On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
> This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
> to domain names than individuals.
Not necessarily; if I am providing login details to a phishing site, I
have probably visited the actual business web site before to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
>> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
>> domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Mo
> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
> domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Motors Canada
> was welcome to GMC.CA but they couldn't also register PONTIAC.CA or
> GM.CA
* Berkman, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-18 22:34]:
> Cacti is a free open source tool, and in my opinion these should never
> be expected to be 100% free of bugs, errors, and exploits.
very much opposed to commercial software, where you can be 100% sure
that they are full of bugs, errors,
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:33 -0700, Berkman, Scott wrote:
> There is this Network Management theory called Out of Band Management.
Which is rarely properly applied. I lost count of the data centers that
block mgmt traffic from external customers, but leave internal systems
(which are often "sublet
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Berkman, Scott wrote:
NMS Software should not be placed in the public domain/internet. By the
time anyone who would like to attack Cacti itself can access the server
and malform an HTTP request to run this attack, then can also go see
your entire topology and access your
NMS Software should not be placed in the public domain/internet. By the
time anyone who would like to attack Cacti itself can access the server
and malform an HTTP request to run this attack, then can also go see
your entire topology and access your SNMP keys (assuming v1). There is
this Network
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
For those who don't have the time/care enough to go look
at the Secunia report, I'll summarise it:
1) cmd.php and copy_cacti_user.php both blindly pass
arguments passed in the URL to system(). This, IMHO, is
reason enough to not run this softwar
David Ulevitch wrote:
Dennis Dayman wrote:
I have a customer having some DNS issues. They have done some research
regarding some DNS timeout errors they saw with Verizon's sender verify
looking up their MX records. What they have discovered is their
current DNS service has a 1% failure/timeo
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:40:06AM -0600, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Many of us run cacti. FYI.
Thanks for posting this, even though it's slightly OT.
Not to start an opinion war, but those who do run Cacti should
really consider removing this software from their boxes
permanently.
http://secunia.com/
Dennis Dayman wrote:
I have a customer having some DNS issues. They have done some research
regarding some DNS timeout errors they saw with Verizon's sender verify
looking up their MX records. What they have discovered is their current
DNS service has a 1% failure/timeout rate. They are explor
Many of us run cacti. FYI.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:26:37 -0500
From: Warner Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: FW: [cacti-announce] Cacti 0.8.6j Released
That's right, it's not vendor specific guys. Yay!
---
I have a customer having some DNS issues. They have done some research
regarding some DNS timeout errors they saw with Verizon's sender verify
looking up their MX records. What they have discovered is their current
DNS service has a 1% failure/timeout rate. They are exploring other
vendors (Ult
What about companies that do business under different Dab's? I know of
a lot of companies that do business under different names for different
products.
Joseph
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:04 AM
To: Joe Abley
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:14 -0600
"Travis H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...snip]
The domain name system has enough problems (is mazdausa.com really related
to mazda.com?) without involving javascript and ActiveX, but they could be
corrected with proper education (how about keeping every URL
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:43:37AM -0500,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
> included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
> domain name.
Same thing in ".fr", until
Back in the day, pre-CIRA, .CA was managed according to rules which
included the restriction that a single company was only allowed one
domain name. So, to choose a company at random, General Motors Canada
was welcome to GMC.CA but they couldn't also register PONTIAC.CA
On 17-Jan-2007, at 21:05, Joseph Jackson wrote:
Proper education for whom, the people setting up the site probably
know
this already. It's the bosses and marketing that don't care about DNS
structure. Damn it they want mazdausa.com and not usa.mazda.com and
they will have it their way!
At
18 matches
Mail list logo
