Very Computer

by **Shot** » Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:28:32

Hi all.

I am wondering, where is the /etc/inetd.conf file which used to be there in
linux 6.2. By the way... I am using Linux 7.

My box was just hacked. I am also wondering, what are the default security
holes in linux 7 that would led to a system compromise?

thank you very much for the time.

tony

by **elle..** » Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:55:30

> I am wondering, where is the /etc/inetd.conf file which used to be there in
> linux 6.2. By the way... I am using Linux 7.

It's gone, since 7 no longer comes with inetd. The package you're
looking for is xinetd, and it's configuration is in /etc under that
path.

--

by **Jonatha** » Fri, 08 Dec 2000 04:00:00

Quote:> Hi all.

> I am wondering, where is the /etc/inetd.conf file which used to be
there in
> linux 6.2. By the way... I am using Linux 7.

> My box was just hacked. I am also wondering, what are the default
security
> holes in linux 7 that would led to a system compromise?

> thank you very much for the time.

> tony

How do you know your box was hacked? If it was, you should take it
offline, reinstall, patch the installation -- see
http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/updates.html) -- and consider setting
up a firewall.

(btw: redhat!=linux)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **jose** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 01:07:18

> I am wondering, where is the /etc/inetd.conf file which used to be there in
> linux 6.2. By the way... I am using Linux 7.

xinetd. look at my documentation on it:

http://cwrulug.cwru.edu/archive/cwrulug/200011/0043.html

Quote:> My box was just hacked. I am also wondering, what are the default security
> holes in linux 7 that would led to a system compromise?

look at http://www.redhat.com/apps/support/updates.html

there are a lok of RH7 problems security wise.

by **Tomasz Lomotowsk** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:27:18

>> If you require security, you may want to go back to a release that is more
>> tried and true, such as redhat 6.2.
> If you do go back to RH 6.2, please do not forget to apply the hundred or so
> security patches.

I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
knows?

Thorgal

by **Erwan Davi** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:21:32

TL> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
TL> knows?

Because they wanted to relase a 7.x version ?

--
N'ouvrez aucun message ayant pour objet RETURNED OR ENABLE TO DELIVER.
ce virus se greffe tout seul tout les composants de votre ordinateur
et les dtruit. Ce message vous est envoy par l'quipe du QUICK DRIVE
-+-AL in: Guide du Neuneu Usenet - Le virus Mad Cow frappe encore -+-

by **Tim Hayne** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:31:16

> > If you do go back to RH 6.2, please do not forget to apply the hundred
> > or so security patches.

> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
> knows?

Pardon? You serious? "Because it wouldn't be RH6.2?" suffice?

Look into it; I think you'll find that *some* packages RH drop back into
the regular RPMS/ directory, but others they leave lying around on
updates.redhat.com (and mirrors, obviously).

The former *partly* covers folks doing later installations of 6.2, but
strikes me as though they do it sneakily.

~Tim
--

All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org

by **Tomasz Lomotowsk** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:45:14

> TL> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
> TL> knows?
> Because they wanted to relase a 7.x version ?

And they did, but it is said that RH 7 is bringing new holes draging old
ones behind. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thorgal

by **Tim Hayne** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:08:24

> > TL> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates.
> > TL> Anyone knows?

> > Because they wanted to relase a 7.x version ?

> And they did, but it is said that RH 7 is bringing new holes draging old
> ones behind. Correct me if I am wrong.

Like what, exactly?

It's a distro; it involves versions of software packages, and surprisingly
enough, if you want to test a set of version for mutual compatibilitym you
have to freeze development and concentrate on those versions.

And and awful lot of security bugs apply to `all versions prior to 1.2.3',
too, so it's not exactly surprising that that apply in RH versions up to
6.2 and maybe 7.0 as well.

~Tim
--

And you watch the ripples flow | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org

by **Corey Lan** » Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:13:01

> > > If you do go back to RH 6.2, please do not forget to apply the hundred
> > > or so security patches.

> > I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
> > knows?

