Le 22-09-2018, à 20:23:28 +0200, deloptes a écrit :
steve wrote:
Should I open a ticket in the BTS?
you have latest BIOS installed?
Yes I have.
On 23.09.2018 07:51, Celejar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been experiencing a great deal of frustration recently with
> intermittent freezes / crashes on my Debian Sid system (a Lenovo
> W550s). The symptoms are that the screen totally freezes and the system
> becomes completely unresponsive (even ssh att
On Sat 22 Sep 2018 at 07:55:12 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote:
> David Wright (2018-09-21):
> > That sounds like a different problem: a race between fvwm and the
> > xterms over which order they start in. The manner in which the race
> > affects me is that my (open) xterms get mapped all over the pl
On 23/09/2018 13:12, Felix Miata wrote:
What installs/owns these systemd pseudo-programs? I want them eradicated, not
simply disabled. One or more of them by default lock package management at boot
so that I can't proceed with any of the operations that are the reason I booted.
These are provid
On 9/22/18 5:30 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 03:40 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running differen
Hi,
I've been experiencing a great deal of frustration recently with
intermittent freezes / crashes on my Debian Sid system (a Lenovo
W550s). The symptoms are that the screen totally freezes and the system
becomes completely unresponsive (even ssh attempts from another machine
fail), and the only
What installs/owns these systemd pseudo-programs? I want them eradicated, not
simply disabled. One or more of them by default lock package management at boot
so that I can't proceed with any of the operations that are the reason I booted.
--
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else
On 09/22/2018 03:40 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both
On 2018-09-21 18:29, Subhadip Ghosh wrote:
Debian is a Universal OS.
I wouldn't say whatever you said, doesn't make sense. I wish there
were an easier way to know about it when I started using the OS,
something to warn me that I need to configure the firewall to suit my
needs. Maybe because I c
Am Samstag, den 22.09.2018, 23:58 +0200 schrieb Pascal Hambourg:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 23:35, Simon Kengelbacher a écrit :
> > Am Samstag, den 22.09.2018, 22:36 +0200 schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
> > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > > They have over the last two
Le 22/09/2018 à 23:35, Simon Kengelbacher a écrit :
Am Samstag, den 22.09.2018, 22:36 +0200 schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
They have over the last two "upgrades" from wheezy to jessie and on
to
stretch, totally disabled any attempts to f
Le 22/09/2018 à 20:27, Dan Ritter a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:52:40PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
It does not matter what you entire point was, and I do not expect you to
describe a complete firewall policy. *You* exposed a supposedly default
firewall policy which I happened to find
Am Samstag, den 22.09.2018, 22:36 +0200 schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > They have over the last two "upgrades" from wheezy to jessie and on
> > to
> > stretch, totally disabled any attempts to forward x to another
> > mach
Le 22/09/2018 à 22:16, Stefan Monnier a écrit :
[...]
The benefit is that one cannot pinpoint the real attacker, of course.
Isn't the same benefit provided by just forging the source address ?
If all the routers in the path play along... but then, they are all
broken.
This condition must als
On Saturday 22 September 2018 16:36:15 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > They have over the last two "upgrades" from wheezy to jessie and on
> > to stretch, totally disabled any attempts to forward x to another
> > machine,
>
>
On 9/22/18 7:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> They have over the last two "upgrades" from wheezy to jessie and on to
> stretch, totally disabled any attempts to forward x to another machine,
Just a tip: there's "ssh -X" or
> [...]
>> >The benefit is that one cannot pinpoint the real attacker, of course.
>> Isn't the same benefit provided by just forging the source address ?
> If all the routers in the path play along... but then, they are all
> broken.
There's also the fact that all those RST packets can come from a
On Saturday 22 September 2018 14:27:44 Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:52:40PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > Le 22/09/2018 à 13:31, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > > I do not see how all this replies to my questio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:58:02PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 11:51, Reco a écrit :
[...]
> >The benefit is that one cannot pinpoint the real attacker, of course.
>
> Isn't the same benefit provided by just forging the source ad
Thanks!
