- Legacy - lists.gtalug.org

Multiple USB keyboards ?
by opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

I have multiple video cards (agp, pci) and multiple mouses (serial, ps/2, usb) working independently. That is, I can choose which should be selected when bringing up X. But, multiple keyboards are all shared; so, you can press keys from any keyboard. How do you get them working independently? -- William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <opengeometry-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org> Linux solution for data management and processing. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

mdk kernel enterprise src?
by lloyd-fEEwcc3XMu8jODpR/OX0VQ＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

mdk-9.2 I am trying to get a closed source (VPN client) kernel extension working. I would like to use kernel-enterprise-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk, but I need the source. I see there is kernel-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk.src.rpm (39303204) kernel-source-2.4.22-21mdk.i586.rpm (42200593) I wonder about the size difference :-( urpi only finds the 2nd. I tried that one, but symbols unresolved. http://rpms.mandrakeclub.com/search.php?query=kernel-2.4.22.21mdk lists the 1st, but attempting to install it, but it does not: rpm -i kernel-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk.src.rpm -vv D: ============== kernel-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk.src.rpm D: Expected size: 39303204 = lead(96)+sigs(264)+pad(0)+data(39302844) D: Actual size: 39303204 D: unshared posix mutexes found(38), adding DB_PRIVATE, using fcntl lock D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages create:cdb:mpool:private D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0 D: locked db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys rdonly mode=0x0 D: read h# 342 Header sanity check: OK D: ========== DSA pubkey id 9aa8d0d022458a98 D: kernel-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk.src.rpm: V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 22458a98 D: added source package [0] D: found 1 source and 0 binary packages D: Expected size: 39303204 = lead(96)+sigs(264)+pad(0)+data(39302844) D: Actual size: 39303204 warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root warning: user qateam does not exist - using root warning: group qateam does not exist - using root kernel-2.4.22.21mdk-1-1mdk D: ========== Directories not explictly included in package: D: 0 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/ D: 1 /usr/src/RPM/SPECS/ D: ========== D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 1324 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/README.Mandrake;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 2948 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/README.kernel-sources;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 137112 /usr/src/RPM/SPECS/kernel-2.4.spec;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 9651394 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/linux-2.4.22-q21.tar.bz2;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 29528612 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/linux-2.4.22.tar.bz2;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 3403 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/linux-mdkconfig.h;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 7767 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/linux-merge-config.awk;3fce6c45 D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 3081 /usr/src/RPM/SOURCES/linux-merge-modules.awk;3fce6c45 GZDIO: 4802 reads, 39336828 total bytes in 2.004 secs D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Pubkeys D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages Am I barking up the wrong tree? Cheers, Lloyd -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

OT; become a master baiter !
by davidjpatrick-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

OK, this is OT, but it's so much fun I had to share; What's the best way to deal with email scam "artists" ? junk filter ? report to the proper authorities ? NO ! Join the ranks of scam-baiters for fun and .. er.. FUN ! Pose as a Mugu (victim) and watch 'em dance ! While you're pulling their chain, you are distracting them from conning someone more gullible. If the sport of scam-baiting become real popular, the perps will eventually have to find another way to rip people off. Find out how at http://www.419eater.com/index.htm or http://www.scamorama.com/ I have been following a few of the adventures and haven't laughed this hard in a while ! happy hunting ! djp -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