> Pardon? You serious? "Because it wouldn't be RH6.2?" suffice?

> Look into it; I think you'll find that *some* packages RH drop back into
> the regular RPMS/ directory, but others they leave lying around on
> updates.redhat.com (and mirrors, obviously).

> The former *partly* covers folks doing later installations of 6.2, but
> strikes me as though they do it sneakily.

> ~Tim

Reading all these about RH7, how is it with Mandrake 7.2?
security wise.

corey

by **$kr1pt_k1..** » Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:57:34

>> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates. Anyone
>> knows?
> Pardon? You serious? "Because it wouldn't be RH6.2?" suffice?

Tim, I think you must have mis-read. He wasn't suggesting that 6.2 be
released, he was suggesting that an updated version of 6.2 be released, and
be called 6.2.X.

--
............................................................................

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society

............................................................................

by **Jonatha** » Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:41:23

> > TL> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those
updates. Anyone
> > TL> knows?

> > Because they wanted to relase a 7.x version ?

> And they did, but it is said that RH 7 is bringing new holes draging
old
> ones behind. Correct me if I am wrong.

> Thorgal

I don't know for sure that this is true, but I am on Redhat's errata
mailing list and most of the updates for which I receive notification
(maybe 65%) apply to 7.0 and not earlier versions.

Maybe the reason Redhat is not releasing a 6.2.x version is that they
are more concerned with getting new users to try Linux so they can
maintain their position as the leader in linux distros (judging by the
install base in the US anyway) rather than focusing on security.
Releasing another 6.2 branch would surely confuse new users.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

by **Tim Hayne** » Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:08:17

> >> I wonder why they didn't release RH 6.2.x with all those updates.
> >> Anyone knows?

> > Pardon? You serious? "Because it wouldn't be RH6.2?" suffice?

> Tim, I think you must have mis-read. He wasn't suggesting that 6.2 be
> released, he was suggesting that an updated version of 6.2 be released,
> and be called 6.2.X.

D'oh, I think I missed the '.x'. Ho hum.

(Who needs minor version numbers when they can confuse the issue with major
ones, honestly? ;)

~Tim
--

Another kernel recompile |http://piglet.is.dreaming.org

by **Luke Voge** » Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:31:02

> Maybe the reason Redhat is not releasing a 6.2.x version is that they
> are more concerned with getting new users to try Linux so they can
> maintain their position as the leader in linux distros (judging by the
> install base in the US anyway) rather than focusing on security.
> Releasing another 6.2 branch would surely confuse new users.

I may be missing the point here, but if you look at all the redhat
mirrors, there is an "upgrade" directory where you can obtain packages
within the distro that have been upgraded.

I suppose if you look at it ... 6.2 is 6.2 is 6.2 ... the distro is the
same, but some of the packages have been upgraded. Bind 8.2.2p7 comes
to mind here.

I haven't even looked at rh7 yet, because I'm not a fan of using version
1 (or x.0 in this case) of _any_ software. Although I expect that most
of the core packages are latest versions, the upgraded kernel etc is
IMHO largely untried and should be treated with a healthy level of
paranoia until _proven_ otherwise.

... just my 2c.

--
Regards
Luke
PLEASE NOTE: Spamgard (tm) installed.
----
"Normal people ... believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features ... yet." -- Scott Adams
----
http://www.bell-bird.com.au

----

by **elle..** » Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:05:57

>> Tim, I think you must have mis-read. He wasn't suggesting that 6.2 be
>> released, he was suggesting that an updated version of 6.2 be released,
>> and be called 6.2.X.
> D'oh, I think I missed the '.x'. Ho hum.
> (Who needs minor version numbers when they can confuse the issue with major
> ones, honestly? ;)

This actually exists somewhat in the 7.x series, where updates are
periodically released on CD.

Which brings us to the point, every RH release number corresponds to
an actual burnt CD product. Defining an entire set of packages as
RedHat X.Y makes alot of things easier. Adding a number to track
updates would make things significantly worse for alot of people.

--

Very Computer

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question

redhat security question