Re: security issue?

On 29/11/24 10:59, Barry wrote: On 28 Nov 2024, at 22:45, Stephen Morris wrote: being /usr/bin/egrep and /usr/bin/fgrep because it has said they have been replaced by a script, is that standard Fedora? Did you check what was in the files and where they were installed from? The scripts print

Re: [closed] Re: security issue?

On Fri, 2024-11-29 at 20:37 +, Will McDonald wrote: > Indeed. I've jumped between RH-based and Debian-based distros a little in > the last few years. I started tracking some of the deltas here: > https://github.com/wmcdonald404/distrosetta-stone You might want to change the yum references to d

Re: [closed] Re: security issue?

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 20:01, George N. White III wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 3:09 PM Will McDonald wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 18:20, home user via users < >> users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> There's a lot of commonality across most distros, so while something (the >> link I

Re: [closed] Re: security issue?

On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 3:09 PM Will McDonald wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 18:20, home user via users < > users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > There's a lot of commonality across most distros, so while something (the > link I referenced, for example) was from an Ask Ubuntu branch of > Stack

Re: [closed] Re: security issue?

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 18:20, home user via users < users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 11/28/24 10:24 AM, home user via users wrote: > > (f-40, stand-alone workstation, gnome) > > > > A few times in the past couple of months, I've received the following > warning from "chkrootkit": > > - -

[closed] Re: security issue?

On 11/28/24 10:24 AM, home user via users wrote: (f-40, stand-alone workstation, gnome) A few times in the past couple of months, I've received the following warning from "chkrootkit": - - - - - - bash.1[~]: chkrootkit ROOTDIR is `/' Checking `amd'... not found [snip] Checking `bindshell'... no

Re: security issue?

On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 17:38, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:25 PM home user via users > wrote: > > Checking `lkm'... You have 1 process hidden for ps command > > > > What's going on with that lkm warning? > > Do you really need us to google it for you? > And what Jeffer

Re: security issue?

> On 28 Nov 2024, at 22:45, Stephen Morris wrote: > > being /usr/bin/egrep and /usr/bin/fgrep because it has said they have been > replaced by a script, is that standard Fedora? Did you check what was in the files and where they were installed from? The scripts print a warning message then r

Re: security issue?

On Fri, 2024-11-29 at 09:45 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: > I've run chkrootkit and it said there were no issues, but rkhunter has > reported two suspect files, being /usr/bin/egrep and /usr/bin/fgrep > because it has said they have been replaced by a script, is that > standard Fedora? fgrep and

Re: security issue?

On 29/11/24 04:37, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:25 PM home user via users wrote: (f-40, stand-alone workstation, gnome) A few times in the past couple of months, I've received the following warning from "chkrootkit": - - - - - - bash.1[~]: chkrootkit ROOTDIR is `/' Checking

Re: security issue?

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:25 PM home user via users wrote: > > (f-40, stand-alone workstation, gnome) > > A few times in the past couple of months, I've received the following > warning from "chkrootkit": > - - - - - - > bash.1[~]: chkrootkit > ROOTDIR is `/' > Checking `amd'... not found > [snip

security issue?

(f-40, stand-alone workstation, gnome) A few times in the past couple of months, I've received the following warning from "chkrootkit": - - - - - - bash.1[~]: chkrootkit ROOTDIR is `/' Checking `amd'... not found [snip] Checking `bindshell'... not infected Checking `lkm'... You have 1 proce

Re: Security issue

Oliver wrote: I jump around a lot. I usually reinstall my OS every five or six months. I do it primarily as a security issue -- if my machine has been compromised and I don't know it, at least every few months I *know* I'm clean. What I've found is that the "pain"

Security issue

ly reinstall my OS every five or six months. I do > it primarily as a security issue -- if my machine has been compromised and I > don't know it, at least every few months I *know* I'm clean. What I've found > is that the "pain" of installation varies from re

Re: [OT] Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

Allegedly, on or about 16 October 2017, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > Note that in all cases the problem is limited to nodes sharing the > same wireless access point, i.e. it's not going to bite you over the > Internet. Though that, rather obviously, means that using public WiFi is unsafe (not that

Re: [OT] Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 17:51 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > wpa_supplicant (used in Linux and Android) is particularly bad. Just in case this point isn't getting enough emphasis: the specific vulnerability in wpa_supplicant allows the adversary to force the use of an all-0's encryption key. Th

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:15:26 +0100 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 16:00 +0100, Ron Leach wrote: > > Is there any longer-term security support for earlier versions? > > We've a few devices still running F24 or F23. > > As has been reiterated innumerable times, Fedora does

Re: [OT] Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > I am about 97% ignorant about encryption. However... > > It seems that these attacks are directed at clients rather than > servers. Is this correct? No. > If so, it's a good thing for me, since I use an old Belkin wireless > router

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:00:46PM +0100, Ron Leach wrote: > (We hadn't updated these devices to F25 because there had seemed to > be some difficulties reported on the lists, but that would be option > we still have. I've downloaded the paper to understand better the > risks at (i) coffee shops et

Re: [OT] Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

I am about 97% ignorant about encryption. However... It seems that these attacks are directed at clients rather than servers. Is this correct? If so, it's a good thing for me, since I use an old Belkin wireless router whose firmware will surely never be upgraded. jon On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 0

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 16:00 +0100, Ron Leach wrote: > On 16/10/2017 15:21, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > > F25: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-12e76e8364 > > F27: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f45e844a85 > > Rawhide: (just run a dnf update) > > _

