On 2020-02-12 01:09, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
APL external email warning: Verify sender
qubes-users+bncbci3h2v54mhrbjnnr3zakgqe4jht...@googlegroups.com before clicking
links or attachments
On 2020-02-11 11:39, unman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 01:34:15AM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
On 2/14/20 4:01 AM, Chris Laprise wrote:
That's odd. I use a regular debian-10 template for most things and
exim4* removal only takes out 2 other exim packages.
Yes, they apparently put some effort into removing useless dependencies
between debian 9 and 10.
E.g. gnome-keyring can also be
On 2/13/20 7:04 PM, unman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:38:33AM +0100, Bernhard wrote:
Also, I see that you have many services that need not be there - some
of these will be disabled by Qubes- some you do not need in every qube
(cups-browsed, exim4, tinyproxy etc).
how do get rid of
On 2/12/20 7:27 AM, Claudia wrote:
I'm not sure if you'll agree, but my conclusion from this experiment is
that the Qubes Team have some work to do in hardening Qubes? Like you
say,"I see that you have many services that need not be there"; so my
question is, why are they present in a vanilla
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:38:33AM +0100, Bernhard wrote:
>
>
> > Also, I see that you have many services that need not be there - some
> > of these will be disabled by Qubes- some you do not need in every qube
> > (cups-browsed, exim4, tinyproxy etc).
> how do get rid of them? exim for example
Also, I see that you have many services that need not be there - some
of these will be disabled by Qubes- some you do not need in every qube
(cups-browsed, exim4, tinyproxy etc).
how do get rid of them? exim for example looks to me like a virus. I
found no way to uninstall it without
February 12, 2020 6:09 AM, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
> On 2020-02-11 11:39, unman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 01:34:15AM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
>>> I've been reading a blog from the renowned Daniel Aleksandersen at
>>> https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-service-hardening.html
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:09:38PM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
> On 2020-02-11 11:39, unman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 01:34:15AM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
> >> I've been reading a blog from the renowned Daniel Aleksandersen at
> >>
On 2020-02-11 11:39, unman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 01:34:15AM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
>> I've been reading a blog from the renowned Daniel Aleksandersen at
>> https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-service-hardening.html
>>
>> The output from a Debian-10 based Appvm looks a little
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 01:34:15AM -0800, ronp...@riseup.net wrote:
> I've been reading a blog from the renowned Daniel Aleksandersen at
> https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-service-hardening.html
>
> The output from a Debian-10 based Appvm looks a little scary!! Should I
> be concerned?
>
>
I've been reading a blog from the renowned Daniel Aleksandersen at
https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/systemd-service-hardening.html
The output from a Debian-10 based Appvm looks a little scary!! Should I
be concerned?
user@tmp3:~$ systemd-analyze security
UNIT EXPOSURE
11 matches
Mail list logo
