December 2000 - openSUSE Security - openSUSE Mailing Lists

SSH Authentication
by Joao Reis 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

Hi! I implemented a ssh conection from the outside to my intranet. This ssh requires a username and a password. In terms of security what is more secure: require authentication (username and password) or having the public key of each user that connects to our intranet in the authorized public key lists (in this case there is no need for username and password)? In the second case there is no need of authentication and only the users wich have the public keys in the list are allowed to enter in my intranet. This second solution is a good solution or that brings other security problems ? Thanks. -- Farewell. "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." "Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda João Reis -------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: is SuSE going to implement libsafe?
by marc＠suse.de 18 Feb '01

18 Feb '01

Hi, >I have just read an Bell Labs anouncement, that they are going to release >libsafe under GNU licence, and that some major Linux distros are going to >be using it. SuSE was not amongst them, why is that? I think that libsafe would >be a good echnacement against buffer overflow. > >Anouncement is on: >http://www.bell-labs.com/news/2000/april/20/1.html just because something new pops up please be careful with questions like "when will you implement it?" ;-) There are several questions to ask: a) is it STABLE and does it NOT affect the stability of other programs? b) does it bring additional security problems into the system? c) is the security protection effective? Well, of course the SuSE Security Team already reviewed libsafe. Here are the answers: a) unsure. it would have to be tested very intensive. this was not done yet. b) the code might have vulnerabilities, however the protection gained is higher even if a vulnerability would be present c) okay, now the tough part: libsafe is a dynamic library which is set in the environment which checks several dangerous functions, which can be a security problem. Because it is a dynamic library, it is NO protection against local attackers, just against remote attackers on network services. (if an attacker wants to attack a local suid file, he would just reset his library path environment). Next thing: it does not check for all known vulnerabilites. It even doesn't protect against all buffer overflows, It just protects against *some* overflows. those which happen because of insecure use of strcat/strcpy etc. summary: I can not remember a vulnerability in a network service for the last year which this tool would have prevented. Therefore: as long as this tool is not enhanced to also protect open/fopen calls against symlink/hardlink/pipe attacks, several more buffer overflow types, system/exec* function protection etc. it is not useful to use this tool. I would rather propose to use the secumod module which comes with SuSE Linux since 6.3 and maybe the secure-linux kernel patch from www.openwall.com - these two tools enhance your security. (and btw, install seccheck, hardensuse and firewals and use them - then your security is very high) Greets, Marc -- Marc Heuse, SuSE GmbH, Schanzaeckerstr. 10, 90443 Nuernberg E@mail: marc(a)suse.de Function: Security Support & Auditing "lynx -source http://www.suse.de/~marc/marc.pgp | pgp -fka" Key fingerprint = B5 07 B6 4E 9C EF 27 EE 16 D9 70 D4 87 B5 63 6C

5 4

Mail filter on firewall?
by Stefan Hoffmeister 08 Jan '01

08 Jan '01

Is there a way to filter mail (for viruses / content / attachments) on a masquerading firewall without a server on the gateway? I currently have SuSE 7.0 running here, providing NAT for a few clients on the LAN; SuSEfirewall 4.2 protects the gateway. In order to protect some clients, I would like check the emails that are flowing in and filter or modify the content in case some criteria are matched (".EXE file attached? Kill. Now." etc). ZoneAlarm (http://www.zonealarm.com/) on Windows has functionality for clients that does this to some extent (rename .VBS scripts). At the same time, I would like to allow connections to any standard mail server out there (freemailers, for instance). I am under the impression that having a port redirector on the firewall which looks at the POP3 traffic might be effective? Is there such a thing at all? I looked around and only found setups where a (gateway) "local" mail server was around that did all the processing, with clients connecting to the *local* gateway. TIA, Stefan

2 1

proftpd-1.2.rc2: BUG! passive FTP not working (FIX attachted)
by Steffen Dettmer 04 Jan '01

