> On Feb 23, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Reco wrote:
>
> Why, it's worth a shot. But doing it by hand would be
> counter-productive. They have invented 'debsums' for cases like this,
> after all.
OK. Sounds reasonable. I'll try it in the morning.
--
Glenn English
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:04:52 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Reco wrote:
> >
> > First things first, unless someone deliberately customized
> > it, /etc/rc.local should contain exactly one meaningful line - 'exit
> > 0'.
>
> It does. See below.
>
> > Your result
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Reco wrote:
>
> First things first, unless someone deliberately customized
> it, /etc/rc.local should contain exactly one meaningful line - 'exit
> 0'.
It does. See below.
> Your result shows entirely different thing though.
Well, I just asked egrep to look for
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:42:59 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:45 AM, Reco wrote:
>
> > I'd start with rkhunter check first. Just to be sure.
>
> Checking for enabled inetd services [ Warning ]
>
> That's AmandaClient, the backup software.
Harml
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 1:45 AM, Reco wrote:
> I'd start with rkhunter check first. Just to be sure.
Checking for enabled inetd services [ Warning ]
That's AmandaClient, the backup software.
Checking if SSH root access is allowed [ Warning ]
It is
Hi.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:44:23 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Reco wrote:
> >
> > First one is 'ls -ald /var/cache'.
>
> root@log:~# ls -ald /var/cache
> drwxr-xr-x 14 root root 4096 Oct 12 2013 /var/cache
>
> > Second one is 'sudo -u touch /var/cac
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Reco wrote:
>
> First one is 'ls -ald /var/cache'.
root@log:~# ls -ald /var/cache
drwxr-xr-x 14 root root 4096 Oct 12 2013 /var/cache
> Second one is 'sudo -u touch /var/cache/bind/slaves/1'.
sudo: unknown user: touch
sudo: unable to initialize policy plugin
(
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:33:54 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Reco wrote:
> >
> > So, what permissions does /var/cache and /var/cache/bind have?
>
> root@log:~# ls -lh /var/cache/bind
> total 48K
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 bind bind 221 Oct 12 2013 managed-keys.bind
> -rw-r
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Reco wrote:
>
> So, what permissions does /var/cache and /var/cache/bind have?
root@log:~# ls -lh /var/cache/bind
total 48K
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bind bind 221 Oct 12 2013 managed-keys.bind
-rw-rw-r-- 1 bind bind 512 Oct 12 2013 managed-keys.bind.jnl
drwxrwxr-x 2 bind
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:33:03 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Reco wrote:
> >
> > No, that's not how you check it. Every Debian system has those records.
> > I meant something like 'ls -alZ /'.
>
> drwxr-xr-x 25 root root? 4096 Jun 6 2014 .
> drwxr-xr-x
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Reco wrote:
>
> No, that's not how you check it. Every Debian system has those records.
> I meant something like 'ls -alZ /'.
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root? 4096 Jun 6 2014 .
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root? 4096 Jun 6 2014 ..
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root?
Hi.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:07:44 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reco wrote:
> >
> > Please post the output of:
> >
> > ls -ald /var/cache/bind/slaves
>
> drwxrwxr-x 2 bind bind 4096 Feb 5 07:52 /var/cache/bind/slaves
>
> > lsattr /var/cache/bind/slav
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Reco wrote:
>
> Please post the output of:
>
> ls -ald /var/cache/bind/slaves
drwxrwxr-x 2 bind bind 4096 Feb 5 07:52 /var/cache/bind/slaves
> lsattr /var/cache/bind/slaves
-e-- /var/cache/bind/slaves/db.172.16.0
-e-- /var/cache/bind/sl
Hi.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:35:52 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
> I'm seeing lots of:
>
> > Feb 21 23:32:24 log named[20061]: dumping master file:
> > /var/cache/bind/slaves/tmp-I5cJjYH7fV: open: permission denied
> > Feb 21 23:36:54 log named[20117]: dumping master file:
> > /var/cache/b
Angel Parra wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have a mini-router (linux) with ipmasq, and an internal server. My
> small server has the bind server, and on normal botting the bind server
> only servers the names filed on my own database ... but if I stop the
> bind server and start it again, it works
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 09:44:54PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've seen that bind will become a problem in its future releases,
> so, I'm now thinking that the non-US division is really stupid !
> Why not syncing non-US and main ?? Only because this
> policy forbit it ?
> So, let's
16 matches
Mail list logo