
exit
Thanks !
that did the trick.
On 2007 Oct 24 (Wed) at 13:58:29 -0400 (-0400), David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
:I am trying to complete a new install of OpenBSD 4.2 on an HP
:Pavillion dv8000.
:
:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to configure small home network:
ADSL Server / Firewall Desktop
Now I'm working on building a proper firewall to my server. So far the
situation is following:
- Servers internet connection works
- Desktop receives IP, nameserver and default route from server's
Matthieu Herrb wrote:
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
I have tried to install Gnome on two different machines running
OpenBSD 4.2.
The first machine ran Gnome fine under OpenBSD 4.1 (though there
were other problems)
One both machines - fresh installs gdm starts I can attempt
Since some time ago it became impossible to run JVMs on my 4.1 box. I can't
seem to figure out what's wrong, probably something easy and stupid...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/jdk-1.5.0/bin/java
[1] 28689
[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
# An unexpected error has been detected by HotSpot Virtual Machine:
#
#
Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 11:46:34PM -0400, Brian wrote:
Make sure you have restarted Firefox after making changes to
/etc/resolv.conf. Specifically, the application-level DNS cache will
contain old data if you have not restarted it. This bit me for 3
minutes straight
My analogies usually go to custard, but I'll try this one.
You are in charge of getting four ambassadors to a meeting. As well
as making sure they are happy and fed, you are in charge of their
security.
All four are hated in their home countries and you know their are
people wanting to kill
On 25/10/2007, at 8:28 PM, Richard Toohey wrote:
My analogies usually go to custard, but I'll try this one.
You are in charge of getting four ambassadors to a meeting. As
well as making sure they are happy and fed, you are in charge of
their security.
All four are hated in their home
Hi,
On 22/10/2007, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I have an odd one for you here. Im trying to copy music from a hard
disk(FFS) mounted on /mnt/media. I can play the music with mplayer
just fine, but cp seems to refuse to believe that the files exist.
Whats going on?
I
Richard Toohey wrote:
My analogies usually go to custard, but I'll try this one.
..
1. One car per ambassador. ...
With all four cars loaded onto a single car-carrier truck.
-Lars
On 25/10/2007, at 9:00 PM, Lars Noodin wrote:
Richard Toohey wrote:
My analogies usually go to custard, but I'll try this one.
..
1. One car per ambassador. ...
With all four cars loaded onto a single car-carrier truck.
-Lars
Exactly!
Have you made each of the ambassadors more secure by
On 25/10/2007, at 4:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks for the response. I'll give that a read, and a try.
where are you getting 4.2? the web site only shows 4.1 as being
released.
metajunkie
4.2 - order it online (they've been REALLY good this year - took less
than 2 weeks from
Please dont kill me :) I'm really not experienced with this kind of stuff.
Maby this helps:
$ sudo disklabel wd0
# Inside MBR partition 3: type A6 start 63 size 16514001
# /dev/rwd0c:
type: ESDI
disk: ESDI/IDE disk
label: Maxtor 6L250R0
flags:
bytes/sector: 512
sectors/track: 63
tracks/cylinder:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Edd Barrett wrote:
The directory made has been truncated msdos style. a_frag~1.
Therefore when cp tries to copy files into the new directory, it can't
find the new filename.
The workaround is to do something like this, with a shorter filename
---8---
# cp -R a_fragile_hope
On Thursday 25 October 2007, Richard Toohey wrote:
On 25/10/2007, at 4:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks for the response. I'll give that a read, and a try.
where are you getting 4.2? the web site only shows 4.1 as being
released.
metajunkie
4.2 - order it online (they've
Dear All,
I have a machine with two Maxtor 160GB hard disks. I've installed OpenBSD 4.2
on first one and I would like to use second one as a mirror.
As far as I understood I will have to repartition and reinstall whole system
to enable second disk as a mirror. All I want is to have software
Jon Sjvstedt wrote:
Please dont kill me :) I'm really not experienced with this
kind of stuff.
Looks like you maybe cloned an 8GB disk to the 250GB disk
and are now running out of space on the cloned file system.
fdisk wd0 should give you the MS-DOS partitioning (what BIOS sees)
16383/16/63
On 10/25/07, Dominik Zalewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to enable RAID 1 and sync first disk with second one without installing
everthing from scratch like in those howtos?
well, apart from the fact, that these howtos are a bit outdated, as usual,
they do more or less describe what to do.
Stijn wrote:
What I would do to test this:
-Connect another box with crossover cable to re0.
