January 2001 - openSUSE Security - openSUSE Mailing Lists

btx
by Luis José Fabbiani B. (SOPORTE) 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

Hi, what is the utility of btx services? This service work on port 20005. If I have this service open, is my server insecure? Thanks a lot Luis.

2 1

POP3
by Luis José Fabbiani B. (SOPORTE) 16 Jan '01

16 Jan '01

Hi all, How my server can register all popper entries? I have the following option on my server: pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd /usr/sbin/popper -s but, this option don`t registry users pop account, only IP number. Thanks a lot. Luis.

1 0

FreeS/WAN setup on SuSE 7.0
by Rainer.Frohne＠t-online.de 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Hello, trying to configure FreeS/WAN 1.4 on SuSE 7.0 with kernel 2.2.16 (SuSE-Sources) I'm wondering that I do not find something about IPSEC when I did a 'make xconfig'. On 2.0.x Kernel one has to select IPSEC when building a knew kernel. Do I have to patch the Kernel first? Or is it not nessesary to do anything with the kernel on 2.2.x Kernels? I do have the module, and when I start it, it runs without error. I hope anyone understood my broken English! Thanks in advance! Rainer

1 0

Secure web based file access
by Stefan Suurmeijer 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Hi list, this is slightly OT, sorry for that, but the most knowledgeable Linux users seem to be on this list. I'm looking for a way (software?) to give users secure web-based access to their home directory. I've been looking at apache + mod_dav, but I was wondering if anyone can point me to alternatives. Users would need to be able to upload/download files from inside their webbrowser, without ftp. Any info would be appreciated (please answer off-list, so as not to clutter the list with non-SuSE specific talk). TIA Stefan

1 0

telnet crash after bruteforce
by icepic 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

after a bruteforce - attack on my telnet-service, i was not able to login with telnet? Is this right or is it a bug

3 3

RE: [suse-security] ICQ File Transfers
by Dan Ball 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Looks like I'm gonna have to make a boot disk and upgrade my system to 7.0. I'm running ICQ2000b on the intranet side, and none of the modules mentioned support it. I'll have to put up a proxy. Thanks to all who gave input... > -----Original Message----- > From: Nix [SMTP:suse@nix.hispeed.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 12:08 AM > To: suse-security(a)suse.com > Subject: Re: [suse-security] ICQ File Transfers > > At 08:21 AM 10/01/2001 +0100, you wrote: > >Hi > > > >* Dan Ball wrote: > > > > > > Try using the icq_masq kernel modul. > > > > > > > I searched throughout all the documentation I could find, > including the > > > website and came up with pretty much the same modules I already > had. If > > > these are the ones you are referring to, these are the ones that > are > > loaded. > > > I did not see one for ICQ. > > > >Get this module from > >http://members.tripod.com/~djsf/masq-icq/ > > > I would setup the socks proxy included with suse 7 > icq will then have no troubles... > > > > > --- > Nix - nix(a)susesecurity.com > SuSE-Security FAQ Maintainer > http://www.susesecurity.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe(a)suse.com > For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help(a)suse.com

1 0

Re: [suse-security] Socks on SuSE 7.0
by Rainer.Frohne＠t-online.de 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Hello Andreas, thanks for your hints! I will try it! regards Rainer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Siegert" <afx(a)atsec.com> To: "Rainer Frohne" <Rainer.Frohne(a)t-online.de> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [suse-security] Socks on SuSE 7.0 > Hi Rainer, > > > yes, I would like to use Dante, but I didn't find a HowTo to set it up > > correctly! Do you know one? > > Nope, but the README and the comments in /etc/sockd.conf where enough when I > used it. > > Best is to allow everything for a first test and then tighten it do you see > what happens. > To see for sure your clients really use SOCKS, run tcpdump while testing and > have an eye on syslog output at *.debug. > > cheers > afx > > -- > atsec information security GmbH Phone: +49-89-44249830 > Steinstrasse 68 Fax: +49-89-44249831 > D-81667 Muenchen, Germany WWW: www.atsec.com > May the Source be with you!