On Friday, September 21, 2018 02:10:40 PM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:52:00PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What is that telling me
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 04:52:40PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 13:31, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > I do not see how all this replies to my question :
>
> This comment was intended to Gene Heskett.
>
> > > Why s
steve wrote:
> Should I open a ticket in the BTS?
you have latest BIOS installed?
On Saturday 22 September 2018 10:52:40 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 13:31, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >> I do not see how all this replies to my question :
>
> This comment was intended to Gene Heskett.
>
> >> Why should
Hi folks,
nice of you, to try to help. However, this isssue is already solved and should
be marked as solved.
I updated libqt5network5 to the version in unstable and everything is workinmg
again as it should.
So this isssue is solved. Looks like a bug in testing, fixed in unstable.
Againb, th
Hi Hans,
is this about SMTP or IMAP/POP?
Does kmail/the server support StartTLS or SMTPS/IMAPS/POP3S?
What does nmap tell you about that thing?
Martin
Am 12.09.2018 um 09:54 schrieb Hans:
> Hi foilks,
> after last update of debian/testing I got into a problem with TLS.
>
> I can not get acces
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:54:11 AM EDT Hans wrote:
> Hi foilks,
> after last update of debian/testing I got into a problem with TLS.
>
> I can not get access to the mail servers running TLS. Also in the settings
> menu of kmail, I can not scan the server. Message: Server not reachable.
>
Le 22/09/2018 à 13:11, Joe a écrit :
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 10:38:52 +0200
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 22/09/2018 à 09:39, Joe a écrit :
Two layers of NAT work just fine, for anything but IPSec.
1) Even one single layer of NAT can cause trouble with other
applications that IPSec : FTP, SIP...
Le 22/09/2018 à 13:31, Dan Ritter a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
I do not see how all this replies to my question :
This comment was intended to Gene Heskett.
Why should only TCP inbound responses be allowed ? What about UDP-based
protocols, ping r
Le 22/09/2018 à 15:39, Dan Purgert a écrit :
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/09/2018 à 19:09, Dan Ritter a écrit :
Let's suppose Debian installs a basic firewall by default. How
basic? Let's say:
- outbound: permit
- forward: deny
- inbound: accept NTP, DHCP, DNS, and any TCP p
On September 21, 2018 11:35 PM, David Wright wrote:
>> That sounds like a different problem: a race between fvwm and the
>> xterms over which order they start in. The manner in which the race
>> affects me is that my (open) xterms get mapped all over the place
>> instead of where I want them place
On 09/22/2018 08:44 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
Logged in as
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
> two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
> [both using MATE desktop]
> two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
>
> Logged in as 'richard' I use Gparted (providing roo
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 21/09/2018 à 19:09, Dan Ritter a écrit :
>>
>> Let's suppose Debian installs a basic firewall by default. How
>> basic? Let's say:
>>
>> - outbound: permit
>> - forward: deny
>> - inbound: accept NTP, DHCP, DNS, and any TCP packet which is a
>>re
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:59:40PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Reco wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> So this is why a wise guy buys an industrial pc for 200 US or wrt capable
>> >> router for 20-30 US installs linux and makes a good firewall then puts it
>> >> between ISP and his
I'm assuming operator problem as I get same symptoms on:
two laptops each running different Debian releases (6.8, 9.1).
[both using MATE desktop]
two different media (32Gb USB flash, 240 Gb USB SSD).
Logged in as 'richard' I use Gparted (providing root password) to
repartition the dri
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> I do not see how all this replies to my question :
>
> Why should only TCP inbound responses be allowed ? What about UDP-based
> protocols, ping replies (ICMP echo reply), ICMP error messages, and so on ?
Given that my entire poin
Hi.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:58:02PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 11:51, Reco a écrit :
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Le 21/09/2018 à 20:32, Reco a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Evil person makes a TCP connection to unprotec
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 10:38:52 +0200
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 22/09/2018 à 09:39, Joe a écrit :
> >
> > Two layers of NAT work just fine, for anything but IPSec.
