On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Perry E. Metzger
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 21:06:15 +0200 Frederic Marchal
> wrote:
> > On Friday 26 August 2016 11:04:04 Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > > According to:
> > >
> > > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
> > >
> > > Wheezy and J
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 21:06:15 +0200 Frederic Marchal
wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2016 11:04:04 Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > According to:
> >
> > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
> >
> > Wheezy and Jessie are still vulnerable. The attack in question is
> > kind of bad (it
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:38 AM John T. Haggerty
> wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts for or against Amazon?
>>
>>
> Please don't top post on this list, it breaks up the flow of the thread
> for people who read the thread after it's finished. The
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:38 AM John T. Haggerty wrote:
> Any thoughts for or against Amazon?
>
>
Please don't top post on this list, it breaks up the flow of the thread for
people who read the thread after it's finished. The primary purpose of the
list is to get your questions answered, but the
I like that. I'm worried about one of the requirements here (under "Things
you will need"):
"
- A permanent *internet connection *and an* IP address* for your mail
server that does not change. The IP address should *not be blacklisted* on
the internet. Check the IP address at web sites
I have been able to create websites, and am able to use the fqdn to show up
my web page I have hosed on the server. I just have to have ddclient update
the ip address with the dns settings. I just have the box NATed behind the
router.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, emetib wrote:
> On Thursday,
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:20:05 AM UTC-5, John T. Haggerty wrote:
> I have the following issue (seems to be common although my details seem to
> differ):
>
> 1. I recently registered a new domain as WWW.whatever.org or whatever.
>
> 2. Postfix gets installed.
>
> 3. "Internet site " is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Abou Al Montacir
wrote:
> Hi Kent,
>
> Thanks for testing. On my side I have:
>
> # aptitude show epiphany-browser
>
> Package: epiphany-browser
>
> Version: 3.20.3-2
>
> State: installed
>
> Automatically installed: no
>
> Priority: optional
>
> Section: gnome
>
On Friday 26 August 2016 11:04:04 Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> According to:
>
> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
>
> Wheezy and Jessie are still vulnerable. The attack in question is
> kind of bad (it allows blind injection of arbitrary data into
> things like http download
Hi,
For all I know, debconf database is supposed to store "answers" to
configuration parameters of packages. But when you install operating
system, you aren't given an opportunity to specify them. Not all of
them at least. There are a bunch of them in
/var/cache/debconf/config.dat.
So where do al
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:34:39 +0100 Lisi Reisz
wrote:
> The "fix" seems not to have been dealt with yet, but the list has
> published a workaround at some length in this thread:
Updated kernels have been announced and released by the kernel folks
at this point. (See, for example:
http://seclists.
On Friday 26 August 2016 16:13:09 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:04 AM Perry E. Metzger
>
> wrote:
> > According to:
> >
> > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
> >
> > Wheezy and Jessie are still vulnerable. The attack in question is
> > kind of bad (it al
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:04 AM Perry E. Metzger
wrote:
> According to:
>
> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
>
> Wheezy and Jessie are still vulnerable. The attack in question is
> kind of bad (it allows blind injection of arbitrary data into
> things like http downloads
According to:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5696
Wheezy and Jessie are still vulnerable. The attack in question is
kind of bad (it allows blind injection of arbitrary data into
things like http downloads) and has been known for a few weeks now to
the general public.
Any id
Hello,
dpkg-deb is your friend. Have a look at
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/138188/easily-unpack-deb-edit-postinst-and-repack-deb
But keep in mind, with other dependencies you should rebuild the package.
Best Regards,
basti
On 26.08.2016 16:01, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:04 PM Hans wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I need to unpack and repack a debian package. Reason: I want to change the
> dependencies in that package.
>
>
I'm reminded of the old IT and general-corporate saying, "Once you open a
can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to use
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:52 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:41:54PM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > Stretch and sid are quoting version 2.6.1 and I can't see where they got
> > that from, as upstream (sourceforge) latest version seems to be 2.6.0.
> And
> > 2.6.1 claims to b
sorry for the incomplete question: each floor will has not more than
20/30 devices (mixed: wifi + wired). We connect some AP to switch 1-4
and thanks for all replies :-)
Pol
On 08/26/2016 12:43 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
Hi all, I'm helping a friend to create a small network on his office (4
floor
Why do you want to separate it?
try to discover a network problem when there're many many devices
online... if you separate is become "easy" audit network
Is your organisation divided into floors or
into sections, divisions etc...?
this scenario by floors. Is it strange? :-|
If you reall
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
>
> (Also, I wonder why people always fiddle with the cumbersome 192.168
> instead
> of going for simply 10.)
>
>
While it shouldn't matter, I've seen some serious networking brain damage
if your router or the border router happen to be both
Le 26/08/2016 à 14:22, Debian maillists a écrit :
If you really need to separate your organisation sections
use managed switches and VLANs, not subnetworks.
How do you use VLANs without subnetting ?