04 Jan '01

Hi, the package mention above contains a bug concered to passive mode FTP. After upgrading, no passive FTP is possible! I attach a modified SPEC file and the needed patch. HOW TO BUILD: ------------- 1. install the right source rpm (via rpm -i proftpd.spm) 2. overwrite the SPEC file in /usr/src/packages/SPECS/ 3. copy the patch to /usr/src/packages/SOURCES 4. build RPMS (rpm -ba /usr/src/packages/SPECS/proftpd.spec) 5. upgrade to new RPM (rpm -U /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i386proftpd-1.2.0rc2-37.i386.rpm) [sorry for long line] PLEASE NOTE: If you haven't openLDAP installed, you may remove openLDAP support by editing the SPEC file: Change line 68 from: --with-modules=mod_ratio:mod_readme:mod_linuxprivs:mod_ldap \ to: --with-modules=mod_ratio:mod_readme:mod_linuxprivs \ (before STEP 4, or if you get ldap errors with executing step 4; in the latter case edit file and redo step 4 and go on; that seems to be neccesary for SuSE 6.1) Standard disclaimer applies. UNTESTED except a quick test on a SuSE 6.1 but the new patch is a very simple one - but who knows! I wonder why nobody got this problem here before (it's known on proftpd.net...) TECHNICAL NOTE: The spec file got a new release number (37), hope this makes no conflicts. I only added the patch. I have no time to supply a diff of the SPECs right now, but that's what SuSE support is for ;) short in time as always ;) oki, Steffen -- Dieses Schreiben wurde maschinell erstellt, es trägt daher weder Unterschrift noch Siegel.

3 2

Re: [suse-security] SuSE Security FAQ
by Nix 03 Jan '01

03 Jan '01

Yes, this was my intended plan, however, I am more than happy to accept sections written by YOU! *hint hint* (anyone who wants credit for writing a major section will receive a listing in a CREDITS file. At least thats what I've been thinking of doing... Thoughts anyone?) -Nix At 10:38 PM 16/12/2000 +0800, you wrote: >I would like to see additional security programs i.e., >snort, Portsentry, SuSEfirewall, etc. Thus people will know >the things to install to beef up security, maybe even >Howto's on setting these up(?). >- -- Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking

4 3

telnet as a root on a suse 6.3 suse server
by Francesco Masiello 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

I must be able to telnet from a terminal (not a console) as a root without using su. In solaris i could do that editing /etc/default/login file,but i can't find it on this Operating System. How can i do ? Thanks

8 7

Nice little newbie review
by Nix 02 Jan '01

02 Jan '01

This is an interesting review that the SuSE marketing droids may be able to use.. http://www.linuxtests.org/articles/distributions/suse/7.0/ It pretty much mirrors what I think of SuSE 7.0.. I had a very similar problem installing on my Sparc.. where linuxrc would just die... Does anyone else HATE YaST2???? -Nix -- Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking

5 5

[suse-security] How can I solve this problem with mail server
by Luis Oliveira 01 Jan '01

01 Jan '01

Hi to all, My company mail server is running on a Suse 6.3 system, with sendmail 8.9.3, and until sotime ago everything was running beautifully. What happened is that we started to receive mail messages with links to porno sites. These mail messages are always addressed to non existant users in the mail system. We have tried to configure sendmail by way of webadmin to reject mail from the source addresses but the source adress is always changing. Is there any security problem with Suse 6.3 and/or sendmail that can cause this ? What can I do to solve this? Thanks in advance // luis oliveira

2 1

How can I solve this problem with mail server
by Luis Oliveira 31 Dec '00

31 Dec '00

Hi to all, My company mail server is running on a Suse 6.3 system, with sendmail 8.9.3, and until sotime ago everything was running beautifully. What happened is that we started to receive mail messages with links to porno sites. These mail messages are always addressed to non existant users in the mail system. We have tried to configure sendmail by way of webadmin to reject mail from the source addresses but the source adress is always changing. Is there any security problem with Suse 6.3 and/or sendmail that can cause this ? What can I do to solve this? Thanks in advance // luis oliveira

