similar to: [LLVMdev] Phishing Attack?

Sorry about taking up the bandwith here, I have solved this interesting bug of my own now. It turns out I had inadvertently inserted a shell script into my search path which happened to have the same name as one of the more obscure system programs used in the LLVM Makefile execution and this was trying to connect to the remote machine instead of getting on with the job.... a warning against using

[ Sorry, I did not see the renamed thread until I'd already replied on the old one. Calling this a phishing attack is exactly right. ] On 2010-01-30, Joachim Schipper wrote: > If I understand you correctly, you argue that connecting to malicious > hosts is currently secure, and will remain secure, but that it will > become easier to convince people to send the passphrase for

This appears to be not as bad as I first feared. I had been using llvm previously on a remote machine and for some inexplicable reason a fresh compilation on my local machine wanted to make a connection to the remote one, in the context of: Updated Intrinsics.gen because Intrinsics.gen.tmp changed significantly. Though why this should be necessary, or useful, is beyond me.

Did anyone else just get what looks like a phising attempt pretending to be from digium? It appears to be full of links to http://app.en25.com/e/er.aspx I must admit, it looks genuine.

Hi, In last one week I have seen two servers of our organization successfully hacked and some other under attack from some other IP addresses. We would block one IP address on our firewall and after a few hours, they would start getting hits from some another IP address. When I checked them on whois.net, they all were from Amsterdam. Surprisingly, I once had similar attack in the past and it was

Imagine the following scenario Last Saturday, 3:00 AM a big phishing attack hits our e-mail inboxes. Spamassassin does not mark them as spam, and our 50.000+ users have in their mdbox a very credible phishing attack. What doveadm-fu could I use to delete (or move to spam) that e-mail from each user INBOX (let?s imagine the Subject or a Header is known)? I repeat: already delivered e-mail, how

Yes it is true and the very reason why i want all my Google Group Friends to be aware of the latest scams. They are not listed on the Scam Buster sites simple because they go unnoticed , well people like me get duped though. Please read <http://workfromhomedepot.blogspot.com/2008/02/latest-email-scam-fraud-phishing-online.html>and forward to all the people you care for. -- Yours Sincerely

On 07/28/2015 03:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> said: >> Much of the evil on the Internet today ? DDoS armies, spam spewers, phishing botnets ? is done on pnwed hardware, much of which was compromised by previous botnets banging on weak SSH passwords. > Since most of that crap comes from Windows hosts, the security of Linux >

FYI/Heads up, I /just/ received what looks like a phishing attempt for information about Open Source PBX usage. It says it comes from Digium but all the links (including the one for digium.com) point elsewhere. Rod --

Always Learning wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 12:54 -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> James B. Byrne wrote: >> > On Thu, January 5, 2017 17:23, Always Learning wrote: >> >> >> >> Cyber attacks are gradually replacing armed conflicts. >> > >> > Better fight with bits than blood. >> >> Yes, but... attacks on the friggin'

IPS HLBR - Version 1.0 can detect malicious traffic using regular expressions Version 1.0 of Hogwash Light BR, released march 5th 2006, brings two interesting new features. The first one is the ability of using regular expressions to detect intrusion attempts and e-mails with virus or phishing. The second is the use of lists with banned words. HLBR is an IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) that

Only 100? We had a single server over 300. From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Zeeshan Zakaria Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:49 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Under heavy attack My count has reached 100 for the day. The server serves doesn't serve

so last night all my servers were severely probed and they tried to violate me (lol) the attack was so egregious I decided to contact the isp for that ip. Telepacific. The ip has some google searches that point to a few spam and a few attacks...So i assume a compromised server. So I sent them the info and said it must be a hacked server (the ip is on their business network) they responded

On 27 May 2015, at 17:56, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I think I found the problem: > https://opia.illinois.edu/content/targeted-attack-protection-tuning > > UIUC is apparently rewriting HTML links in emails to redirect through urldefense.proofpoint.com. This is visible in my version of Rui's email. Thanks for the investigation. Can we turn this off?

Matthew Broadhead <matthew.broadhead at nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote: >> does anyone know of a linux module (maybe similar to fail2ban) that >> could be installed which would monitor email logs (sign ins) and alert >> the user to any suspicious activity on their account? I just monitor straight from the logs using homebrew utilties. @lbutlr" <kremels at kreme.com>

> A problem with that, it's a bit cumbersome. You have to realize what the > cause of the problem, so that adding the flag will fix it (why is ssh > failing anyway?). And then check the exact syntax. And write that, on the > command-line. It is another option though. Personally, I set IdentitiesOnly yes as the global default in ~/.ssh/config, and explicitly set the preferred key

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.41 Problem: Logcheck try to detect if log file have been rotate or not by file size way. Possible attack: - current log file (sizeA) - run logcheck, (logcheck/logtail put inode in offsetfile), offset=sizeA - [attacker run attack 1] - run logrotate - [attacker run attack 2] - run logcheck may don't detect the rotation and don't check the log for attack 1

Question, there are the teardrop, ping of death, DoS and a host of other forms of attacks. While all of the research that I have been doing concerning another form of an attack.... I became sorta stumped on an idea... is there anywhere.... a description on what to expect or what happenes during any one of these or other attacks listed somewhere? If so, could someone please direct me in that

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > tags 496359 security Bug#496359: The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian packages There were no tags set. Tags added: security > tags 496360 security Bug#496360: The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian packages Tags were: confirmed Tags added: security > tags 496362 security

Hi List, optimizing the configuration on one of our servers (which was hit by a brute force attack on dovecot) showed an odd behavior. Dovecot Version 1.0.7 (CentOS 5.2) The short story: On one of our servers an attacker did a brute force attack on dovecot (pop3). Since the attacker closed and reopened the connection after every user/password combination the logs showed many lines like