Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "twigl".
Did you mean:
twig
2003 Aug 12
0
Fw: Certification (was RE: realpath(3) et al)
...as an example. They got some ridiculous traffic and that site is
ultra fast.
They always buy that :D
So for now i dont need an audit
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@sitetronics.com>
> To: "'twig les'" <twigles@yahoo.com>; <security@freebsd.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Certification (was RE: realpath(3) et al)
>
>
> > This is what I'm wondering about and what I'd like to contribute and
> donate
> > to/for. I don't feel that...
2004 Feb 11
5
Question about securelevel
I've read about securelevel in the mailing list archive, and found some
pitfalls (and seems to me to be discarded soon).
But According to me, the following configuration should offer a good
security:
- mount root fs read only at boot;
- set securelevel to 3;
- do not permit to unmount/remount roots fs read-write (now it is possible
by means of "mount -uw /");
- the only way to make
2003 Jul 26
5
suid bit files + securing FreeBSD
Hello everybody,
I'm a newbie in this list, so I don't know if it's the appropriate place
for my question. Anyway, I'd be happy to find out the solution.
Please, has anyone simple answer for:
I'm looking for an exact list of files, which:
1. MUST have...
2. HAVE FROM BSD INSTALLATION...
3. DO NOT NEED...
4. NEVER MAY...
...the suid-bit set.
Of course, it's no problem to
2003 Aug 07
1
FreeBSD - Secure by DEFAULT ?? [hosts.allow]
Hi,
I need to know what the implications are to make use of the hosts.allow file
on a FreeBSD Production Server (ISP Setup)? The reason I'm asking, is that
I've recently decommisioned a Linux SendMail Server to a FreeBSD Exim
Server, but with no Firewall (IPTABLES) yet.
Besides the fact that it only runs EXIM and Apache, is it necessary to
Configure rc.Firewall? or can I only make use of
2003 Aug 05
1
killing UUCP
Hey *, I'm getting an audit coming down the pipes and I have 2
4.6 release boxes to clean up. I say "clean up" because they
have some requirements that I missed despite due diligence. My
specific question is: To what extent can I get rid of UUCP?
Aside from the SUID/SGID stuff that pops up via my finds, I
simply see no reason to have any UUCP stuff on these boxes. Is
this stuff
2003 Aug 12
1
Certification (was RE: realpath(3) et al)
Just saw this from eWeek.
"IBM, which paid roughly $500,000 for the testing, and SuSE
(pronounced "SOOS-ah") were announcing the certification
jointly. "
The article is here:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1212529,00.asp
--- Darren Reed <avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> In some mail from twig les, sie said:
> >
> > I actually just asked
2003 Nov 05
4
FBSD All-in-one security box?
Hey *, as I sweat through another day of crap dealing with an
all-in-one box (firewall, IDS, AVS, report generating, soon to
be a VPN server) I'm wondering if someone has started a project
to put some freeware together in some semblance of sanity on a
FBSD box. There's basically nothing that this box does that a
combo of IPFW (or another bsd filter), snort, ntop, and some
other freeware