On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 11:52:53PM -0400, Salman Ahmed wrote:
> > "AO" == Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AO> have you looked into portsentry ?? ( same folks as logcheck )... -
> AO> on my todo list
>
> Is a Debian package (stable or unstable) available for portsentry ? I
> ha
"Salman Ahmed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is a Debian package (stable or unstable) available for portsentry ? I
> haven't been able to find one as yet.
Someone is packaging it (for potato); check the debian-devel archive
if you want to know who that is (I don't remember); I've been using
port
hi ya dwayne
> > what are you guys trying to scan for ???
> > nmap seems to be the one most people use=20
> > http://www.insecure.org/nmap
>
> Yes, but I want to make sure that someone ELSE using satan can't get into
> my sister's box (she wouldn't like that). I've already used nmap.
have
> what are you guys trying to scan for ???
>
> nmap seems to be the one most people use
> http://www.insecure.org/nmap
Yes, but I want to make sure that someone ELSE using satan can't get into
my sister's box (she wouldn't like that). I've already used nmap.
--
"I already have all the l
hi ya...
> Yep. I tried to scan some other boxen on my home network, but it wouldn't
> run.
what are you guys trying to scan for ???
nmap seems to be the one most people use
http://www.insecure.org/nmap
- trying to my own silly scripts for checking:
which sendmail, which apac
Yep. I tried to scan some other boxen on my home network, but it wouldn't
run.
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 11:33:23AM -0600, Art Lemasters wrote:
> While trying to run satan here, I received a _compilation_
> error message. Have any of you tried satan in potato (as I have)
> and received the sa
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 03:21:41AM -0600, Art Lemasters wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:00:58AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > Art, check the bug servers -- there might be more information on this.
> >
> > It might not hurt though to post the surrounding ten lines or so, maybe it
> > is somet
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:00:58AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> Art, check the bug servers -- there might be more information on this.
>
> It might not hurt though to post the surrounding ten lines or so, maybe it
> is something obvious. :)
That was all, Seth, from running
/usr/sbin/satan -v
Art, check the bug servers -- there might be more information on this.
It might not hurt though to post the surrounding ten lines or so, maybe it
is something obvious. :)
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:59:54AM -0600, Art Lemasters wrote:
>
> ---
>
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Mike Holliday wrote:
> I'm having a slight problem installing Satan..when I go to the reconfig
> script..I'm not sure of the command I've used "sh
> /my/satan/directory/reconfig.sh But it's not moving or showing that it
> is working.
Forget satan. I managed to compile it...
try ./reconfig.sh
On 27-Oct-98 Mike Holliday wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having a slight problem installing Satan..when I go to the reconfig
> script..I'm not sure of the command I've used "sh
> /my/satan/directory/reconfig.sh But it's not moving or showing that it
> is working.
>
> Mike H.
>
>
> --
>
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Mike Holliday wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having a slight problem installing Satan..when I go to the reconfig
> script..I'm not sure of the command I've used "sh
> /my/satan/directory/reconfig.sh But it's not moving or showing that it
> is working.
The command you need is
perl /my/s
s Adams
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Debian User
> Subject: Re: SATAN .deb?
>
>
> Thomas Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >it's an essential admin tool for checking your setup.
> >
> > This is the reason why it shouldn't be prepackaged. I really
Thomas Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >it's an essential admin tool for checking your setup.
>
> This is the reason why it shouldn't be prepackaged. I really can't imagine
> anybody concerned about security trusting a prepackaged security scanner.
Wow, I guess we shouldn't be prepackaging
At 14:16 Uhr +0100 15.10.1998, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>it's an essential admin tool for checking your setup.
This is the reason why it shouldn't be prepackaged. I really can't imagine
anybody concerned about security trusting a prepackaged security scanner.
Personally, I wouldn't. That's perhaps be
There is one reason not to use packaged satan.
.deb package contains binaries, those can include Troyan horses etc.
Sure I trust debian developers, but when using satan or some different
security auditing application I want to compile the binary for myself
from pristine sources.
Jozef Skvarcek
[E
Colin Telmer wrote:
> Unfortunately it is also quite a nasty package for checking someone else's
> setup:) I myself agree with you but anytime I have brought it up
> elsewhere, there is definitely divided opinion on the package.
> Anyway, this question might be better suited for debian-devel. Cheer
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Has anyone packaged this yet? If not then IMHO it should be done -
> it's an essential admin tool for checking your setup.
Unfortunately it is also quite a nasty package for checking someone else's
setup:) I myself agree with you but
18 matches
Mail list logo
