similar to: SNI-19:BSD lpd vulnerabilities

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ##### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ##### ## # ## ## ## ## ### ## ##### . ## ## . ###### . Secure Networks Inc. Security Advisory

[mod: Executive summary: SNI found recent linux-distributions not-vulnerable -- REW] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ###### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ###### ## # ## ## ## ## ### ## ###### . ## ## . ######.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ###### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ###### ## # ## ## ## ## ### ## ###### . ## ## . ######. Secure Networks Inc. Security Advisory

I don''t know if this has made it to you yet, so here it is... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Kirk Bauer Georgia Tech gt5918a@prism.gatech.edu or Finger for PGP Key --> kirk@kaybee.gt.ed.net http://www.kaybee.gt.ed.net/~kirk/html/index.html Resnet RTA (Residence Technical Advisor) GTRI Co-Op ----------

I have a RedHat 6.0 x86 server which is serving a number of minor things, which I wish to add shell access to. I'm currently running sshd and am quite happy with it, the exceptiong being that I am unable to make sshd perform a chroot for shell account users. I have been reading man pages and howto's, many of which discuss sshd or chroot, but never the two together. Is this not an

Hi, I''m running into something weird here. I''m using RH5.1 with tcp_wrappers 7.6. The syntax for hosts.allow and hosts.deny is: <service list> : <access list> [ : <shell_command> ] Everything works when I _don''t_ use the shell_command. I used the _exact_ line as in the man-pages utilising "safe_finger" (comes with tcp_wrappers), tcpdchk

Hi all, I just looked into LPRng to see to what extent it is affected by the problems recently reported for the BSD lpd. It seems that it is fairly safe from those mentioned in the SNI advisory. > Problem 1: File creation > > Individuals with access to the line printer daemon from a privileged > port on a valid print client can tell lpd to create a file, providing > the name of

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=522 ------- Additional Comments From kaber@trash.net 2006-10-13 07:47 MET ------- Please add a dump of the packet in question from both sides of the firewall and the corresponding /proc/net/ip_conntrack entry. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this

###### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ###### ## # ## ## ## ## ### ## ###### . ## ## . ######. Secure Networks Inc. Security Advisory March 2, 1997

###### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ###### ## # ## ## ## ## ### ## ###### . ## ## . ######. Secure Networks Inc. Security Advisory February 24, 1997

[Mod: I am approving this message even though it is just a rehash of known vulnerabilities of DNS. Please in future lets avoid rehashing what was alreadt discussed in probably every single mailing list that deals with UNIX security several years ago? -- alex ] ###### ## ## ###### ## ### ## ## ######

Hello, Pure-FTPd just adopted an interesting approach to SNI support: a separate daemon that serves cert chain and key for a given hostname. What would be involved in having Dovecot support this daemon? It would alleviate the need right now for a very large ?sni.conf? file on hosts that serve thousands of domains. Thank you! -Felipe Gasper Mississauga, ON

hi the problem : ssh lets ordinary users=A0forward reserved ports (see Debian bug report logs - #12763 ssh 1.2.20-3 /sshd vulnerable ) in connection with: lpd lets people who have access to its reserved port (ie people from hosts in /etc/hosts.{lpd,allow}) create delete and exec files = (see Secure Networks Inc. Security Advisory October 2, 1997 as reported thru

----- KSR[T] Website : http://www.dec.net/ksrt E-mail: ksrt@dec.net ----- KSR[T] Advisory #004 Date: Oct 6, 1997 ID

Hi All, i am getting a cupd-lpd dependancy problem with CentOS 5.3. package cups-lpd is not installed Installing cups-lpd ... Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, priorities Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile 2 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Setting up Install Process Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check --->

Centos users, I new to Centos 7 and my problem is the following: I am using my Centos 7 system as a print server in a warehouse. Using cups for the print queue's. Which I can print to the printers find from the Centos 7 machine. The hosting system is Sco Unix using lpd printing. This machine is in Illinois and the warehouse / Centos 7 machine is in Arizona. I have loaded

Howdy! I'm running RHL 6.2 with Samba 2.2a3 and am getting multiple LPD daemons running. I can kill the LPDs and restart LPD - two processes show as running. I killed the procs and reinstalled LPD from the RH CD, restart LPD and there are again two procs running as lpd. I have set this server up as a backup for another that has no such problem. the printcap and smb.conf were ripped from

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// I have got a couple of messages stating that I am wrong and that the resolver vulnerability sent to list by Oliver Friedrichs (oliver@secnet.com) is a new one. Our discussion with Oliver outlined that even though it is possible that this vulnerability was discussed during BOFs at conferences such as LISA, SANS and NETSEC,

some header freebsd-announce Joerg Wunsch <joerg@FreeBSD.ORG> 1.92 When merging the new `ct' printcap functionality into 2.2-stable right before 2.2.5-RELEASE was due, it's now apparent that I didn't test it enough before. :-( I've introduced a fatal bug that causes all the lpd children sending jobs to remote printers to be killed after the `ct' timeout, even in case the

Does someone know, how to configure cups lpd job options. My xinet.d config looks like this: # default: off # description: Allow applications using the legacy lpd protocol to communicate w ith CUPS service printer { disable = no socket_type = stream protocol = tcp wait = no user = lp server = /usr/lib/cups/daemon/cups-lpd server_args = -o