-Run tcpdump on both systems (as root)
-(optional: Play with fixed speed/duplex settings)
-Launch a wol and see if it reaches the other system (you do specify the
network to send it to?)
Yep. WOL
On 10/25/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workaround is to do something like this, with a shorter filename
or make sure you have a long filename in the root directory of the
partition or mount with -l.
---
Lars Hansson
Hi!
I'm running an OpenBSD server with a lot of users and project groups.
Each project has its own group or two to protect it's files from other
users.
As i know each user can have not greater than 16 groups.
As the solution, i can change value of NGROUPS_MAX in sys/syslimits.h.
But it requires
With all this discussion some questions went to me:
what's the hardware needed to do full and secure (para)?virtualization ?
is there some arch with this support ever created?
could the virtualization environment be secure if all guest OSes run in
userland? (User-Mode Linux, QEMU without
Maxim Bourmistrov wrote:
Some odd chipset, like SiS900 (sis0), do not wake up until your computer
is in hibernated mode.
This can be read from linux-driver.
FYI:
I have been playing with experimental WOL-patches for freebsd (partially
ported them to openbsd) for 3COM-cards.
Those cards
On 2007/10/25 08:50, Rodrigo V. Raimundo wrote:
could the virtualization environment be secure if all guest OSes run in
userland? (User-Mode Linux, QEMU without acceleration, ...)
Some qemu bugs were specifically mentioned in the paper.
Hardware: ALIX Board from PC Engines
FreeBSD:
dmesg:
Copyright (c) 1992-2007 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD
Hi,
I've tried to run 5 QEMU guests simultanously but when trying to start
the 5th I'll get the following error message:
warning: could not open /dev/tun7 (No such file or directory): no
virtual network emulation
Could not initialize device 'tap'
I have no idea why it looks for /dev/tun7 but
On 25/10/2007, Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/25/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The workaround is to do something like this, with a shorter filename
or make sure you have a long filename in the root directory of the
partition or mount with -l.
Aha! great.
Thanks for
Alexander Hall wrote:
Christopher Bianchi skrev:
Hello everyone. My situation is this:
i've a laptop, a Sharp pc-ax10 with Windows 2000 preinstalled , without
cdrom, floppy. I wish install OpenBSD on it. Naturally bios can't boot
from USB.
So i've thinked to boot the bsd.rd , but how ? The
On 24/10/2007, Lars Noodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, what (affordable) non-x86 hardware options are available,
especially those without AMT or AMT-like backdoors?
http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1148.htm
Hi,
thanks for your fast answer.
Marcus Andree schrieb:
Maybe you'll have to compile a new kernel. There's an options(4) option
called tun. I had to add something like
pseudo-device tun 16
I read something while googling for this issue that you had to add
something like that for older
On 10/25/07, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've tried to run 5 QEMU guests simultanously but when trying to start
the 5th I'll get the following error message:
warning: could not open /dev/tun7 (No such file or directory): no
virtual network emulation
Could not initialize device
comments inline.
On 10/25/07, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your fast answer.
Marcus Andree schrieb:
Maybe you'll have to compile a new kernel. There's an options(4) option
called tun. I had to add something like
pseudo-device tun 16
I read something while
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:37:32AM -0200, Marcus Andree wrote:
On 10/25/07, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've tried to run 5 QEMU guests simultanously but when trying to start
the 5th I'll get the following error message:
warning: could not open /dev/tun7 (No such file or
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:03:56AM -0200, Marcus Andree wrote:
comments inline.
On 10/25/07, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your fast answer.
Marcus Andree schrieb:
Maybe you'll have to compile a new kernel. There's an options(4) option
called tun. I had to add
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:07:59PM -0500, Tony Abernethy wrote:
only an idiot would think that separatey
physical machines would NOT increase security
Many IBM PCs vs IBM mainframe
Apples and oranges. When people compare one box to many, they're
talking about the same arch of box. We
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 08:37:02PM +1300, Richard Toohey wrote:
On 25/10/2007, at 8:28 PM, Richard Toohey wrote:
You are in charge of getting four ambassadors to a meeting. As
well as making sure they are happy and fed, you are in charge of
their security.
All four are hated in their
Hi,
I noticed one problem with the disklabel output while installing 4.2
It automatically detected the file system in my first slice which is
fat32 wrongly as 4.2BSD
But fdisk detected it correctly during the install phase
After the install I got inside the System to investigate.