2 1

Kryptographie (Passwort)
by Claudia Arnold 31 Dec '00

31 Dec '00

Hi Liste !! Ich habe da eine kleine Verständnisfrage: Wenn ein Passwort verschlüsselt ist (z.B. shadow) und man davon ausgeht, daß es Verschlüsselungsverfahren gibt, die nur schwer bzw. (momentan) gar nicht zu knacken sind, wie bekommt dann das System (z.B. bei Login-Passwort) das unverschlüsselte Passwort heraus ??? OK, ich könnte mir vorstellen, daß die Entschlüsselung o.ä. im Login-Programm enthalten ist, aber dann wäre sie doch (wegen Open-Source u.ä.) auch frei verfügbar - oder nicht !? Das gleiche ist ja auch bei z.B. EC-Karten der Fall. Glaubt man der Bank, so ist es für die Angestellten nicht möglich eine vergessene Geheimzahl nachträglich herauszufinden. Wie schafft es denn dann der Geldautomat herauszufinden, ob ich die korrekte Geheimzahl eingegeben habe ??? Dementrsprechend muß es doch auch (mehr oder weniger leicht) möglich sein, die Geheimzahl zu ermitteln, da es der Automat ja auch kann.... Oder befinde ich mich da vollkommen auf dem Holzweg ??? OK, klingt zwar etwas unprofessionell und laienhaft, aber das interresiert mich gerade irgendwie und es wäre nett, wenn mir da jemand eine qualifizierte und detailierte Antwort zu geben könnte. Vielen Dank im Voraus..... CU :-) Claudia

5 5

SAMBA password synchronization with NIS
by J. Mell 30 Dec '00

30 Dec '00

Hi list, we have a mixed environment of SuSE 7.0 Linux machines and Windows machines. The windows machines access a SAMBA 2.07 server on one of the Linux machines. As more and more functions are going over to the Linux machines (POP e-mail etc.) we want to have one synchronized password database. We use NIS on the Linux machines for authentification and there the problems come up: If we set the SAMBA server to synchronize unix passwords, SAMBA will call the Linux password program - in our case yppasswd - to set a new password on the Linux side. Unfortunately yppasswd asks for the root password first. This means that I would have to put the server's root password in plain text into SAMBA's password chat in SAMBA's configuration file which I obviously cannot do. Any ideas how this can be solved? Any tips for good reading about the password synchronization problem with NIS? Jürgen Mell

1 0

Login restriction
by Raffy 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

I have a user on my system who needs an ssh login shell. I don't want that user to escape his home directory. Is there an easy solution to restrict him to only his home. I could use chroot to do so, but that would involve quite some work, wouldn't it. Thanks Raffy

1 0

[OT] KDM missing in action
by Nix 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

OK, quick question, although a little off topic. My KDM seems to be missing in action on all my machines that I have installed SuSE 7.0 on. I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that I'm running KDE2?? Does anyone have any pointers on how to get KDM back. I normally boot to a console myself, but I have just set up a machine in the lounge room for the purpose of playing MP3s, and having a nice gui login would be good. (XDM works currently, but it's ugly..) -Nix Friends dont send friends .exe attachments. See also "Bloody Idiot".

1 0

SSH
by Richard 29 Dec '00

29 Dec '00

Dear All I'm having some problems with SSH that don't really make too much sense to me. Previously I had a Debian dialup box that dialed when I did 'isdnctrl dial ippp0' from the SuSE 6.4 box with SSH. There was no problem with that at all. Just recently I thought it was time to upgrade the internet facing box and changed to SuSE 7.0. My Compaq notebook got the same software at the same time. Very nice software with a great deal of choice. However, I now find that if I try to connect to the new 7.0 box with the old 6.4 box then nothing happens. I'm using Open SSH on all of them and on the 6.4 box it's version 1.2.2. On the new box and the notebook it's version 2.1.1p1. I can get all of the machines to see each other on the network which is based around a small hub. But SSH just refuses to do anything. The login command I use normally is...... 'ssh root@nameofthebox' I'm sure that I've missed something here but I can't think what. As I say the 6.4 box connected straight up to my old Debian box without a problem. Can anyone point me in the right direction here ? Read 'man ssh' and the SuSE database. Still can't figure it out. Also done some RTFM with several books. Thanks -- Richard

2 1

Firewall question -- Forwarding ports
by Waldack, Jesse (CAP, CARD) 28 Dec '00

28 Dec '00

I wish to forward a few ports into a MASQed computer (specifically, 192.168.1.12 on my LAN). I think it has something to do with changing option 13 in firewall.rc (FW_FORWARD_TCP/UDP) but I don't quite understand the syntax. If I am on the right track, can someone please walk me through the meaning of the syntax? If I am way off, can someone point me in the right direction? I am running SuSE 6.4. Thanks in advance for your assistance. -Jesse

