April 2002 - openSUSE Security - openSUSE Mailing Lists

RE: [suse-security] smbfs and NT share permissions driving me mad !
by Stelios Charalambides (5794) 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Thanks a lot gurus. I should have come here first. I will never doubt you again. I was being a bit brain dead in my 'mount -t smbfs' syntax. I had read in the man pages about gid=x uid=x and fmask= but I was typing mount -t smbfs -o uid=xx -o username=???,password=??? so I reckon it was ignoring the first set of options. The correct syntax was mount -t smbfs -o username=xxx,password=xxx,gid=xxx,uid=xxx etc. I s'pose I'll have to stop being mad now. Hmmm! Shan't fit in here any more! :-> -----Original Message----- From: Markus Röder [mailto:pluto@cyberryderz.de] Sent: 22 April 2002 15:11 To: suse-security(a)suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-security] smbfs and NT share permissions driving me mad! <Gurus. I'm going mad. My eyes are going red from reading web-sites looking< for answers. I've also read "Using Samba", I've read SuSE's docs, web-pages, <archived mails etc. <I can 'mount -t smbfs' on my Linux 7.2 but I can't write to those shares< from Linux. They are shares on NT with ACL's and share permissions. All <files appear to be owned by root on the Linux end, but I want to access and <write to them from another account. I can't the change permission on the< Linux end. I've evn tried opening up the permission on the NT end, still no <difference. I can't do anything! What's going on? Where can I look for docs? <Has anyone done this? Is it possible? (Some of these questions are <optional). <Should I be addressing my question to another discussion forum? Any <web-sites out there with something to cover this? Any answers appreciated. < Desperate Dan Samba Man!!!! Hi U :) When U Mounting the ntfs share u must make the mount diffrent :) mount -t smbfs -o user=????,password=?????,gid=500,uid=500 //sharewindows /mntpointoflinux this is a little help for u :) when it helps :)) greetz pluto(a)cyberryderz.de Cyberryderz-Network ------------------------------ http://jawmail.sourceforge.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe(a)suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help(a)suse.com Security-related bug reports go to security(a)suse.de, not here This message is confidential and may also contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the NHBC IT Dept. on +44 1494 735353 or ITRCMSG(a)nhbc.co.uk (You should not disclose its content to any other person). The contents of this email are, unless the contrary is expressed, solely the view of the writer(s) and not of NHBC. NHBC has not authorised this email (unless the contrary is expressed) and the fact that it is sent on the NHBC system is not authorisation. NHBC is not responsible for the contents and accepts no responsibility for them. Data Protection Act 1998. NHBC is the Data Controller for the purposes of the Act. It stores this email and may record details taken from it as record of your communication. NHBC may pass your details to other organisations if the reason for your contacting us makes it appropriate. If you do not want your details passed on please inform NHBC immediately. This email has been scanned for viruses however the NHBC does not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus which is not detected.NHBC is a member of the General Insurance Standards Council.

1 0

smbfs and NT share permissions driving me mad!
by Stelios Charalambides (5794) 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Gurus. I'm going mad. My eyes are going red from reading web-sites looking for answers. I've also read "Using Samba", I've read SuSE's docs, web-pages, archived mails etc. I can 'mount -t smbfs' on my Linux 7.2 but I can't write to those shares from Linux. They are shares on NT with ACL's and share permissions. All files appear to be owned by root on the Linux end, but I want to access and write to them from another account. I can't the change permission on the Linux end. I've evn tried opening up the permission on the NT end, still no difference. I can't do anything! What's going on? Where can I look for docs? Has anyone done this? Is it possible? (Some of these questions are optional). Should I be addressing my question to another discussion forum? Any web-sites out there with something to cover this? Any answers appreciated. Desperate Dan Samba Man!!!! This message is confidential and may also contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the NHBC IT Dept. on +44 1494 735353 or ITRCMSG(a)nhbc.co.uk (You should not disclose its content to any other person). The contents of this email are, unless the contrary is expressed, solely the view of the writer(s) and not of NHBC. NHBC has not authorised this email (unless the contrary is expressed) and the fact that it is sent on the NHBC system is not authorisation. NHBC is not responsible for the contents and accepts no responsibility for them. Data Protection Act 1998. NHBC is the Data Controller for the purposes of the Act. It stores this email and may record details taken from it as record of your communication. NHBC may pass your details to other organisations if the reason for your contacting us makes it appropriate. If you do not want your details passed on please inform NHBC immediately. This email has been scanned for viruses however the NHBC does not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus which is not detected.NHBC is a member of the General Insurance Standards Council.

