Am 2006-09-18 13:23:58, schrieb Jason Dunsmore:
> I was wondering if there were references that support what you said
> about security and Linux uptime (see below). Or was this just your
> personal experience?
Generaly a personal experience while reading the CAN/DSA.
If you see, HOW a kernel can
Jason Dunsmore wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am 2006-09-15 09:47:12, schrieb Jason Dunsmore:
>>
>> > Can you give some references? Thanks.
>>
>> What references do you want?
>>
>
> I was wondering if there were references that support what you said
> about se
On 9/16/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 2006-09-15 09:47:12, schrieb Jason Dunsmore:
> Can you give some references? Thanks.
What references do you want?
I was wondering if there were references that support what you said
about security and Linux uptime (see below). Or w
Am 2006-09-15 09:47:12, schrieb Jason Dunsmore:
> Can you give some references? Thanks.
What references do you want?
You can check once per day and download
the new Kernel sources or diffs if availlable.
This is much faster thewn waiting on a Debian Kernel,
and, - you can build it with make
On 9/13/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 2006-09-10 14:12:51, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom:
> Hi,
>
> http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
> shows that the system is up one year.
> Not bad.
FALSE! - Realy Bad!
I run a Router/Firewall with Linux 2.4.32 and its uptime is cu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/14/06 13:39, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-09-14 12:36:05, schrieb Ron Johnson:
>
>> Who's router is running Linux 2.4.32?
>
> 2.4.32 is much more stable then a 2.6.18 has less bugs and can
> run with 12 MB of memory in embedded Systems for
Am 2006-09-14 12:36:05, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> Who's router is running Linux 2.4.32?
2.4.32 is much more stable then a 2.6.18 has less bugs and can
run with 12 MB of memory in embedded Systems for example.
If you want to run a 2.6 then you need at least 24 MByte of
memory and forced to upgrade s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/06 07:19, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-09-10 16:45:04, schrieb Ron Johnson:
>
>> That is if the kernel is at (more than slight) risk of infection.
>
> Right
>
>> If you sit behind a firewalling router, don't run an httpd, an ftpd,
>> e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/06 07:21, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-09-10 18:32:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
>> On 09/10/06 17:54, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>> Depends. Is the "firewalling router" the Linux box with the year uptime?
>> No, it's a little Netgear RP614v2.
>
>
Am 2006-09-10 18:32:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> On 09/10/06 17:54, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > Depends. Is the "firewalling router" the Linux box with the year uptime?
>
> No, it's a little Netgear RP614v2.
The 614 have security problems...
I prefer the 834 since it run Linux...
(source tarball avail
Am 2006-09-10 16:45:04, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> That is if the kernel is at (more than slight) risk of infection.
Right
> If you sit behind a firewalling router, don't run an httpd, an ftpd,
> etc, how much at risk are you?
Extremly High!
Since the Router/Firewall (AS) is currently
a Debian sys
Am 2006-09-10 14:12:51, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom:
> Hi,
>
> http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
> shows that the system is up one year.
> Not bad.
FALSE! - Realy Bad!
I run a Router/Firewall with Linux 2.4.32 and its uptime is currently
55 days 22 hours which is the highest uptime I ev
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
That is if the kernel is at (more than slight) risk of infection.
If you sit behind a firewalling router, don't run an httpd, an ftpd,
etc, how much at risk are you?
As Marc Wilson said, it "depends". A local root exploit (in the kernel
for example) c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/06 17:54, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> If you sit behind a firewalling router, don't run an httpd, an ftpd,
>> etc, how much at risk are you?
>
> Depends. Is the "firewalling router" th
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> If you sit behind a firewalling router, don't run an httpd, an ftpd,
> etc, how much at risk are you?
Depends. Is the "firewalling router" the Linux box with the year uptime?
--
Marc Wilson | The advertisement is the most truth
On 10.09.06 14:12, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
> shows that the system is up one year.
> Not bad.
I (and not only me) hate the 32-bit time counter in 2.4 kernels...
it wraps after something over 497 days, so in 'ud' output I had to add 1st
highest time (49
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/06 16:34, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:12:51PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
>> shows that the system is up one year.
>> Not bad.
>>
> Actually, I would say th
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:12:51PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
> shows that the system is up one year.
> Not bad.
>
Actually, I would say that it is very bad:
http://secunia.com/product/2719/?task=advisories_2006
There are 31 security adv
Hi,
http://klive.cpushare.com/2.6.11.6-procmail/
shows that the system is up one year.
Not bad.
H
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