The file system
Timo,
If this box is going to be a firewall and you expect to pass packets from
one interface to the other you _MUST_ enable packet forwarding. Even if pf
is setup correctly for your network, no packets will traverse between your
internal and external networks unless packet forwarding is turned
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
You apparently missed my post. Allow me to re-summarize the situation.
No, I didn't.
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
it *more secure* than not having it at all.
Is that direct enough for you?
No, because it's
Hi,
I installed OpenBSD 4.2 on CD on my amd64 that was running OpenBSD 4.0 fine.
I tried to mount the sparc64 CDROM to copy ports.tgz
But I get the following Error
# mount_cd9660 /dev/cd0c /mnt/
mount_cd9660: /dev/cd0c on /mnt: No medium found
# mount_cd9660 /dev/cd0c /mnt/
mount_cd9660:
Am Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:25:32 +0200
schrieb Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* N.J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-24 19:28]:
I have two servers that I would like to setup to run OpenBGPD for our
border routers.
I need to find a supported PCIe (not PCI-X) fiber card that runs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a HP Pavilion dv8000 too and, after install 4.2, i go back to
4.1. The audio on vlc, xine, xmms sounds too fast and cut from time to
time (5-6 sec intervals)even playing internet radioand the HD
access sucks. For example: i spent
thanks everyone.
I got into kernel mode with the /bsd -c boot
I saw in the dmsg that was residual on the failing boot screen that :
uhci1: host controller halted
I disabled uhci* while in kernel mode - and on exit from kernel mode,
the system booted without error.
However this device only has
Hi there,
Is there a way to turn off the long line scrolling in ksh?
I have been searching the manual, it mentions the feature, but does
not indicate if you can turn it off.
--
Best Regards
Edd
---
http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
At 05:56 PM 10/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:
L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
security issues and protections do not add up like numbers.
Sure they do. If I'm running Windoze as a guest OS, there are hundreds or
thousands of possible vulnerabilities. If I'm runng OBSD as a guest OS,
guess
On 10/24/07, Damien Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You obviously didn't read Tavis' virtualisation security paper. VM escape
vulnerabilites are not theoretical. Tavis found vulnerabilities in every
VM he tested using only a couple of fuzzers.
Restating my earlier post again, in regards to
At 09:46 PM 10/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
On 10/24/07, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, it's YOU that missed the point! I never said or made any comparison
to physical machines - the entirety of that I said is:
Running services/application domains in VMs increases security. As I
At 09:53 PM 10/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
L. V. Lammert wrote:
The more discrete the security model (i.e. File/Print users are not valid
on the httpd server) the better.
There's something I think you don't see here. Let's assume, for a moment,
that you have a VM host running two guests, one
At 09:15 PM 10/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:
On 10/24/07, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no clue what you're trying to say??? The original comment was the
the number of vulnerabilities is a inverse measure of the security risk
associated with a given OS.
Please stop feeding this
At 09:57 PM 10/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
You apparently missed my post. Allow me to re-summarize the situation.
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
it *more secure* than not having it at all.
Is that direct enough for you?
Perfectly clear, and I agree
At 08:06 PM 10/24/2007 -0400, Brian wrote:
Hi!
I think you are missing the point about x86 hardware being a mess.
No, I'm not. The discussion has nothing to do with hardware, but thanks for
the info.
Lee
What you're saying, appears to be:
1) 3 applications in one OS - less secure.
2) 3 applications in 3 physical servers - more secure
3) 3 applications in 3 virtual servers each running one OS - in
between #1 and #2 for security
Yes, indeed!
What the others are telling you is that you are
I noticed one problem with the disklabel output while installing 4.2
It automatically detected the file system in my first slice which is
fat32 wrongly as 4.2BSD
disklabel does not automatically detect filesystem types.
in the past, you have SPECIFICALLY said it was a 4.2 filesystem on
that
I'm running an OpenBSD server with a lot of users and project groups.
Each project has its own group or two to protect it's files from other
users.
As i know each user can have not greater than 16 groups.
As the solution, i can change value of NGROUPS_MAX in sys/syslimits.h.
But it
At 12:01 PM 10/25/2007 +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, L. V. Lammert wrote:
I still stand by my original statement. Running application 'domains' in
VMs instead of on a single server increases security.
It no worse security-wise to run applications on VMs rather than on the
Hello Brian,
Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 3:28:36 PM, you wrote:
B OpenNTPD runs as a 'daemon,' yes, but it does so using privilege
B separation and other goodies. The network code runs as a normal user,
B isolated from other users. This is superior to running rdate AS ROOT
B from a cronjob.