3 2

Suse update with YAST
by Emanuele Schirru 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hi, I have some problem to connect to ftp://ftp.suse.com with YAST2 to update the system. Is there other port that use the application? The system is inside the LAN and there is a firewall to connect in Internet. Thanks. Emanuele

1 0

Online Update for 8.0
by Klaus Ruhwinkel 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hi, the recommended patches for menu_fix1 are not on the Servers. When does SuSE fix this problem? Thanks Klaus

1 0

[suse-security] harden_suse on 8.0?
by Markus Kohli 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hi list! Does anybody know whether it's safe to run harden_suse on SuSE 8.0? Anybody tried yet? The script itself says to get a newer version, coz only 5.4 to 7.2 are supported, or something like that... TIA Markus

1 0

RE: [suse-security] SuSEFirewall2: FW_Trusted_Nets="
by Peer Stefan 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hi > From: Linuxdom(a)in-sight.de [mailto:Linuxdom@in-sight.de] > > Hello list, > I have set the Parameter "FW_TRUSTED_NETS="198.201.201.0/24". > the Parameter > to enable the firewall to be pinged is turned off, so the firewall > shouldn't be "pingable". > Now when I set the "TRUSTED"NETS" Parameter, the firewall is > "pingable". > When I leave the entry emty, I works fine. it reads in the comment that the fw should not be pingable, unless icmp is allowed for that hosts. if you just add the trusted ip-address then icmp works as well as any other port. try to allow access via tcp only or even better restrict the ports you want to use from your trusted hosts. FW_TRUSTED_NETS="192.168.10.156,tcp 231.67.90.213,22" > What does the Paramter mean exactly ? It tells me that I can define > Hosts/Nets to ports on the firewall, doesn't it ? > I don't want any service to be allowed neither from the > internet nor from > the intranet, except port 8080 for proxying from the inside > of our net. so i guess your case will be ... FW_SERVICES_EXT="" FW_SERVICES_INT="8080" FW_TRUSTED_NETS="<your_ip>,tcp,22" ... > Thanks in advance you're welcome ;-) > maX Bauer cheers, stefan

1 0

SuSEFirewall2: FW_Trusted_Nets="
by Linuxdom＠in-sight.de 22 Apr '02

22 Apr '02

Hello list, I have set the Parameter "FW_TRUSTED_NETS="198.201.201.0/24". the Parameter to enable the firewall to be pinged is turned off, so the firewall shouldn't be "pingable". Now when I set the "TRUSTED"NETS" Parameter, the firewall is "pingable". When I leave the entry emty, I works fine. What does the Paramter mean exactly ? It tells me that I can define Hosts/Nets to ports on the firewall, doesn't it ? I don't want any service to be allowed neither from the internet nor from the intranet, except port 8080 for proxying from the inside of our net. Thanks in advance maX Bauer

1 0

Re: [suse-security] Maybe OT, but urgent - Strange man pages
by Michael Stern 20 Apr '02

20 Apr '02

> There was a nice article about > Linux-Filesystems with tests un the German c't, and they write > something about this behavior. exactly, I read it too and it was really good. from what i read i will use ext3 next time and store the data in the journal too. cheers, michael

1 0

Re: [suse-security] Maybe OT, but urgent - Strange man pages
by Michael Stern 20 Apr '02

20 Apr '02

> >hi .. does this happen on one tar file only? > it was "man tar" ok, so this is one file being corrupt. > >file-system has a problem (which file system do you have, btw?), > reiserfs maybe a bug in the fs code? i'm not expirenced enough to tell, really. > >file was partly overwritten accidently, maybe your system was compromised > what kind of attack should show the symptom ? uhm .. someone wanting to make fun, an attack that would cause the fs to corrupt random data - or someone leaving a "signature" as artists do? i told you that my guess would be a software problem like buggy applications or errors in the fs' structure. > >look into the man-files content with an editor of your choice (i prefer vi). > It's curious, that the formation and some word's are ok. but random charakters > are not. but the formation is stored in a man file too, wouldn't it be corrupted too if the block were gone? > harddiscs may die silently, cauze more and more blocks gets corrupted and > you'll never see it - the os marks them as defect and goes on. [...] true. but it will notify you. i had a damaged hard-disk with win2k and i got quite some entries in the eventlog saying that a block got corrupted (although i didn't get a message box). i have never had this with linux yet, but i bet the system will generate appropriate syslog entries. > memtest86 may show failures, but how i wrote, its an manpage, that was one > time written to disk - on setup of the box ? although i didn't suggest this, it is a good idea. if your memory is failing you never know what might happen. michael

3 2

ipv6 insecure?
by jfweber＠bellsouth.net 20 Apr '02

20 Apr '02

hiyas Wizards, Wunderkinder, adn general brilliant folks on this list., I read this past week soemthing to the effect of "ipv6" isn't secured automagically by firewalls, but must have some special things done to secure it? THe problem, apparently comes about because of the current way ipv6 accesses the internet ( I guess it's as secure as anything can be on a *local* net. ) IIRC one of the reasons the writer felt there was a problem was "ipv6 was easily identified when scanned by various nefarious folk, who would then realise how easy one's boxen were to attack" The further inference was made , in this article, that "The use of *private* ip numbers wouldn't to secure ipv6 computers either." I *think* it was an article in the current Linux Magazine , but am uncertain , as I read it in a Doctor's office, and there were other ( non computer) issues going on at the time as well. I'd appreciate it if anyone can enlighten me further on this issue. IT seems odd that it would be a basic insecurity of a system just to change the ip addressing scheme from ipv4 to ipv6. Does the current "personal" Firewall included by SUse in thier distro , protect this Ip scheme? Is there something specific in Marc's "Firewall2" I should be paying attention to, I'd appreciate a "clue -in" there s well. l Dancing along the bleeding edge , still reaching for the light .... afterthought I am Ginzu of Borg: You will be assimilated, but wait - there's more!

2 1