similar to: post last sendmail upgrade

Hi, <new_listmember_intro> Name: Melvyn Sopacua Occupation: WebMaster Age: 32 Location: Netherlands </new_listmember_intro> after quite some digging, the user experience mentioned in brackets above, turned out to be ipv6 resolving problems. They only occur with certain hosts, one of them being the adserver company my employer uses, 'DoubleClick'. What is frustrating about

Hello, I have been using FreeBSD-7.0STABLE with BIND-9.4.2 ( i guess, forget to check before upgrade) up to 2008-01-26 (yesterday). But after upgrade FreeBSD-7.0STABLE-->FreeBSD-7.1STABLE everything goes wrong. 1.BIND can't start anymore and giving me following message at /var/log/messages: . . . Jan 27 12:30:20 ns kernel: ad4: 152587MB <WDC WD1600AAJS-75PSA0 05.06H05> at

My BIND9.6.0 on FreeBSD 6.2 works fine when I manually start with: root@ns2# named -4 -S 1024 -c /etc/namedb/named.conf But it won't start on boot and no error messages or log. And it won't start using rndc, it cause error message. Why does the error shows port 953 when I specified for port 53 in the config? rndc: connect failed: 127.0.0.1#953: connection refused Below are

I've got three installations of FreeBSD using 6to4 in three different physical locations, attached to three different ISPs. Sometime in the last few days all of them have stopped talking to IPv6 addesse which are not also 6to4. I can still talk to 2002: addresses, but not to 2001: addresses. This all worked fine a few days ago, and nothing has changed in the config of any of these machines. I

Hello, Freebsd-stable. BIND on my new router (7.1-STABLE, BIND 9.4.3-P1) shows bunch of errors on every start and doesn't answer on requests for 30-60 seconds after that. Errors are like this: Jan 24 12:18:12 gateway named[1455]: /usr/src/lib/bind/isc/../../../contrib/bind9/lib/isc/unix/socket.c:1567: unexpected error: Jan 24 12:18:12 gateway named[1455]: internal_send: 193.0.14.129#53:

> I'm confused. Does the release tarball now match RELEASE_32/final or > not? If not, that's a problem for those of us who count on the > repository matching the actual release. > > At the very least they should match so we can check out the release at > some point in the future. They should match now -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original > compressed tarballs. > > /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256 /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz > SHA256 (/usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz) = 265109c71b4fab8dc12ced314955921695c1ef549719553b0bc1e325110e143e > root at

Hello, recently I've installed 7.0 and now I'm observing strange thing with my Internet connection. Access to some sites may be VERY slow or doesn't work at all with different kinds of timeout messages or without messages at all (but other sites works fine). For example, firefox may say "Transferring data from..." message and then "The connection to the server was reset

Hello, I updated our main server to 9.2-STABLE today and afterwards I noticed a bunch of these messages, does anyone know what they mean? I was unable to find anything on this error message. Things appear to be working OK so far. Sep 30 22:08:56 illidan kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffffe00c7223498: Listen queue overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance Sep 30 22:12:27 illidan kernel:

Installed using pkd_add or ports BIND-9.6.0-P1 working fine. 1.But seems can't run under chroot well: ---------------------------------------------------------- Jan 27 13:54:08 ns named[36447]: starting BIND 9.6.0-P1 -c named.conf -t /var/named -u bind Jan 27 13:54:08 ns named[36447]: built with '--localstatedir=/var' '--disable-linux-caps'

Hi, looking at the messages i see errors with ntp everytime i reboot my server: shiva2# tail /var/log/messages Apr 5 15:32:46 shiva2 kernel: Trying to mount root from ufs:/dev/da0s1a Apr 5 15:32:46 shiva2 ntpd[385]: ntpd 4.2.0-a Tue Mar 14 04:43:54 UTC 2006 (1) Apr 5 15:32:46 shiva2 ntpd[385]: bind() fd 6, family 28, port 123, addr fe80:1::20b:cdff:fe42:3d63, in6_is_addr_multicast=0 flags=0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================================= FreeBSD-SA-07:02.bind Security Advisory The FreeBSD Project Topic: Multiple Denial of Service vulnerabilities in named(8) Category: contrib Module: bind

Hi! I fully understand and second efforts on educating people how to configure BIND to be stong to attacks and keep them from using "query-source address" with "port" option but how about binding named to particular IP address when host has many of them? Using "query-source address" without "port" is the only solution (not speaking of jails here) and safe

Hello Folks, The official email address for this list is `freebsd-security@freebsd.org'. Due to convention, there is an email alias for this list: security@freebsd.org, just as there is for hackers@ & freebsd-hackers@, arch@ & freebsd-arch@, and so on. The security@freebsd.org alias has been the source of occassional problems. Several times in the past, postings have been made to

While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original compressed tarballs. /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256 /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz SHA256 (/usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz) = 265109c71b4fab8dc12ced314955921695c1ef549719553b0bc1e325110e143e root at sex:/usr/ports/devel/llvm # ls -l /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel

In message <20130115001601.GA26444 at cs.nctu.edu.tw>, =?utf-8?B?6Zmz6Z+L5Lu7IChXZ WktUmVuIENoZW4p?= writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > >=20 > > While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original > > compressed tarballs. > >=20 > > /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256

Pawel, You don't know me but I'm one of the release engineers for BIND 9 and BIND 8 before that. I have been doing release engineering for about 1.5 decades now. One of the things you DO NOT do is replace a tarball. Machines get compromised. Good distributions get replaced with tainted versions. One of the few ways the rest of the world has some assurance that they are getting a

Hi Everyone, This is off-topic, so please feel free to disregard it, but I'm sending it to this list in the hope that it will reach a largish number of users. I am currently looking at updating some of our advocacy material (which advertises exciting new features like SMP support), and before I do I'd like to get a better feel for why the rest of you are using FreeBSD. If you had to

From bugtraq :-( >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Sendmail, Inc., and the Sendmail Consortium announce the availability >of sendmail 8.12.9. It contains a fix for a critical security >problem discovered by Michal Zalewski whom we thank for bringing >this problem to our attention. Sendmail urges all users to either >upgrade to sendmail 8.12.9 or apply a patch for

How 'bout PAM? /usr/ports/security/pam_ldap. If you have machines that can't do PAM, perhaps NIS is the way to go (assuming, of course, you're behind a firewall). You can store login information in LDAP like you want, then use a home-grown script to extract the information to a NIS map. Or, if you have a Solaris 8 machine lying around, you can cut out the middle step and use