At 12:23 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, you wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
it *more secure* than not having it at all.
Is that direct enough for
On 10/25/07, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'obvious' security benefits were in two or three other posts, . but, to
summarize:
Separate UID/PWs for each domain/VM
Uh, how else would it work? How is this specific to virtualization?
Separate admin configurations tools
See
Hi,
On 25/10/2007, Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a HP Pavilion dv8000 too and, after install 4.2, i go back to
4.1. The audio on vlc, xine, xmms sounds too fast and cut from time to
time (5-6 sec
I think you forgot to count power savings here?
Theo de Raadt wrote:
And when physical servers cost less than some vmware licenses
Then it is even more dumb to defend such stupid practices.
On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
it *more secure* than not having it at all.
Is that direct enough for you?
No, because it's wrong.
You're full
* J??rg Streckfu?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-25 16:16]:
Just one question. If you terminate the wan fibre on a switch and put a
redundant router behind it, the switch himself turns out to be a single
point of failure, right?
yes.
Or do you have a second uplink which terminates on a second
At 12:08 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
The reason that people are going to #2 is that, if you are concerned about
security, that is the optimal way of setting things up. One box, one
task. That is true separation. In this light, the question of if #3 is
more secure than #1 is
On 10/25/07, Boris Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much for that (valuable) reply!
BTW, this is an argument for making an OpenNTPD ntpdate tool or adding
one_time_synchronization functionality into ntpd. :)
no, it's not making an argument for a one-shot sync attempt in
* Boris Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-25 18:57]:
BTW, this is an argument for making an OpenNTPD ntpdate tool
well, it is already there, it is called rdate.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting,
At 12:23 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
it *more secure* than not having it at all.
Is that direct
Ah, I forgot to mention that the packet forwarding is indeed enabled
already.
I checked the sample pf.conf on your webpage and edited it to change the
interface names and commented the queue rules. I then loaded the rules
with pfctl -f /etc/pf.new but still I could only access my server from
We have are planning to get for 2Mbps lines from the same ISP(their max).
The lines will have different routers in front of them so they can be
configuered
to be in different networks.
|--
On Oct 25, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Timo Myyrd wrote:
Any other ideas?
Here's a dumb idea: In your posting, a lot of lines in your pf.conf
file are
wrapped. I *hope* that happened in email and isn't actually the case in
the pf.conf file? One of those Sir, is the computer actually plugged
in?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:26:53 -0500, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:23 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, you wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:06 AM, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having
Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to turn off the long line scrolling in ksh?
No.
Why would you want to be unable to edit the start of a long line?
--
Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, that was pretty much caused by the gmail account. The pf.conf I
have on my server is formatted correctly.
Timo
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Timo Myyrd wrote:
Any other ideas?
Here's a dumb idea: In your posting, a lot of lines in your pf.conf
file are
wrapped.
Quoting Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Problem: in your analogy, there is some limit to the number of bad guys
before they become obvious to local law-enforcement. In the computer
case, best to consider the number of bad guys unlimited; you can only
limit the _rate_ at which they try to
At 02:28 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
Sure you do. You claim that the following statement is wrong, but you
don't offer any explanation. That's crap.
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes having it
*more secure* than not having it at all.
Quit dodging
On 10/25/07, Christian Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to turn off the long line scrolling in ksh?
No.
Why would you want to be unable to edit the start of a long line?
i think he wants line wrapping instead of scrolling. i know i
I'm testing openbsd and routing in a basic setup.
router-01 and router-02 are access routers with dynamic routing,
both connect to a lan where firewall-01 resides.
Both router-01 and router-02 have a static route for the network
behind firewall-01.
router-01# cat
/etc/hostname.em1
inet
L. V. Lammert:
At 12:08 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
The reason that people are going to #2 is that, if you are concerned about
.security, that is the optimal way of setting things up. One box, one
task. That is true separation. In this light, the question of if #3 is
more secure
At 03:09 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
Quite frankly, I tire of your dumb-ass attitude. This was VERY ON TOPIC.
Indeed it is! I also tire of the dumb replies that don't have any
relationship to the original subject.
Security for the applecation domain is a function of the
Hi Timo,
Yeah, that was pretty much caused by the gmail account. The pf.conf I
have on my server is formatted correctly.
Since we're on the subject of dumb ideas... What happens when you start
over with only your NAT rule and slowly start adding the additional rules?
So, start over, start
On 25/10/2007, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/25/07, Christian Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to turn off the long line scrolling in ksh?
