** Changed in: debian
Status: Unknown => New
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bug
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #323420
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=323420
** Also affects: debian via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=323420
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
** Tags added: auto-search
--
[needs-packaging] Metasplo
What about uploading the proposed-for-gutsy deb package to getdeb.net?
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bug
Hi Daniel,
On Nov 25, 2007 11:04 PM, Daniel Holbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody followed up on the lintian/linda errors on:
> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?package=metasploit
I submitted patches to H.D. Moore and the Metasploit team to fix many
of the errors. However, they decided th
Nobody followed up on the lintian/linda errors on:
http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?package=metasploit
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug co
ssues with the current package, etc.
>
> Please see the below email for communication between myself and the
> team-lead.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin M. Wray
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Justin Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Aug 30, 2007 10:0
AIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Aug 30, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework
3.0 (multiverse)
To: H D Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moore:
With your permission, I would like to post your comments (as well as
mine)
>I won't work on this any more.
I would strongly encourage you not to abandon this effort. As the only
way to resolve this issue is to work harder, and obviously closer to the
MSF Dev team. And I would like to think they do want to see their
product released within the Ubuntu repositories.
>sho
I agree with everything you mentioned here, especially braking up the
packages. I am actually glad that Ubuntu is rejecting it :-) it
shows me that people care about what packages make it into the
repositories and results in a high quality system for the users. I am
a long time user since Warty
>I said that .svn dirs must be removed ;)
A package for being accepted must be lintian *clean*, so i think, as i prev
said:
1) we get a good package from dev team
2) we get an execption from ubuntu-dev
Completely agree, we were just trying to see if we could get past this
for the time being.
I t
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: Incomplete => In Progress
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailin
I said that .svn dirs must be removed ;)
A package for being accepted must be lintian *clean*, so i think, as i prev
said:
1) we get a good package from dev team
2) we get an execption from ubuntu-dev
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1022
Kristian:
Thank you for following-up in #ubuntu-motu as I have been busy the
past few evenings. As I assumed would happen, the package has been
rejected. This is obviously due to the multiple errors and issues that
we were having (and unable to resolve due to the license).
Unless we h
Set to incomplete as further packaging/license issues are worked out.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: Fix Committed => Incomplete
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification beca
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Changed in: ubuntu
>Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
I just updated my Gutsy install, but I don't see it. Has it made it
into multiverse yet? This is the last day. Do you want me to get on
#ubuntu-motu and coordinate this wi
On 8/27/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not yet, I have uploaded to my PPA, (not sure the status of that system
> yet). I will upload to REVU now...time to face the fire.
I know some of the packaging people at Canonical/Ubuntu. If they give
you a hard time, mention Kristian Erik
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mai
Not yet, I have uploaded to my PPA, (not sure the status of that system
yet). I will upload to REVU now...time to face the fire.
Thanks for all of the assistance.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You receiv
So is it officially in Gutsy now? Can I "sudo aptitude update && sudo
aptitude install metasploit3" ??
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubun
** Summary changed:
- [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
+ [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 (multiverse)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Kristian:
I already have a patch to correct the permission errors, so I can
easily apply that to the Rev:5080 build. However, after looking through
the linda/lintian output, the Ruby paths are not corrected either. I do
not think the changes have been released upstream. We should speak to
On 8/21/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pulled the latest snapshot from (Rev:5080), however all of the
> permission issues are still present.
The permissions issues are able to be modified, and do not fall under
the relevant source code changes policy. They did fix the ruby files
Pulled the latest snapshot from (Rev:5080), however all of the
permission issues are still present.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:38:54
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so in general, I would agree that an appli
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and i am pedantic. So i say, that line is a comment, no a control
> file line, so i think i can use a friendly alias.
> And now, like pedantic guys, i think we need a huge beer.
Let's all hang out and grab some beers at the next secur
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so in general, I would agree that an application that doesn,t
> normall have a web feature, should seperated.
>
> I would also apply this rule to a GUI interface.
>
> But where do we draw the line?
Yes, I also agree that under ideal cir
Kristian Hermansen wrote:
> So, if we can't modify the package, does that mean that you want the
> same package in repositories twice, one with the web interface
> dependencies, and on without? I think the web interface is a huge
> part of msf3, especially for people who will be using it on Ubuntu
of this release. Instead, I think a
solid package from SVN with all compoents is in order.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:22
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider to deploy a separate package with web interface, in my packages.
So, if we can't modify the package, does that mean that you want the
same package in repositories twice, one with the web interface
dependencies, and on without?