Le 26/08/2016 à 13:55, Karl E. Jorgensen a écrit :
You may want to for different networks to allow for future
expansion. Your current scheme will only allow for max ~ 250 clients
per floor. And you have the IP ranges rubbing against each other
without gaps...
It is usually a good idea to leave
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:41:54PM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> Stretch and sid are quoting version 2.6.1 and I can't see where they got
> that from, as upstream (sourceforge) latest version seems to be 2.6.0. And
> 2.6.1 claims to be the version with the fix.
*sigh* ... it just figures, as soon
Hi Christian,
> Well, the easiest way to do so, if you have Debian's packaging tools
> (notably dpkg-deb and fakeroot) installed:
>
> ($DIR/ shouldn't exist prior to this and could be the package name)
> dpkg-deb -x package.deb $DIR/
> dpkg-deb -e package.deb $DIR/DEBIAN
> $EDITOR $DIR/DEBIAN/con
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:11:30AM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > However I also have Linux machines that don't use a package management
> > system, and there I also have a version of flex with the vulnerability,
> so
> > I wanted to get the
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Pol Hallen wrote:
> I suggests him to separate each networks:
>
> floor1 - 192.168.1.0/24
> floor2 - 192.168.2.0/24
> floor3 - 192.168.3.0/24
> floor4 - 192.168.4.0/24
Why do you want to separate it?
And if you really need separation then why just on floor
borders? Is your o
On 08/26/2016 02:03 PM, Hans wrote:
> I need to unpack and repack a debian package. Reason: I want to change the
> dependencies in that package.
>
> How can I do that? I imagine, to unpack the *.deb, then edit my control file,
> after that pack it again.
Well, the easiest way to do so, if you
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:11:30AM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> However I also have Linux machines that don't use a package management
> system, and there I also have a version of flex with the vulnerability, so
> I wanted to get the source tarball of the fixed version (v2.6.1) so I could
> build
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2016年8月25日 18:15:48 JST, "John T. Haggerty" wrote:
>I have the following issue (seems to be common although my details seem
>to
>differ):
>
>1. I recently registered a new domain as WWW.whatever.org or whatever.
>
>2. Postfix gets installed.
>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Pol Hallen wrote:
> Hi all, I'm helping a friend to create a small network on his office (4
> floors)
>
> I suggests him to separate each networks:
>
> floor1 - 192.168.1.0/24
> floor2 - 192.168.2.0/24
> floor3 - 192.168.3.0/24
> floor4 - 192.168.4.0/24
>
Dear list,
I need to unpack and repack a debian package. Reason: I want to change the
dependencies in that package.
How can I do that? I imagine, to unpack the *.deb, then edit my control file,
after that pack it again.
Is it that easy? I googled, but ar -x paket.deb /tmp/paket did not work.
Le decadi 10 fructidor, an CCXXIV, Pascal Hambourg a écrit :
> What's cumbersome in 192.168 ? More digits to type ?
Yes, that, and all that goes along: readability and ease to see typos, ease
to remember for non-tech-savvy people, etc.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le 26/08/2016 à 13:19, Nicolas George a écrit :
You give way too few information about the needs of your friend to allow
anyone to give relevant advice.
Indeed. A "best" solution is only optimal for a given set of requirements.
(Also, I wonder why people always fiddle with the cumbersome 192
Le decadi 10 fructidor, an CCXXIV, Pol Hallen a écrit :
> I suggests him to separate each networks:
>
> floor1 - 192.168.1.0/24
> floor2 - 192.168.2.0/24
> floor3 - 192.168.3.0/24
> floor4 - 192.168.4.0/24
Why?
You give way too few information about the needs of your friend to allow
anyone to gi
Hi Dan
1. Use a switch for each floor, connect them individually to a
router. All cross-floor communication will need to pass through
the router. This is good for control - you can do firewall
functions between floors as well as to the outside.
nice :-)
3. Use a switch for each floor and con
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Pol Hallen wrote:
> Hi all, I'm helping a friend to create a small network on his office (4
> floors)
>
> I suggests him to separate each networks:
>
> floor1 - 192.168.1.0/24
> floor2 - 192.168.2.0/24
> floor3 - 192.168.3.0/24
> floor4 - 192.168.4.0/24
>
Hi all, I'm helping a friend to create a small network on his office (4
floors)
I suggests him to separate each networks:
floor1 - 192.168.1.0/24
floor2 - 192.168.2.0/24
floor3 - 192.168.3.0/24
floor4 - 192.168.4.0/24
DSL <--> SERVER <--> WAN - 192.168.10.0/24
NIC1 - 192.1
On Thursday 25 August 2016 19:39:18 John T. Haggerty wrote:
> If it's only Gmail, why van I telnet to their port and get their mail
> server?
>
> Seems counterintuitive.
Were you expecting Gmail to be either intuitive or logical?? :-o
Lisi
38 matches
Mail list logo