>
> 1) Even one single layer of NAT can cause trouble with other
> applications that IPSec : FTP, SIP...
>
Yes, but one can reas
Le 22/09/2018 à 12:05, Henning Follmann a écrit :
If you send a TCP package to a computer not listening it will send a ICMP
error back.
No, standard behaviour is to send a TCP RST back.
An ICMP error may be sent back for other protocols such as UDP.
Le 22/09/2018 à 11:51, Reco a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/09/2018 à 20:32, Reco a écrit :
Evil person makes a TCP connection to unprotected host, but forges
source IP. Host sends TCP RST to this forged IP, host acting as a
'reflector' to an a
Le 22/09/2018 à 11:12, Gene Heskett a écrit :
On Saturday 22 September 2018 03:34:45 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
Le 21/09/2018 à 19:09, Dan Ritter a écrit :
Let's suppose Debian installs a basic firewall by default. How
basic? Let's say:
- outbound: permit
- forward: deny
- inbou
Hi.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 06:05:01AM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:32:45PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:14:03PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 21 Sep 2018 at 19:25:22 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > >
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:32:45PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:14:03PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 21 Sep 2018 at 19:25:22 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 08:55:21AM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 21,
Hi.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 21/09/2018 à 20:32, Reco a écrit :
> >
> > Evil person makes a TCP connection to unprotected host, but forges
> > source IP. Host sends TCP RST to this forged IP, host acting as a
> > 'reflector' to an attack. And b
On Saturday 22 September 2018 03:34:45 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 21/09/2018 à 19:09, Dan Ritter a écrit :
> > Let's suppose Debian installs a basic firewall by default. How
> > basic? Let's say:
> >
> > - outbound: permit
> > - forward: deny
> > - inbound: accept NTP, DHCP, DNS, a
Hi,
Almost sure nobody will have a solution, but for the sake of it, I'll
document it here.
dmesg | grep -i error
[0.004000] [Firmware Bug]: TSC ADJUST differs within socket(s), fixing all
errors
[0.196456] ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Failure creating [\_SB.INTS],
AE_ALREADY_EXISTS (2018053
Le 22-09-2018, à 10:07:36 +0200, Pascal Hambourg a écrit :
Le 22/09/2018 à 06:58, steve a écrit :
Because what I finally did is install a fresh Debian on another device
(using GPT) and the ACPI errors still were there.
In legacy mode (with a BIOS boot partition) or EFI mode (with an
EFI sy
Le 22/09/2018 à 09:39, Joe a écrit :
Two layers of NAT work just fine, for anything but IPSec.
1) Even one single layer of NAT can cause trouble with other
applications that IPSec : FTP, SIP...
2) IPSec works through NAT, provided that you enable UDP encapsulation
aka NAT-T.
Le 22/09/2018 à 06:58, steve a écrit :
Because what I finally did is install a fresh Debian on another device
(using GPT) and the ACPI errors still were there.
In legacy mode (with a BIOS boot partition) or EFI mode (with an EFI
system partition) ?
In EFI mode. The "Bios" is now fully in E
Le 21/09/2018 à 20:32, Reco a écrit :
Evil person makes a TCP connection to unprotected host, but forges
source IP. Host sends TCP RST to this forged IP, host acting as a
'reflector' to an attack. And being a bad netizen at the same time.
Evil person takes as many of such hosts as possible - an
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:04:59 -0400
songbird wrote:
> Subhadip Ghosh wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using Debian and the recently I learned that a standard Debian
> > installation allows all 3 types of traffics especially incoming by
> > default. I know I can easily use iptables to tighten the rule
Le 21/09/2018 à 19:09, Dan Ritter a écrit :
Let's suppose Debian installs a basic firewall by default. How
basic? Let's say:
- outbound: permit
- forward: deny
- inbound: accept NTP, DHCP, DNS, and any TCP packet which is a
response to an outbound packet
Why should unsol
Hi.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:59:40PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:18:36PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> >> Reco wrote:
> >>
> >> > So, in this regard Debian is imperfect, but at least they give you right
> >> > tools to solve the prob
54 matches
Mail list logo