6 6

weird postfix error
by Nix 28 Dec '00

28 Dec '00

Can anyone explain these weird error messages? I have just started playing with postfix, and it's not bad, but this seems to be a weird glitch. I was testing the limits of message size, both of postfix and a couple of third party mail providers, and came up with this log. Dec 27 14:35:32 fw postfix/master[541]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Now, I have looked at http://www.postfix.org/resource.html#size and I HAVE increased the Message Size Limit as this log states, but I can't figure out how to increase the file size limit... Also I would LOVE to know how to stop postfix from listening on a port, but still process the queue. Currently I have told postfix to listen on localhost only, and have Obtuse SMTPD listening on all other interfaces... This works fine, but is a bit of a hack. You should be able to stop it from listening totally like you can with sendmail. (Note, you can do this, but then it fails to process the mail queue...) If anyone can help me with this, to save me from subscribing to the postfix mailing list..... Would be much appreciated. Kurt? I seem to remember you being a postfix monkey?? (Bah.. really I just wanted to post something to the list to see if everyone is still alive!!! Is it only ME who is working between xmas and new year or are there other idiots out there too???) /me stops playing with postfix and gets back to work... -Nix Dec 27 13:33:14 fw postfix/cleanup[426]: 3DDA3823E: message-id=<5.0.2.1.0.20001227130542.02f9cda8(a)mail.itaudit.com.au> Dec 27 13:35:59 fw postfix/smtpd[425]: disconnect from unknown[172.20.1.8] Dec 27 13:35:59 fw postfix/qmgr[402]: 3DDA3823E: from=<peter(a)nixon.net>, size=124216353 (queue active) Dec 27 14:35:32 fw postfix/master[541]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 14:35:32 fw postfix-script: stopping the Postfix mail system Dec 27 14:35:32 fw postfix/master[400]: terminating on signal 15 Dec 27 14:35:32 fw postfix/master[551]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 14:35:35 fw postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system Dec 27 14:35:35 fw postfix/master[597]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 14:35:35 fw postfix/master[597]: daemon started Dec 27 14:52:15 fw postfix/qmgr[599]: 3DDA3823E: from=<peter(a)nixon.net>, size=124216353 (queue active) Dec 27 17:14:53 fw postfix/smtpd[864]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Dec 27 17:15:15 fw postfix/smtpd[864]: warning: Illegal address syntax from localhost[127.0.0.1] in VRFY command: hs;ldfkj Dec 27 17:18:13 fw postfix/smtpd[864]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Dec 27 17:25:16 fw postfix/master[904]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:25:16 fw postfix-script: stopping the Postfix mail system Dec 27 17:25:16 fw postfix/master[597]: terminating on signal 15 Dec 27 17:25:16 fw postfix/master[914]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:25:16 fw postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system Dec 27 17:25:17 fw postfix/master[956]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:25:17 fw postfix/master[956]: daemon started Dec 27 17:41:57 fw postfix/qmgr[958]: 3DDA3823E: from=<peter(a)nixon.net>, size=124216353 (queue active) Dec 27 17:42:34 fw postfix/master[1003]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:42:34 fw postfix-script: stopping the Postfix mail system Dec 27 17:42:34 fw postfix/master[956]: terminating on signal 15 Dec 27 17:42:34 fw postfix/master[1013]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:42:35 fw postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system Dec 27 17:42:35 fw postfix/master[1055]: warning: file size limit 524288000 < message_size_limit 1024000000 -- reset Dec 27 17:42:35 fw postfix/master[1055]: daemon started Dec 27 17:59:15 fw postfix/qmgr[1057]: 3DDA3823E: from=<peter(a)nixon.net>, size=124216353 (queue active) Dec 27 21:10:22 fw postfix/smtp[1081]: 3DDA3823E: to=<peter(a)paulsjourney.com>, relay=mail.paulsjourney.com[64.65.2.56], delay=27428, status=sent (250 ok 977915228 qp 4515) Dec 28 00:00:10 fw postfix/pickup[1459]: 13579823E: uid=0 from=<root> Dec 28 00:00:10 fw postfix/cleanup[1823]: 13579823E: message-id=<20001227230009.13579823E(a)fw.fallen.com.au> Dec 28 00:00:10 fw postfix/qmgr[1057]: 13579823E: from=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, size=976 (queue active) Dec 28 00:00:11 fw postfix/local[1827]: 13579823E: to=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, relay=local, delay=2, status=sent (mailbox) Dec 28 00:00:11 fw postfix/cleanup[1823]: 705088240: message-id=<20001227230009.13579823E(a)fw.fallen.com.au> Dec 28 00:00:11 fw postfix/qmgr[1057]: 705088240: from=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, size=1108 (queue active) Dec 28 00:00:11 fw postfix/local[1827]: 13579823E: to=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, relay=local, delay=2, status=sent (forwarded as 705088240) Dec 28 00:00:14 fw postfix/smtp[1828]: 705088240: to=<peter(a)nixon.net>, relay=inbound.nixon.net.criticalpath.net[209.228.32.54], delay=3, status=sent (250 ok 977925489 qp 21788) Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/pickup[1459]: 8FF6A823E: uid=0 from=<root> Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/cleanup[1823]: 8FF6A823E: message-id=<20001227230146.8FF6A823E(a)fw.fallen.com.au> Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/qmgr[1057]: 8FF6A823E: from=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, size=1531 (queue active) Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/local[1827]: warning: biff_notify: Connection refused Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/local[1827]: 8FF6A823E: to=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (mailbox) Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/cleanup[1823]: 94A6E8240: message-id=<20001227230146.8FF6A823E(a)fw.fallen.com.au> Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/qmgr[1057]: 94A6E8240: from=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, size=1662 (queue active) Dec 28 00:01:46 fw postfix/local[1827]: 8FF6A823E: to=<root(a)fw.fallen.com.au>, relay=local, delay=0, status=sent (forwarded as 94A6E8240) Dec 28 00:01:49 fw postfix/smtp[1828]: 94A6E8240: to=<peter(a)nixon.net>, relay=inbound.nixon.net.criticalpath.net[209.228.32.54], delay=3, status=sent (250 ok 977925584 qp 22400) You have moved your mouse. Windows will now reboot.

