greg at mdntridr
Mar 21, 2005, 7:04 PM
Post #1 of 1
(335 views)
Permalink
|
gentoo-security+help [at] robin wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Password handling of a system with many
> administrators
> From:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv [at] gentoo>
> Date:
> Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:49:51 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Friday 11 March 2005 18:02, Barry.Schwartz [at] chemoelectric wrote:
>
>
>>With sudo, you are making it so password sniffing sufficient to gain
>>ordinary user access is also sufficient to give root access. I think
>>the password for sudo access should be a distinct passphrase used only
>>for that. This the main reason I quit using sudo.
>>
>>
>
>As far as I know, sudo uses pam for authentication. You could configure
>the pam service for sudo to use different passwords than the login
>passwords.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Password handling of a system with many
> administrators
> From:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier [at] gentoo>
> Date:
> Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:43:46 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Thursday 17 March 2005 06:49 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
>
>>As far as I know, sudo uses pam for authentication. You could configure
>>the pam service for sudo to use different passwords than the login
>>passwords.
>>
>>
>
>sudo *can* use pam (and does in the default Gentoo setup with USE=pam), but it
>doesnt require it
>-mike
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Rui Covelo <rpfc [at] mega>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:15:06 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] lists
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] lists
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Inspired by this article (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/12298) at
> security focus, I was wondering what can be done to protect our gentoo
> machine against forkbombs or similar problems.
>
> What is the best way to protect our system against this?
>
> Do you think this kind of problems are important when were talking
> about our desktop box or only in big system with many users?
>
>
> BTW, I tried a fork bomb on my gentoo desktop box. Couldn't even log
> in as root to stop it. :\
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:37:18 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:15:06 +0000, Rui Covelo <rpfc [at] mega> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>Inspired by this article (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/12298) at
>>security focus, I was wondering what can be done to protect our gentoo
>>machine against forkbombs or similar problems.
>>
>>What is the best way to protect our system against this?
>>
>>Do you think this kind of problems are important when were talking about
>>our desktop box or only in big system with many users?
>>
>>BTW, I tried a fork bomb on my gentoo desktop box. Couldn't even log in
>>as root to stop it. :\
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>
>Hi Rui,
>
>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate limits
>into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>
>* soft nproc 100
>* hard nproc 150
>
>will prevent the spawning of more than 150 processes per user and thereby
>limit the impact of forkbomb attacks. Personally, I think it would be a good
>idea to have some sane default values in this file. If somebody really needs
>more processes, open files, etc. they can always up them.
>
>cheers,
>Markus
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Sven Wegener <swegener [at] gentoo>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:55:14 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:37:18AM -0600, Markus Dittrich wrote:
>
>
>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate limits
>>into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>
>>* soft nproc 100
>>* hard nproc 150
>>
>>will prevent the spawning of more than 150 processes per user and thereby
>>limit the impact of forkbomb attacks. Personally, I think it would be a good
>>idea to have some sane default values in this file. If somebody really needs
>>more processes, open files, etc. they can always up them.
>>
>>
>
>See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85656 for discussion and
>progress on integrating sane defaults into Gentoo's limits.conf.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Sven Wegener <swegener [at] gentoo>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:55:14 +0100
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:37:18AM -0600, Markus Dittrich wrote:
>
>
>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate limits
>>into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>
>>* soft nproc 100
>>* hard nproc 150
>>
>>will prevent the spawning of more than 150 processes per user and thereby
>>limit the impact of forkbomb attacks. Personally, I think it would be a good
>>idea to have some sane default values in this file. If somebody really needs
>>more processes, open files, etc. they can always up them.
>>
>>
>
>See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85656 for discussion and
>progress on integrating sane defaults into Gentoo's limits.conf.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [gentoo-security] Interesting syslog entries.
> From:
> Emre Saglam <emre [at] emresaglam>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:41:34 -0500
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to get your opinions on finding some interesting syslog
> entries to capture with swatch or similar log analyser programs. Is
> there a common knowledge base on this subject? (discussion list,
> forums). I already analyse things like root password changes,switch to
> promiscous mode, etc... What areyou guys looking for in your logs?
>
> Thanks! :)
> Emre
> --
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Interesting syslog entries.
