On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Eric Gearhart wrote:
I hate to be pedantic but is this something that should get forwarded
to NANOG? I guess the relevance is justified because a lot of network
folks run Nagios...?
As long as network operators related vulns don't start showing up every
couple of months
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:23 PM, jamie rishaw wrote:
> srsly?
>
> I didnt find this OT, considering its scope.
>
> Want to dictate policy? Join the MLC.
>
> Till then, /dev/null
>
> thx
Thanks for the professional response there bud
srsly?
I didnt find this OT, considering its scope.
Want to dictate policy? Join the MLC.
Till then, /dev/null
thx
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
pew pew
> Eric Gearhart wrote:
>
pew pew pew
--
Jamie Rishaw // .com.a...@j <- reverse it. ish.
[Impressive C-level Titl
Eric Gearhart wrote:
I hate to be pedantic but is this something that should get forwarded
to NANOG? I guess the relevance is justified because a lot of network
folks run Nagios...?
No, it's offtopic. I mean, CVE-2007-5803? Really? Even stranger, they
mention a CVE which is 2.x based, and the
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:01 +0100
> From: secur...@mandriva.com
> Reply-To: xsecur...@mandriva.com
> To: bugt...@securityfocus.com
> Subject: [ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:05:01 +0100
From: secur...@mandriva.com
Reply-To: xsecur...@mandriva.com
To: bugt...@securityfocus.com
Subject: [ MDVSA-2009:054 ] nagios
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
__
6 matches
Mail list logo
