On Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 16:59:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
> If his majesty Laius would had the option of doing a Google search, he
> had found his own article (and so what the future reserved for him...)
> written at the "Olympuspedia" :-P
Olympuspedia would never capture the imagination. It's not
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:18:01 +, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 18:52:59 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Ancient Greeks went to Oracle at Delphi to get answers. Now we have
>> Google ;-)
>
> King Laius would have benefitted from a good dose of skeptism too. :)
If his majesty Laius would ha
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:38:05 +, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 19:11:16 +, Walter Hurry wrote:
>
>> PMFJI. What is an rkhunter "deep scan"? I use rkhunter but am not aware
>> of any "deep scan" option.
>
> 'deep scan' mode was a planned but unimplemented addition to rkhunter's
> ca
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 19:11:16 +, Walter Hurry wrote:
> PMFJI. What is an rkhunter "deep scan"? I use rkhunter but am not aware
> of any "deep scan" option.
'deep scan' mode was a planned but unimplemented addition to rkhunter's
capabilities. From the unpublished manual:
--deep-scan
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 18:52:59 +, Camaleón wrote:
> Ancient Greeks went to Oracle at Delphi to get answers. Now we have
> Google ;-)
King Laius would have benefitted from a good dose of skeptism too. :)
> I'm afraid the rootkit is not distribution specific.
>
> I would run a deep scan with
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:52:59 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:06:24 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Brian wrote:
> >> On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 17:36:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia w
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:52:59 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> I'm afraid the rootkit is not distribution specific.
>
> I would run a deep scan with the mentioned tool (rkhunter) to be sure.
PMFJI. What is an rkhunter "deep scan"? I use rkhunter but am not aware
of any "deep scan" option.
Thanks.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:06:24 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Brian wrote:
>> On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 17:36:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
>>>
>>> > I see this message when I call `top'
>>> >
>>> > Unknow
:-
Original post talks abount RHEL and CentOS.
http://www.bigismore.com/web-server-security/unknown-hz-value-assume-100-youve-been-hacked/
???
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 17:36:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 20
On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 17:36:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
>
> > I see this message when I call `top'
> >
> > Unknown HZ value! (92) Assume 100.
> >
> > What happen?
>
> Wow... found this on Google:
Someone was bound to. :)
> ***
> So
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:00:27 +0100
Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
> I see this message when I call `top'
>
> Unknown HZ value! (92) Assume 100.
>
> What happen?
>
>
upgrade / reinstall the procps package
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
> I see this message when I call `top'
>
> Unknown HZ value! (92) Assume 100.
>
> What happen?
Wow... found this on Google:
***
So you got rooted by SHV4 / SHV5 rootkit...
http://www.huweb.hu/maques/mblog/?p=153
***
But I hope there
I'm using
- 2.6.24-16-server on i686 (intel) [It's a VPS XEN based]
- DirectAdmin download and compile for me all packages
This machine from some days to now freeze completely without previous notice.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea
On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:00:27 +0100, Andrea Ganduglia wrote:
> I see this message when I call `top'
>
> Unknown HZ value! (92) Assume 100.
>
> What happen?
More information, please. Which version of Debian? What architecture is
being used? Do you only install software from Debian archives?
-
>
> in this case, I guess the kernel found HZ=100 is defined in the config file
> but actually the HZ value in the system was 0. Hence it complained.
>
> It seems to be a harmless message, but very annoying. Is there any reason
> why the kernel maintainers keep to print the message since it is not
>
> I don't know. But the HZ value is set in /etc/login.defs, in my case
> like this:
>
> ENV_HZ HZ=100
>
>
> Also, quoted from 'man login.defs':
>
> ENV_HZ (string)
> This parameter specifies a value for an HZ environ�
> ment parameter. Example usage is:
>
>
Patrick Hsieh said:
> Hello list,
>
> I began to see this message when I type ps in Debian woody kernel 2.4.16.
> I searched the google and was noticed that it could be a bug in libproc.
> Is it true? Any way to fix this problem?
>
not really a bug, just a harmless message. I first enocuntered th
"Patrick" == Patrick Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Patrick> Hello list, I began to see this message when I type ps in
Patrick> Debian woody kernel 2.4.16. I searched the google and was
Patrick> noticed that it could be a bug in libproc. Is it true?
Patrick> Any way to fix
I saw this on linux-kernel mailing list.
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-21/0756.html
So what can I do for my Debian woody?
--
Patrick Hsieh<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG Pubilc Key at http://www.ezplay.tv/~pahud/pahudatezplay.pubkey
MD5 checksum: b948362c94655b74b33e859d58b8de9
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 17:32, Paul Gonsior wrote:
> Can I get an idea of what this message means please when I perform a ps x?
Let me guess; this is on a machine that's been on for a while, isn't
it? It's a known kernel bug, in that there's an arithmetic overflow in
calculating the uptime after 2^
On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 04:16, Dave Whiteley wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a server that has been running sweetly for almost a
> year. Yesterday I did my regular upgrade via dselect while installing
> inn, and it has now started printing messages:-
>
> Unknown HZ value! (22) Assume 100.
>
> It does t
> mail:~# uptime
> Unknown HZ value! (0) Assume 100.
> 1:31pm up 249 days, 2:39, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03,
> 0.01
did some more research and it seems it is a bug in the kernel,
but procps detects it and spits out the message. the procps
in woody claims to have a fix that disables
22 matches
Mail list logo