> From:
> "Joey McCoy" <ixion [at] cfl>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:03:35 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>I personally use Logwatch and pay attention to disk free space, and more
>importantly ssh/login attempts/failures/successes. I haven't looked too
>much into adding custom entries in Logwatch, but I think I might look into
>the GRSecurity logging extensions as well. I would definitely consider
>paying attention to any externally accessible services being analyzed
>(apache, mysql, etc). :)
>
>HTH
>
>cheers!
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I just wanted to get your opinions on finding some interesting syslog
>>entries to capture with swatch or similar log analyser programs. Is
>>there a common knowledge base on this subject? (discussion list,
>>forums). I already analyse things like root password changes,switch to
>>promiscous mode, etc... What areyou guys looking for in your logs?
>>
>>Thanks! :)
>>Emre
>>--
>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Interesting syslog entries.
> From:
> "Joey McCoy" <ixion [at] cfl>
> Date:
> Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:03:35 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>I personally use Logwatch and pay attention to disk free space, and more
>importantly ssh/login attempts/failures/successes. I haven't looked too
>much into adding custom entries in Logwatch, but I think I might look into
>the GRSecurity logging extensions as well. I would definitely consider
>paying attention to any externally accessible services being analyzed
>(apache, mysql, etc). :)
>
>HTH
>
>cheers!
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I just wanted to get your opinions on finding some interesting syslog
>>entries to capture with swatch or similar log analyser programs. Is
>>there a common knowledge base on this subject? (discussion list,
>>forums). I already analyse things like root password changes,switch to
>>promiscous mode, etc... What areyou guys looking for in your logs?
>>
>>Thanks! :)
>>Emre
>>--
>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Rui Covelo <rpfc [at] mega>
> Date:
> Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:26:29 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
> CC:
> Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>, gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>>Hi Rui,
>>
>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>
>>
>>
>(...)
>
>
>>cheers,
>>Markus
>>
>>
>
>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Rui Covelo <rpfc [at] mega>
> Date:
> Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:26:29 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
> CC:
> Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>, gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>>Hi Rui,
>>
>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>
>>
>>
>(...)
>
>
>>cheers,
>>Markus
>>
>>
>
>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Calum <gentoo-security [at] umtstrial>
> Date:
> Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:10:59 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin, Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:29PM +0000, Rui Covelo wrote:
>
>
>>>Hi Rui,
>>>
>>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>(...)
>>
>>
>>>cheers,
>>>Markus
>>>
>>>
>>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>
>Calum
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Calum <gentoo-security [at] umtstrial>
> Date:
> Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:10:59 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
> CC:
> gentoo-security [at] robin, Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:29PM +0000, Rui Covelo wrote:
>
>
>>>Hi Rui,
>>>
>>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>(...)
>>
>>
>>>cheers,
>>>Markus
>>>
>>>
>>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>
>Calum
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Andrew Ross <aross [at] whitley>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:26:01 +1100
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 23:10 +0000, Calum wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:29PM +0000, Rui Covelo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Hi Rui,
>>>>
>>>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>(...)
>>>
>>>
>>>>cheers,
>>>>Markus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> "Brian G. Peterson" <brian [at] braverock>
> Date:
> Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:31:31 -0600
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Sunday 20 March 2005 05:10 pm, Calum wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>>
>>
>
>The mailing list address is in both the To: and the CC: for this thread.
>quite annoying.
>
>Regards,
>
> - Brian
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Andrew Ross <aross [at] whitley>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:33:30 +1100
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 10:26 +1100, Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 23:10 +0000, Calum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:29PM +0000, Rui Covelo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Hi Rui,
>>>>>
>>>>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
>>>>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>(...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cheers,
>>>>>Markus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>
>but only when the sender includes gentoo-security in both the To and CC
>fields.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Pedro Venda <pjlv [at] mega>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:14:05 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Markus Dittrich wrote:
> | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:15:06 +0000, Rui Covelo
> <rpfc [at] mega> wrote:
> |
> |>Hi!
> |>
> |>Inspired by this article (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/12298) at
> |>security focus, I was wondering what can be done to protect our gentoo
> |>machine against forkbombs or similar problems.
> |>
> |>What is the best way to protect our system against this?