5 9

Saint Jude 0.0.7
by Fred A. Miller 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

Saint Jude 0.0.7 (Linux) by Tim Lawless (lawless(a)netdoor.com) Relevant URL: http://www.sourceforge.com/projects/stjude Saint Jude LKM is a Linux kernel module that implements the Saint Jude model for improper privilege transitions. This will permit the discovery of local, and ultimately, remote root exploits during the exploit itself. Once discovered, Saint Jude will terminate the execution, preventing the root exploit from occuring. This is done without checking for attack signatures of known exploits, and thus should work for both known and unknown exploits. -- ----/ / _ Fred A. Miller ---/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Systems Administrator --/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Cornell Univ. Press Services -/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ fm(a)cupserv.org

1 0

Re: Re[3]: [suse-security] NSCD
by r.maurizzi＠gvs.it 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

> This amount of users needs a lot of tuning and i think installing a > program like NSCD is or should be part of that tuning. I personaly run > SuSE on a web-servers and have NSCD turned of. The reason is that i only > read difficulties of NSCD and every pogram adds a security risc. Am I the only one for which NSCD creates problems with slow nameservers? As in: - Issue the command: "ping www.somestrangedomainname.com" - my DNS has to lookup the address from a far/slow DNS and doesn't reply before timeout - ping replies host unknown - NSCD caches the host unknown error - another ping returns error again for some time - "/etc/rc.d/nscd stop" (sorry for the RedHat-ism :) - "ping www.somestrangedomainname.com" - this times it's OK. I can easily imagine a lot of people that just installed linux being lost, and rebooting their machine to see "if it works this way". And the worst part is, it does work after the reboot... Someone should have a talk with the glib/nsdc people ;-) Ciao, Roberto.

5 5

Re: [suse-security] Firewall question -- Forwarding ports
by tecnicos 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

Hi Jesse, You are on the right direction, I think, but you are in the wrong option of the firewall.. what you need is to change the option 14 of the 4.1 version of the firewall this allows you to masq servers. That's what I'm actually using to my webserver.. Hope it helps... karlos.

