search for: secure

...lp of symlinks in some Debian packages There were no tags set. Tags added: security > tags 496428 security Bug#496428: The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian packages There were no tags set. Tags added: security > tags 496430 security Bug#496430: please replace insecure debug code in redirect.pl There were no tags set. Tags added: security > tags 496431 security Bug#496431: The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian packages There were no tags set. Tags added: security > tags 496432 security Bug#496432: The possibility of attack wit...

Hi, I wonder, how can i use openssh Public key authentification with ActivCard pkcs11 x509 certificate store and login to only my account reading/using username provided from certificate DN, or principal name,friendly name ? b111887 and e411617 is administrator on this os. I have rights to put e411617 pub keys to b111887 home folder authorized keys. And because openssh ask's me to provide

Quoting Karolin Seeger (kseeger at samba.org): > Release Announcements > ===================== > > This is a security release in order to address CVE-2010-2063. > > > o CVE-2010-2063: > In Samba 3.3.x and below, a buffer overrun is possible in chain_reply code. As this issue also affect the 3.2 series of samba (which is no longer officially supported by the Samba

Hi All :) What is the best way to get a list of available security updates? I found several commands for that: 1) yum updateinfo list updates -q --security 2) yum list-security --security -q 3) yum --security check-update -q Based on the sample output below I think I can use any of the three with some awk to get a list of packages. yum updateinfo list updates -q --security FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0525

...want to put that power in the hands of the security group, because > they’d be the ones with experience handling security issues, defining > security boundaries, fixing issues in those boundaries, etc. I’m worried > that the community as a whole would legislate things as needing to be > secure, without anyone in the security group able or willing to make it so. > That’s an undesirable outcome because it sets them up for failure. > > Of course neither of us is saying that the community should dictate to the > security group, nor that the security group should dictate to the &g...

Copies heavily after a similar addition recently made in nbdkit. --- I'm not sure if .1 or .3 fits better for the man page. With nbdkit, .1 made sense because 'nbdkit' is a standalone program; but with libnbd, our only standalone is nbdsh, yet naming it nbdsh-security seems off. docs/Makefile.am | 7 +++++++ docs/libnbd-security.pod | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request at centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner at centos.org When

Hello, There are several important security updates available: Critical: firefox security and bug fix update Important: tomcat5 security update Important: vsftpd security update Moderate: subversion security and bug fix update Important: logwatch security update Important: libtiff security update Moderate: kernel security and bug fix update Important: samba security update Important: samba3x

Hello, I am having a small issue with LDAP, and I hope someone here might be able to provide a few tips. I am unable to authenticate as user 'testuser' on server 'storage' and the following errors appear in /var/log/messages on server 'storage' Sep 19 16:56:17 storage sshd(pam_unix)[3124]: check pass; user unknown Sep 19 16:56:17 storage sshd(pam_unix)[3124]:

Heya, FREEBSD 4.9-STABLE Is there anyway to block SYN attacks and prevent it from bring down my server? Its been attacking for sometime.

...end to agree > with James that it's better that this is clearly specified as a non-goal > than suggest some kind of "best effort" behavior here. > > > I’d rephrase this: it’s not currently something that LLVM developers have > tried to address, and it’s known to be insecure. Were someone to come in > and commit significant amount of work, it would definitely be something we > can support. > > I don’t want to say “non-goal” without explaining *why* that’s the case, > and what can be done to change things. In other words, if the security > group is wil...

Hello compiler enthusiasts, The Apple LLVM team would like to propose that a new a security process and an associated private LLVM Security Group be created under the umbrella of the LLVM project. A draft proposal for how we could organize such a group and what its process could be is available on Phabricator <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70326>. The proposal starts with a list of goals for

...king well in that regard. The issue I am having is getting regular UNIX based users to be able to login. The following is my PAM configuration. For example, if I try to login as root, it does not work. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. #%PAM-1.0 auth required /lib/security/pam_securetty.so #auth required /lib/security/pam_stack.so service=system-auth auth required /lib/security/pam_nologin.so auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so #account required /lib/security/pam_stack.so service=system-auth auth required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so use_f...

...sername Although this is working, now I can no longer login as a generic Linux user (ex. root). The following is my GDM file from /etc/pam.d/gdm I wonder if someone might have a suggestion as to what it's missing to allow Linux users to login? #%PAM-1.0 auth required /lib/security/pam_securetty.so auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_unix.so use_first_pass auth required /lib/security/pam_stack.so service=system-auth auth required /lib/security/pam_nologin.so account sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so accoun...

...ure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=NODEVssh ruser= rhost=... Jul 9 11:46:01 alblinux pam_winbind[5463]: user 'MCIDOMNT+username' granted acces Jul 9 11:46:09 alblinux sshd(pam_unix)[5463]: check pass; user unknown Here is the login file : #%PAM-1.0 auth required /lib/security/pam_securetty.so auth required /lib/security/pam_stack.so service=system-auth auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so auth required /lib/security/pam_nologin.so account sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so account required /lib/security/pam_stack.so service=syst...

Copies heavily after a similar addition recently made in nbdkit. --- docs/Makefile.am | 7 +++++++ docs/libnbd-security.pod | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ docs/libnbd.pod | 1 + Makefile.am | 1 + .gitignore | 3 ++- SECURITY | 14 ++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644

....so password required /lib/security/pam_winbind.so shadow use_authtok session required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so session required /lib/security/pam_limits.so -------------- next part -------------- #%PAM-1.0 #Requires logins to be from tty #auth required /lib/security/pam_securetty.so #Passes enviroment variables #auth required /lib/security/pam_env.so #A domain account is sufficient to bypass the rest of the #auth lines auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so #if the user doesn't have a domain account then check #for local unix accounts (root, or un...

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

....so password required /lib/security/pam_winbind.so shadow use_authtok session required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so session required /lib/security/pam_limits.so -------------- next part -------------- #%PAM-1.0 #Requires logins to be from tty #auth required /lib/security/pam_securetty.so #Passes enviroment variables #auth required /lib/security/pam_env.so #A domain account is sufficient to bypass the rest of the #auth lines auth sufficient /lib/security/pam_winbind.so #if the user doesn't have a domain account then check #for local unix accounts (root, or un...

...nd, IMO, the same stance should also apply to feeding arbitrary bitcode into LLVM. (And I get the unfortunate feeling that last statement might not find universal agreement.) Given the current architecture and state of the project, I think it would be rather unwise to pretend that any of those are secure operations, or to try to support them as such with a security response process. Many compiler crashes seem likely to be security bugs, if someone is trying hard enough. If every time such a bug was fixed, it got a full security-response triggered, with embargos, CVEs, backports, etc...that just see...