1 0

reiserfs kernel oops
by Ken Hughes 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Any word yet from SuSE as to the validity of the reiserfs oops? I'm pretty sure I got the whole bugtraq thread, and it seemed that no one else was able to recreate the oops. I couldn't here either[1], but then again I could have been doing something wrong[2]. Cheers! [1] on my test SuSE 7.0 box [2] for the 3,621,896th time, but who's counting... -- Ken Hughes (kenh(a)ast-inc.com) | There are three ways to get Automated Systems of Tacoma, Inc. | something done: do it yourself, Information Technology | hire someone to do it, or forbid 253.475.0200(Voice) / 253.472.7164(Fax) | your kids to do it.

2 1

Re: Re: [suse-security] suggestion for ssh packaging
by r.maurizzi＠gvs.it 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

[Mainly offtopic] Jeremy Buchmann said: > I don't understand this weird uber-advocacy stance that says we have to > convert every single Windows user to Linux and make Linux the one and only > operating system on earth. It's completely irrational and goes against the > very idea of having a choice of computer operating systems. While I agree with you that blind advocacy is a stupid thing, I must say that more people using Linux and seeing it as a viable alternative to Windows could well make a difference for many of us: my work is maintaining a network of about 100 client PC, and as of today linux could be used to do a good 95% of all we need to do with these computer. But we have to use Windows, mainly for Office and for easy interoperability with "external" software and software houses (accounting, payrolls, etc are windows only, or at best unix-but-not-linux). If Linux will become (still) easier to use - and it's becoming more and more so - there'll be many more people and software house that will be accepting it, using it and developing for it. And I could use linux instead of Windows on a good 95% of my PCs. Doing this is not only better for me (easier administration) but also for the company I work for, that will be able to save millions in stupid licenses and associated management/"ownership" costs (did you ever try the new Windows 2000 Terminal Server License? ;) Moreover, if you're not a US citizen, maybe you could like (as I do) not having your country dumping lotsa money on the US paying for insecure, disfunctional and often plain stupid software (PLEASE flame me on private mail and not on the list, thanks! ;-) This goes without speaking of security risks (wow! back on topic! ;): we may put up very aggressive firewalls using Linux (see active probing of incoming attacks and maybe active defenses ;) but we have to accept mails and documents from the internet, and if you're using ANY mail program that uses IE HTML rendering object, or Office, you're exposing yourself to *A LOT* of threats. I follow NTBUGTRAQ to stay ahead of these problems, and I often found myself thanking the gods we don't use dangerous mail programs. But MANY times there were series of so many horrible bugs in only a few days that I was *praying* noone will want to use the combination of those to write a nasty stealth virus, or else we'll all close shop in a few months. And we cannot set up a mailfilter to check for buffer overflows and/or the use of badly signed/catalogued objects that already are on our computers. And I wouldn't put my faith in Antivirus firms either: if the exploit writer is smart and stealthy enough, they'll never see the virus before activation. Remember the CIH virus? It was very stealthy, and was caught only because a version of it was programmed to wipe your disks (and BIOSes) every month instead of every year. What if the monthly version of the virus didn't exist? Even with that and the antiviruses ready in August 1998, more than 300.000 were wiped out. This is not to say that Linux is absolutely secure and doesn't have these kinds of problems, but it *can* be more secure if we care. With windows we don't have the opition (try using tripwire on %SYSTEMROOT%\SYSTEM32 ;-). Moreover, I firmly believe that diversity is strenght, and having different people, companies, governments etc. of the world using different but faily interoperable OSes and programs will avoid having a single virus wiping out us all. Ciao, Roberto (and sorry for the rant! :-)

9 10

Firewall
by Richard 15 Jan '01

15 Jan '01

Dear All I've written my own firewall script which is probably a bit over the top but it did help me to learn more about firewalls and why people spend so much time writing them. I'd like to use the SuSE firewals RPM but it's about the only thing in SuSE software that I don't like. Apologies to Marc Huese for saying that. I know he's put a lot of work into it and he continues to do so. I'll look forward to further developments from Marc. What I'd like to know is how to tell my SuSE 7.0 dialup system to start the script at boot time. I can do this with various other bits of useful software but can't work out how to do it with firewalls. Best I've done so far is a small crowd of Red Hat users giving me all sorts of information. Thank you -- Richard http://www.sheflug.co.uk

7 7