similar to: Another Fedora decision

On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 15:04 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:12 PM, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: > >> The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the PDF > >> shows every page appears to be readable. 11 pages devoted to BASH. > >>

> On Feb 10, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > 2. PDFs can be created by *NON-ADOBE* software. And SWFs can be generated by non-Adobe software, and JARs can be generated by non-Oracle software. What?s your point? Is it that only Evil Corporations can create software that can be used for evil purposes? Are you back on the ?F/OSS software is

On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 16:39 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > On 2/10/2015 3:28 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > 3. The Russian's web site is that of a devote cyclist. > > oh, well, I'm glad that makes the copyright violation of stealing an > authors work OK in your book. Another bored expert desperate for a modicum of excitement ? You have absolutely no prima facie

On 2/10/2015 3:28 PM, Always Learning wrote: > 3. The Russian's web site is that of a devote cyclist. oh, well, I'm glad that makes the copyright violation of stealing an authors work OK in your book. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast

On Tue, February 10, 2015 6:58 pm, Always Learning wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 16:39 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 2/10/2015 3:28 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> > 3. The Russian's web site is that of a devote cyclist. >> >> oh, well, I'm glad that makes the copyright violation of stealing an >> authors work OK in your book. > > Another

On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 11:12 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: > > The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the PDF > > shows every page appears to be readable. 11 pages devoted to BASH. > > Information on other interesting topics too. > > on a site hosted in Russia which appears to be FULL of copyright

On Mon, February 9, 2015 3:28 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-02-09, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 11:12 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: >> >>> On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: >>> > The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the >>> PDF >>> > shows

On 2015-02-09, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 11:12 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > >> On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: >> > The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the PDF >> > shows every page appears to be readable. 11 pages devoted to BASH. >> > Information on other

On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: > The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the PDF > shows every page appears to be readable. 11 pages devoted to BASH. > Information on other interesting topics too. on a site hosted in Russia which appears to be FULL of copyright violations. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere

On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:28 -0800, Keith Keller wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 11:12 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > >> > >> on a site hosted in Russia which appears to be FULL of copyright violations. > On 2015-02-09, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > > Probably not really a software pirate but an individual (and a keen > >

On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 17:14 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > On 2/10/2015 4:58 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > You have absolutely no prima facie evidence to support your assertion. > > Seriously? from page 5 of said PDF. > > Copyright ? 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. > Printed in the United States of America. This publication is >

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On > Behalf Of Karanbir Singh > Sent: 03 April 2015 01:00 > To: centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on > x86_64 > > On 02/04/15 21:35, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > > > See my reply earlier. The

Hi, OK, I'm perplexed by this and I know it has to be possible, but having poured through the Samba docs and various Samba books, I can't find anything other than what I've tried.... I need to protect certain files within a users home directory, so they cannot be deleted. Some of these files need to be readable and writeable so I can't restrict it with Linux file permissions.

Sad to say one of my file servers was exploited and used to run a Phishing scam. Have identified subject virus amongst other things. It appears twice in a virus scan; /sbin/z (which I assume can just be deleted) and /sys/bus/serio/drivers/atkbd/description. The latter file is also present in identical uninfected machines. I have been unable to open the file, even with root privileges, although

On Wed, February 4, 2015 16:55, Warren Young wrote: >> On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: >> >> Again, the real bruteforce danger is when your /etc/shadow is >> exfiltrated by a security vulnerability > > Unless you have misconfigured your system, anyone who can copy > /etc/shadow already has root privileges. They do not need

On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 17:49 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > Polio was almost completely eradicated, but it?s starting to come back in the middle east after the CIA used a fake vaccination campaign as a pretext to try to get into bin Laden?s Pakistan compound: The Taliban were created and funded by the USA, using the Pakistani intelligence service, to give the Russian invaders of Afghanistan a

On 02/04/2015 04:55 PM, Warren Young wrote: > Unless you have misconfigured your system, anyone who can copy > /etc/shadow already has root privileges. They don?t need to crack your > passwords now. You?re already boned. Not exactly. There have been remotely exploitable vulnerabilities where an arbitrary file could be read (not written), but otherwise root access wasn't given

Hi, I''m working on a web app that allows users to submit links to external sites. I''m curious if there are any special security considerations I should take aside from escaping the user input with h( )? Is it safe to directly link_to h(user_inputted_url), h(user_inputted_url) or could that be exploited in a way that I''m not thinking of. Thanks. -------------- next

The default behavior of FXListBox seems to be to grow and shrink in width depending on the length of the selected entry in the list. This is a problem when the list contains items of varying width, because if a short item is picked then the longer entries are obscured in the drop-down list. Is this deliberate, an oversight, or a bug? Its certainly not how I''d choose it to act. Is

On Mon, February 2, 2015 4:17 pm, Warren Young wrote: >> On Jan 31, 2015, at 8:04 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> >> wrote: >> >> 1. The password strength decision is driven by RH corporate. > > So who do you believe is driving RH corporate? Why are they expending the > effort to do this? > > The answer is clear to me: general security