I consider to deploy a separate package with web interface, in my packages.
Are you a kind of pedantic guy? svn stay for nickname of subversion ;)
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ub
On 8/20/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first metaspoilt 3 package that i do when i open this bug have the
> following:
>
> Depends: ruby, libruby, rdoc, libyaml-ruby, libzlib-ruby, libopenssl-
> ruby, libdl-ruby, libreadline-ruby, libiconv-ruby, libgtk2-ruby,
> libglade2-rub
The first metaspoilt 3 package that i do when i open this bug have the
following:
Depends: ruby, libruby, rdoc, libyaml-ruby, libzlib-ruby, libopenssl-
ruby, libdl-ruby, libreadline-ruby, libiconv-ruby, libgtk2-ruby,
libglade2-ruby
and recommends svn.
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3
On 8/20/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll be packaging tonight, and will place the package online for testing
> etc.
>
> Let me know if you are interested in testing.
Great! Sure, I will test it. I think we should make the 'subversion'
package a RECOMMENDS. What do you think?
The metasploit developers have made the requested changes to the current
SVN update.
I'll be packaging tonight, and will place the package online for testing
etc.
Let me know if you are interested in testing.
I also wanted to take a moment to thank the metasploit team for working
with us, to get
>I think he might have been weary of using my script on the source
blindly...
Agreed, plus the original script removed SVN, which is used to update
MSF, so he would not have done that anyway.
I'll send him an email and see if we can get the Ruby paths updated, as
well as the permissions corrected
On 8/17/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kristian, I know you have been "attempting" to speak with the MSF Dev's.
> Any chance they will apply the patches upstream? Alessandro is right,
> it would make things a lot easier, because then we would have no need to
> edit the source.
hd
Kristian, I know you have been "attempting" to speak with the MSF Dev's.
Any chance they will apply the patches upstream? Alessandro is right,
it would make things a lot easier, because then we would have no need to
edit the source.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framewo
On 8/16/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that we need a law expert, and as i say in the first posts of
> this bug the only easy way is that the msf dev team start to distribute
> good archive.
Yes ok, but that law does not come into play unless the package is
modified, ri
I think that we need a law expert, and as i say in the first posts of
this bug the only easy way is that the msf dev team start to distribute
good archive.
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are right, and none of us (as far as I know) are lawyers, nor Dev's
> for MSF. But it is clear to me that modifications are allowed, and they
> would result in a cleaner package. Just throwing everything together,
> without fixing the cu
>OK. So let's do this. Will msf3 work unmodified? And will Ubuntu
allow msf3 to slip in unmodified into multiverse? If so, I say we
just add it to Gutsy ASAP and then worry about cleaning it up for the
next release. We could easily get into many days of interpretation of
the license. If we can just
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's break down the License, and see where we fall.
OK. So let's do this. Will msf3 work unmodified? And will Ubuntu
allow msf3 to slip in unmodified into multiverse? If so, I say we
just add it to Gutsy ASAP and then worry about cleanin
Let's break down the License, and see where we fall.
...
Definitions
...
c. "Enhancement" means any bug fix, error correction, patch, or other
addition to the Software that are independent of the Software and do not
require modification of the Software of the Software itself.
...
3. The lic
** Attachment added: "The Metasploit Framework License v1.2"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/8853728/LICENSE
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact
Welcome back Alessandro, I noticed you did package MSF as well, so I
hope that I haven't stepped on your toes.
I have been reviewing the licenes as well. Have a look at: http
://framework-mirrors.metasploit.com/documents/RELEASE-3.0.txt
The part that stands out -
* Metasploit is now released
On 8/16/07, Alessandro Tanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hello guys,
> i was away this days for the CCCamp.
I heard it was a good time from my hackers on a plane friends :-)
> I see that you done a good work, but remember that tha msf sources can't
> modified.
> So you can't apply any sort of
hello guys,
i was away this days for the CCCamp.
I see that you done a good work, but remember that tha msf sources can't
modified.
So you can't apply any sort of patches.
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification bec
On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, well, we should be good to go, I was able to integrate the needed
> permission changes into the build. The Ruby patch applies as well.
Excellent.
> Any other needed changes?
Not that I can think of!
> I'll post linda/lintian without
Okay, well, we should be good to go, I was able to integrate the needed
permission changes into the build. The Ruby patch applies as well.
Any other needed changes?
I'll post linda/lintian without SVN errors, so we can review.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so I got it working, sort of.