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On 16/10/2017 15:21, Michael Cronenworth wrote: F25: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-12e76e8364 F27: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f45e844a85 Rawhide: (just run a dnf update) ___ Is there any longer-term secu

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On 10/16/2017 08:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:32:32AM -0400, Mark C. Allman wrote: I figure that this is being addressed but hopefully it doesn't hurt to ask. https://www.krackattacks.com/ https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-60bfb576b7 Which is for

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On 10/16/2017 09:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:32:32AM -0400, Mark C. Allman wrote: >> I figure that this is being addressed but hopefully it doesn't hurt to ask. >> https://www.krackattacks.com/ > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-60bfb576b7 > Perfect

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 07:32:32AM -0400, Mark C. Allman wrote: > I figure that this is being addressed but hopefully it doesn't hurt to ask. > https://www.krackattacks.com/ https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-60bfb576b7 -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader __

Re: Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

On 16 October 2017 at 08:32, Mark C. Allman wrote: > I figure that this is being addressed but hopefully it doesn't hurt to ask. > > https://www.krackattacks.com/ > > Many organizations either don't allow (WPA2) wireless or require VPN when not using the internal wired network. Many of us have o

Question on the WIFI security issue Key Reinstallation Attack ("krack" attack)

I figure that this is being addressed but hopefully it doesn't hurt to ask. https://www.krackattacks.com/ Thanks, -- *Mark C. Allman, PMP, CSM* Founder, See How You Ski, www.seehowyouski.com Sr. Project Manager, Allman Professional Consulting, Inc., www.allmanpc.co

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On 08/19/2015 09:02 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: Don't use digests (they are a waste of time in this day and age), or if you do then use a mailer that supports direct replying to a digest message (not to the digest itself). Evolution can d

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > Don't use digests (they are a waste of time in this day and age), > or if > > you do then use a mailer that supports direct replying to a digest > > message (not to the digest itself). Evolution can do this and I > think > > Thunderbird also.

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31:19PM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 09:55 +0900, Scott Mattan wrote: > > Is there a better way of viewing this list without having to copy > > paste titles and contents? > > Don't use digests (they are a waste of time in this day and age),

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 09:55 +0900, Scott Mattan wrote: > Is there a better way of viewing this list without having to copy > paste titles and contents? Don't use digests (they are a waste of time in this day and age), or if you do then use a mailer that supports direct replying to a digest messag

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

Hi, I recently came up with this 'issue' (not really an issue in fact, please read along) when I configured a Webmin panel on a CentOS 6.7 instance we use at work. Thing is that the sudo tool provides a configuration flag to deny a command execution if it's not being invoked from a console. Origi

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Scott Mattan wrote: > Hello, > > I am seeing some disparity between (two distributions granted) CentOS 6.6 > and Fedora22 in their use of the su utility. I cannot figure out the cause, > so I cannot fix it. > > In CentOS there is no way to script login to root...

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

I have changed my settings from digest. I will additionally try to add the pam_securetty.so to my su file when I get home tonight (JST) Thanks On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 08/19/15 08:55, Scott Mattan wrote: > > Sorry about the other post, this one may not come in c

Re: Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On 08/19/15 08:55, Scott Mattan wrote: > Sorry about the other post, this one may not come in correctly either... > > In anycase, I will explain this after the main issue... > > I have the following differences in my /etc/pam.d/su file: > > Fedora22: > #%PAM-1.0 > authsufficient pa

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

I just tried the non-login-shell with those settings, and it didn't offer any change from the previous response. (I primarily work with CentOS6.6 at work but am testing Fedora at home and would like to implement similar security settings) [ user@localhost ~]$ su - < password > echo "" > id > EOF

Fwd: Fedora22 Security Issue.

Sorry about the other post, this one may not come in correctly either... In anycase, I will explain this after the main issue... I have the following differences in my /etc/pam.d/su file: Fedora22: #%PAM-1.0 authsufficient pam_rootok.so # Uncomment the following line to implicit

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 04:05 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 08/19/15 00:10, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 00:13 +0900, Scott Mattan wrote: > > > I havent tried comparing yet but ive verified that disabling > > > various > > > combinations on the cent machine does not produce th

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On 08/19/15 00:10, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 00:13 +0900, Scott Mattan wrote: >> I havent tried comparing yet but ive verified that disabling various >> combinations on the cent machine does not produce the same results. > Same results as what? Is this part of some other th

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 00:13 +0900, Scott Mattan wrote: > I havent tried comparing yet but ive verified that disabling various > combinations on the cent machine does not produce the same results. Same results as what? Is this part of some other thread? poc -- users mailing list users@lists.fedo

Fedora22 Security Issue.

I havent tried comparing yet but ive verified that disabling various combinations on the cent machine does not produce the same results. I understand that this is not a perfect method and will take a look as soon as i get home at the very latest by tomorrow JST, and then report back -- users mail

Re: Fedora22 Security Issue.

On 08/18/15 15:09, Scott Mattan wrote: > > I am seeing some disparity between (two distributions granted) CentOS 6.6 and > Fedora22 in their use of the su utility. I cannot figure out the cause, so I > cannot fix it. > > In CentOS there is no way to script login to root... this is of course a >

Fedora22 Security Issue.

Hello, I am seeing some disparity between (two distributions granted) CentOS 6.6 and Fedora22 in their use of the su utility. I cannot figure out the cause, so I cannot fix it. In CentOS there is no way to script login to root... this is of course a desirable trait. for instance, [ user@localhos