video plugin for mozilla on linux
by joehill-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:10:47 -0500 Austin <aacton-B71PBEe7S7Y at public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I want to install real player and flash plug-ins on Mandrake 9.2. > > First I am trying to get flash to work, but after installation I > > receive: > > > > LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library > > /usr/lib/mozilla-1.5/plugins/libflashplayer.so > > [libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such > > file or directory] > > # urpmi libstdc++2.10 > > BTW, the rpm is non-free software so it's only available on the > PowerPack CD's and on the club website. Strange, this wasn't the case on 9.1. I had Texstar's Mozilla Flash plugin workin' fine, and I certainly have no club membership...yet ;-) Now I'm stuck in the same situation as Lloyd. -- JoeHill ++ ICQ # 280779813 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The US is our trading partner, our neighbour, our ally and our friend... and sometimes we'd like to give them such a smack!"-- Rick Mercer -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Debian attacker may have used new exploit
by jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:23:44PM -0500, JoeHill wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:23:31 -0500 > John Macdonald <jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR at public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Nope, we cannot stop them. But delayed disclosure > > will, in at least some cases, reduce the number of > > malicious users with such knowledge before a fix > > is available. > > In both of your posts, you start from the assumption that immediate public > disclosure contributes nothing, but that's all it is, an assumption. I am > positing that putting any limits on the free exchange of this information is > inherantly worse than any *potential* harm (never once demonstrated, only > theorized) done by such disclosure. Straw men, babies, and bathwater, are all > cute, but I have yet to see a strong argument, with evidence, that the free > exchange of all security-related information, an important part of not only > awareness and education, but also development of new tools to combat > vulnerabilities (or the proper eradication of software which is unfixable, ie. > Internet Exploder), somehow does more harm than good. If both sides of an argument take the approach that "if it is not proven otherwise, my belief should prevail" then you never come to a useful resolution. Far from proving that immediate disclosure has an advantage over delayed disclosure, you haven't even suggested any way in which it *might* have an advantage. All of your arguments apply only to the comparison against non-disclosure; which no-one is trying to claim as a good practice. That is a straw man - you put a false argument into the mouths of your opponent so that you can knock it down. It does not accomplish any useful progress in the discussion. It is quite obvious that immediate disclosure will sometimes (not always but sometimes) cause damage that delayed disclosure would ameliorate. This will happen when: - no cracker happened to already know about the particular hole being disclosed - only one cracker already knew about the hole, but he was saving it to use for a particular attack - every cracker that knew about this hole had other things to do and wasn't developing an exploit yet, but the disclosure made the potential damage time limited and so it was worth switching to exploiting this hole at this time instead of other work Try and prove that none of these could ever happen! (But don't just prove that they will sometimes not happen - I already admit that, but that is irrelevant. You are arguing that immediate disclosure should be done for every case.) -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Debian attacker may have used new exploit
by joehill-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:35:15 -0500 John Macdonald <jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR at public.gmane.org> wrote: > Far from proving that immediate disclosure has an > advantage over delayed disclosure, you haven't > even suggested any way in which it *might* have > an advantage. Read my post again, and the link to the Security Focus article, you will find I have in fact done so, only you have chosen to ignore it. > All of your arguments apply only to the comparison > against non-disclosure; which no-one is trying to > claim as a good practice. That is a straw man - > you put a false argument into the mouths of your > opponent so that you can knock it down. It does not > accomplish any useful progress in the discussion. I nowhere engaged in such a practice, I argued against *any* limits being placed on the free exchange of information, for reasons I have already stated, and have provided references for. Not once did I claim or assume that the "other side" of the argument was no disclosure at all. As Robert suggested would happen, this *is* getting repetitive, and now you are accusing me of something you seem to be doing yourself. So, to end the thread, placing limits on the free exchange of any information, whether it is for some limited time or perceived good, is the kind of slippery slope that leads to a regime **Hitler** would have loved ;-) -- JoeHill ++ ICQ # 280779813 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "You tell me it's the institution; Well you know, you better free your mind instead..."-- John Lennon -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Smoothwall and running a server via a IPMASQ address
by wmcgilvery-6d3DWWOeJtE＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