1 0

Re: [suse-security] hack me! -- ipchains security
by 'MaD dUCK' 27 Dec '00

27 Dec '00

also sprach Philipp Snizek (on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:35:36PM +0100): > I accept that you use 100% ipchains to see how secure it is. But your > solution is not very fexible, e.g. ftp. Many ftp servers have (as you know) > data ports on >1024. Connections to them will not work (I beg your pardon if > I'm wrong, I just went very quickly through it). i think i am allowing them. specifically with the following two lines: -A ei-in -d 0.0.0.0/0 1024:65535 -p 6 -j accepted -A ei-in -d 0.0.0.0/0 1024:65535 -p 17 -j accepted where ei-in is the chain of packets arriving from a non-local machine on the external interface. > You can save up a lot of rulesets which will make your script easier to > control by using squid for www, ssl and pasv ftp. Also you can run bind as a > dns forwarder bound to your int eth (Not to your ext eth!). well, i am. currently, i don't forward 443 to squid, but 80 is automatically handled by squid without the need to specify a proxy. and i actually did not know that ftp can be handled by squid too. > I solved it the way that I have squid doing the main internet job. My > ipchains forward policy is set to deny. All others are set to accept. I just > run ipchains for pop and smtp. This makes it very easy to control the > chains. yes i know. i don't find my scripts particularly hard for i broke them up into subchains quite nicely... > I know, it's not what you wanted to hear. I'm not a cacker. But I still hope > that it helps in making your systems more secure and easier to monitor. thanks though. i appreciate any input... martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- the young lady had an unusual list, linked in part to a structural weakness. she set no preconditions.

2 10

Re: [VULN-DEV] The NSA's Security-Enhanced Linux
by miah 26 Dec '00

26 Dec '00

These linux improvments and pitbull are two totally different things though. Pitbull aims to implement full B1 compatibilty into Solaris, while the work the nsa has done just aims to implement a security policy(which you can read at their site) that improves overall security on linux. -miah -- less talk more clue. On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 05:18:42AM -0700, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Ralf-Philipp Weinmann wrote: > > citing http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/background.html: > > [...] > > The result is available for download at the above URL > > as well. Has anyone here toyed with it already ? > > Cheers, > > -Ralf > > Seems like this is a "demo" ... would anyone be able to compare this > system to a system that is not attempting to be a demo -- such as > Pitbull (solaris?)? It frightens me to think that anyone would > trust linux :-> but, alas, who knows. Maybe is enough sugar is > poured on top, it just won't continue to smell so bad. > > Scott

4 6

Re: [suse-security] d0h (Urlaub (Out-of-Office-Reply))
by miah 26 Dec '00

26 Dec '00

Maybe in that suse-security FAQ there should be a section on "sending the mailing list a vacation message" so stuff like this doesnt happen. -miah On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:12:18PM +0100, Stefan Klueppel wrote: > Leider kann ich Ihre Mail nicht sofort beantworten, > da ich von 25.12.2000 bis 03.01.2001 in Urlaub bin. > > Bei zeitkritischen Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich > bitte an > Thomas Wieczorek (tw(a)minters.de) > > Gruss, > Stefan Klueppel > > >>> jjohnson 22.12.00 19.10 >>> > > d0h.. i hate when i send replies to the wrong mailing list :P > > -miah > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe(a)suse.com > For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help(a)suse.com >

2 1

Re: Re: Re[3]: [suse-security] NSCD
by r.maurizzi＠gvs.it 26 Dec '00

26 Dec '00

> and with the guys that put together a distri and start every possible > service/daemon as default. (this regarding security ;-) Well, to be honest SuSE usually does not have this kind of problem. Other distro (guess which one :) had/have huge problems with installing and starting every possible daemon, or binding highly experimental corba servers to all interfaces on the machine. If nscd it's a problem then we can say so here, and if they want in the next version this will be either removed or fixed. Ciao, Roberto.

2 1

suse firwall and AOL IM
by jonathan 25 Dec '00

25 Dec '00

Happy Holidays all, I am using the SuSEfirewals script from 7.0 on my firewall but now I can't seem to get AOL IM to work. There are no error messages in /var/log/messages. I can connect to the AOL server (toc.oscar.aol.com on port 21) but I don't see any "buddies" connected and they don't show me being on-line. Any help/comments would be greatly appreciated. TIA

1 0

web security
by Kurt Seifried 24 Dec '00

24 Dec '00

I foget which suse guy wrote the web security thingy, and the url, here's another excellent piece of work on the subject: http://pubweb.nfr.net/~mjr/websec/ Kurt Seifried, seifried(a)securityportal.com SecurityPortal - your focal point for security on the 'net

2 1