>
> I am now getting an error from you function, looking into this.
Post the output?
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You re
Okay, so I got it working, sort of.
I am now getting an error from you function, looking into this.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is th
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there is a build function to do this, I just need to find it
Let me know if you find it...
> I am on the road, will be back on the PC in 45.
No problem. I just got back from the BeanSec security meetup in
Boston. Fun times...
--
iginal Message-
From: Kristian Hermansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:31:10
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, I made a diff, after running your
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, I made a diff, after running your script, thats the RUBY patch
> above.
Of course :-) I saw that...
> However, 'diff' doesn't catch the change in file permissions etc.
Yup!
> Therefore, within the debian/rules I used part of your s
>My file is a shell script, not a patch made with diff. And I made the
script require to be run from the root directory. You can change that
to suit the Debian rules if you like. I am not familiar with
everything they enforce...
Right, I made a diff, after running your script, thats the RUBY patch
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When packaging you cannot modify the source package at all, other then
> through patches.
>
> As such I added the patch to the debian/rules. Let me check something.
My file is a shell script, not a patch made with diff. And I made the
scrip
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:09:13
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you post the warning messages?
>
> W: metasploit; Executable
> /usr/local/metasploi
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you post the warning messages?
>
> W: metasploit; Executable
> /usr/local/metasploit/framework-3.0/external/source/meterpreter/source/extensions/stdapi/server/net/net.h
> with perms 0755 is not an ELF file or script.
>
> Seems this should
>Can you post the warning messages?
W: metasploit; Executable
/usr/local/metasploit/framework-3.0/external/source/meterpreter/source/extensions/stdapi/server/net/net.h
with perms 0755 is not an ELF file or script.
Seems this should have been covered by the script?
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[ne
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Ruby issue has been resolved, but the scripts method for determining
> the correct permissions only partial worked. We still have plenty of
> permissions issues. So we need to decide how we will proceed with
> those.
Can you post the wa
>Great! So is it ready to be uploaded for Gutsy??? :-)
Well, not quite yet, but close.
The Ruby issue has been resolved, but the scripts method for determining
the correct permissions only partial worked. We still have plenty of
permissions issues. So we need to decide how we will proceed with
Assigned to myself, as I will be packaging.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
** Changed in: Ubuntu
Assignee: MOTU => Justin M. Wray
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the diff patch to correct Ruby paths...
>
> ** Attachment added: "Ruby Path Correction (diff/patch)"
>http://launchpadlibrarian.net/8841542/ruby.patch
Great! So is it ready to be uploaded for Gutsy??? :-)
--
Kristian Erik Herman
Here is the diff patch to correct Ruby paths...
** Attachment added: "Ruby Path Correction (diff/patch)"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/8841542/ruby.patch
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a m
:31:45
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E: metasploit: wrong-path-for-ruby ./usr/share/metasploit/external
> /ruby-pcapx/examples/tcpdump.rb #!/usr/local/bin/ruby
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E: metasploit: wrong-path-for-ruby ./usr/share/metasploit/external
> /ruby-pcapx/examples/tcpdump.rb #!/usr/local/bin/ruby
>
> Your script does _NOT_ seem to fix this error. However, I do not get
> that output with or without your patch.
I
> E: metasploit: wrong-path-for-ruby ./usr/share/metasploit/external
/ruby-pcapx/examples/tcpdump.rb #!/usr/local/bin/ruby
Your script does _NOT_ seem to fix this error. However, I do not get
that output with or without your patch.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framewo
Okay, ran the script, which did fix the permissions. I repackaged, and
linda/lintian are now happy.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is th
** Summary changed:
-[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
+ [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug c
IL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:33:04
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Bug 102212] Re: [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when I
> started wo
On 8/15/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when I
> started working on MSF), and was told, it is not against policy, just frowned
> upon. The problem, without the SVN updates, the user would be unable to pull
> the
> Someone has claimed that leaving .svn around is against debian policy,
> which would be understandable...
We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when I
started working on MSF), and was told, it is not against policy, just frowned
upon. The problem, without the SVN
Sorry -- Seems Launchpad added some of my responses as "quotes," thus I
reposted.
> Someone has claimed that leaving .svn around is against debian policy,
> which would be understandable...
We need to check into this a bit more, as I asked about the policy (when
I started working on MSF), and was
Change name to [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0.
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
** Summary changed:
- [needs-packaging] metasploit
+[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
--
[needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212
You received th
74 matches
Mail list logo