Please clarify your setup. Regards, Wil McGilvery Manager Lynch Digital Media Inc 416-744-7949 416-716-3964 (cell) 1-866-314-4678 416-744-0406? FAX www.LynchDigital.com -----Original Message----- From: Teddy Mills [mailto:teddymills-VFlxZYho3OA at public.gmane.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:55 PM To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org Subject: [TLUG]: Smoothwall and running a server via a IPMASQ address Im going to try using a Smoothwall lbox as my firewall. Well I figure this is a more proper way of doing things, since iptables/firewall should be on a seperate box. My only thoughs are before I begin are: I only have 1 STATIC IP. Therefore the SmoothWall will use the Static IP. The server and its 1000 and 1 settings currently set for the STATIC interface, and all server services will have to be set to work through eth1 192.168.1.2 on my server. So all services will have to be forward and work through that 192.168.1.2 address. Most services 8,22,25,53,80,110,113,143 work through eth1 currently. Running a server via a IPMASQ address, Im sure is done all the time, but its giving me second thoughs on the SmoothWall install. This could get ugly. I could paint myself into a corner far worse just having iptables not working. --------------------------------------------------------------- teddy mills http://www.vger.ca VGER directives...To collect...all that is collectable. To sell...all that is saleable.To merchandise...all that is merchandisable. Family Guys, Quagmire "allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll right" -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Smoothwall and running a server via a IPMASQ address
by teddymills-VFlxZYho3OA＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

Im going to try using a Smoothwall lbox as my firewall. Well I figure this is a more proper way of doing things, since iptables/firewall should be on a seperate box. My only thoughs are before I begin are: I only have 1 STATIC IP. Therefore the SmoothWall will use the Static IP. The server and its 1000 and 1 settings currently set for the STATIC interface, and all server services will have to be set to work through eth1 192.168.1.2 on my server. So all services will have to be forward and work through that 192.168.1.2 address. Most services 8,22,25,53,80,110,113,143 work through eth1 currently. Running a server via a IPMASQ address, Im sure is done all the time, but its giving me second thoughs on the SmoothWall install. This could get ugly. I could paint myself into a corner far worse just having iptables not working. --------------------------------------------------------------- teddy mills http://www.vger.ca VGER directives...To collect...all that is collectable. To sell...all that is saleable.To merchandise...all that is merchandisable. Family Guys, Quagmire "allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll right" -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Encrypted filesystems?
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, cbbrowne-HInyCGIudOg at public.gmane.org wrote: > I use CFS, which is fairly widely available in packaged form, which > "plays" as an NFS server. It's a bit slow, but it is pretty portable, > requiring no kernel mods, which strikes me as a win. What happened with rubberhose ? Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

Debian attacker may have used new exploit
by joehill-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg＠public.gmane.org 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:23:31 -0500 John Macdonald <jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR at public.gmane.org> wrote: > Nope, we cannot stop them. But delayed disclosure > will, in at least some cases, reduce the number of > malicious users with such knowledge before a fix > is available. In both of your posts, you start from the assumption that immediate public disclosure contributes nothing, but that's all it is, an assumption. I am positing that putting any limits on the free exchange of this information is inherantly worse than any *potential* harm (never once demonstrated, only theorized) done by such disclosure. Straw men, babies, and bathwater, are all cute, but I have yet to see a strong argument, with evidence, that the free exchange of all security-related information, an important part of not only awareness and education, but also development of new tools to combat vulnerabilities (or the proper eradication of software which is unfixable, ie. Internet Exploder), somehow does more harm than good. There isn't even any evidence that having one "script-kiddie" releasing a worm or virus into the wild is somehow a better or less damaging situation than having two, or five. The point is there are *enough* that one or two more are not going to make one whit of difference. Constraining information, therefore, has no purpose, at least that can be quantified, whereas the uninhibited dialogue on security has enormous positive benefits. The current "regime", as it were, is not working. The internet is gradually sliding away from us into a spam and virus-ridden pit, and it is precisely because certain proprietary software vendors have been allowed to hide their flawed approach to software design, and blame everything on script-kiddies and other malcontents. Instead, we should be exposing these flaws as they become apparent, and if it means that "risk reduction" means using, say, Mozilla, instead of an inferior and insecure product like Internet Explorer, so be it. Extrapolate that analogy as you see fit ;-) -- JoeHill ++ ICQ # 280779813 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.-- Lao Tsu -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0