No.
Why would you want to be unable to edit the start of a long line?
i
Certainly! That is not the point, however. The point is that users of OTHER
'application domains' have better security with a VM (or one of the other
approaches discussed) because THEIR environment has no ability to interact
^
I apologize for saying it is not compatible but i don't know exactly what is
the problem.
I had another dell server running without problem, when it was replaced by
the new server with a raid controller, gives these
problems of inconsistency disk and freeze.
Something that no comment was
At 01:58 PM 10/25/2007 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Certainly! That is not the point, however. The point is that users of
OTHER
'application domains' have better security with a VM (or one of the other
approaches discussed) because THEIR environment has no ability to interact
At 01:58 PM 10/25/2007 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Certainly! That is not the point, however. The point is that users of
OTHER
'application domains' have better security with a VM (or one of the other
approaches discussed) because THEIR environment has no ability to interact
I wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread.
Ignoring the debate/flamage on this thread regarding the security
merits/risks of virtualization, I beleive there are a number of us who
would like the option to run OpenBSD as a guest under various virtual
machine frameworks. Even if it is less secure
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:45:23PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
At 02:28 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
Sure you do. You claim that the following statement is wrong, but you
don't offer any explanation. That's crap.
There is *nothing* in any virtualization software that makes
On 10/25/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed one problem with the disklabel output while installing 4.2
It automatically detected the file system in my first slice which is
fat32 wrongly as 4.2BSD
disklabel does not automatically detect filesystem types.
Thank you so
I finally get it...
LEE! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS!
Hey everyone...
In Mr. Lammert's world, as long as NOBODY is trying to
break the system, VMs give a HUGE security plus!
Problem is, there are a lot of very bad motherfuckers out
there who ARE trying to break the system. So, when someone
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:19:21AM -0500, Boris Goldberg wrote:
Thank you very much for that (valuable) reply!
BTW, this is an argument for making an OpenNTPD ntpdate tool or adding
one_time_synchronization functionality into ntpd. :)
From ntpd(8):
-s Set the time
Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you want to be unable to edit the start of a long line?
i think he wants line wrapping instead of scrolling. i know i do. :)
Correct.
So I guess you can't turn it off?
No, you can't. And if you could, you would get something like csh's
At 05:08 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
I finally get it...
LEE! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS!
Beautiful!
[Taking Bow]
Hello Mark,
Thursday, October 25, 2007, 4:13:09 PM, you wrote:
MZ On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:19:21AM -0500, Boris Goldberg wrote:
Thank you very much for that (valuable) reply!
BTW, this is an argument for making an OpenNTPD ntpdate tool or adding
one_time_synchronization
* Don Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-25 13:33:29]:
I wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread.
Ignoring the debate/flamage on this thread regarding the security
merits/risks of virtualization, I beleive there are a number of us who
would like the option to run OpenBSD as a guest under
Hello,
The OpenBSD web site states that Cyclades-Z series multiport serial
cards are supported via the cz driver:
Serial Ports
Cyclades-Z series multiport serial boards (cz) (G)
I am running OpenBSD 4.1 stable, on i386.
I installed a Cyclades Ze PCI card, and hooked it up to the
L. V. Lammert wrote:
Certainly! That is not the point, however. The point is that users of
OTHER 'application domains' have better security with a VM (or one of
the other approaches discussed) because THEIR environment has no ability
to interact with the OTHER environments. The digression into
On 10/25/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if I take your point or 'applications domain' and and translate this
in more practical term and stop using words out of the far fetch paper
and use more pragmatic day to day example. You argue that in this case,
if a setup is using VM
On 10/25/07, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:45:23PM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
At 02:28 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
Sure you do. You claim that the following statement is wrong, but you
don't offer any explanation. That's crap.
There is
On 10/25/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're also a sysadm who refuses to read a paper written by a google
researcher, who's team found massive bugs in every VM.
That's not quite correct. Restating (yet) again:
1. Ormandy [1] states that Xen's design is congruent with good
2007/10/25, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 05:08 PM 10/25/2007 -0400, Stuart VanZee wrote:
I finally get it...
LEE! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS!
[+]
you mean security from those bad
guys, apparently you are talking about security from the
damn sheep who couldn't break the system if
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:39 -0700, Don Jackson wrote:
no channels at
tached
Well, no channels attached tells me its a hardware issue
(cables`n`shit), or the software failing to properly probe the hardware.
Does it work in another system under another platform (Linux LiveCD,
etc.).
I use
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