> |>
> |>Do you think this kind of problems are important when were talking
> about
> |>our desktop box or only in big system with many users?
> |>
> |>BTW, I tried a fork bomb on my gentoo desktop box. Couldn't even log in
> |>as root to stop it. :\
> |>
> |>--
> |
> |
> | Hi Rui,
> |
> | To protect against this kind of attack you should put the
> appropriate limits
> | into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
> |
> | * soft nproc 100
> | * hard nproc 150
> |
> | will prevent the spawning of more than 150 processes per user and
> thereby
> | limit the impact of forkbomb attacks. Personally, I think it would
> be a good
> | idea to have some sane default values in this file. If somebody
> really needs
> | more processes, open files, etc. they can always up them.
>
> but who (what process(es) look into those files? init? login? pam
> plugins?
> the kernel (hardly, I guess)?
>
> where are the hooks to implement such limits?
>
> regards,
> pedro venda.
> - --
>
> Pedro Joćo Lopes Venda
> email: pjlv < at > mega.ist.utl.pt
> http://arrakis.dhis.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCPh/deRy7HWZxjWERAuYbAKCvPbBqisjJ761NKhscAaO8AbeYJgCfbj7m
> N8kS5OsMRcRRcL94fqhG6ys=
> =ooZ3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] protecting agains forkbombs (and similar problems)
> From:
> Pedro Venda <pjlv [at] mega>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:14:45 +0000
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
> CC:
> Markus Dittrich <markusle [at] gmail>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Calum wrote:
> | On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:29PM +0000, Rui Covelo wrote:
> |
> |>>Hi Rui,
> |>>
> |>>To protect against this kind of attack you should put the appropriate
> |>>limits into /etc/security/limits.conf. E.g.
> |>>
> |>
> |>(...)
> |>
> |>>cheers,
> |>>Markus
> |>
> |>Nice! Didn't know about that file. That's a start. Thanks! ;)
> |>
> |
> |
> | Anyone else getting two copies of each message?
>
> yes.
>
> regards,
> pedro venda.
> - --
>
> Pedro Joćo Lopes Venda
> email: pjlv < at > mega.ist.utl.pt
> http://arrakis.dhis.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCPiAFeRy7HWZxjWERApqfAJ9kemUl88XKJjg/AysdE1JNXlkqfQCfbaH2
> YJ44mtDjyQVSF6a/HbZD/VY=
> =8j7f
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Interesting syslog entries.
> From:
> "Joerg Mertin" <smurphy [at] solsys>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:34:07 +0100 (CET)
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
><quote who="Joey McCoy">
>
>
>>I personally use Logwatch and pay attention to disk free space, and more
>>importantly ssh/login attempts/failures/successes. I haven't looked too
>>much into adding custom entries in Logwatch, but I think I might look into
>>the GRSecurity logging extensions as well. I would definitely consider
>>paying attention to any externally accessible services being analyzed
>>(apache, mysql, etc). :)
>>
>>
>
>I do more or less the same - but graphs say more than 1000words - so I
>wrote some little extensions to phpWebSite to actually show me some data
>on what is going on on my systems. Disk-Usage, CPU-Loads,
>Login-Attempts/Failures, Detected Viruses, SMTP-Connections, passed mails,
>detected Spam/Rejected Spam etc. Check it out on my
>webpage:http://www.solsys.org/mod.php?mod=systat&op=disp_ind&host_id=1
>
>Cheers
>
>Joerg
>
>
>
>>HTH
>>
>>cheers!
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I just wanted to get your opinions on finding some interesting syslog
>>>entries to capture with swatch or similar log analyser programs. Is
>>>there a common knowledge base on this subject? (discussion list,
>>>forums). I already analyse things like root password changes,switch to
>>>promiscous mode, etc... What areyou guys looking for in your logs?
>>>
>>>Thanks! :)
>>>Emre
>>>--
>>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [gentoo-security] Interesting syslog entries.
> From:
> "Joey McCoy" <ixion [at] cfl>
> Date:
> Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:40:02 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
> To:
> gentoo-security [at] robin
>
>
>Hey very nicely done! Quite impressive! :)
>
>
>
>
>><quote who="Joey McCoy">
>>
>>
>>>I personally use Logwatch and pay attention to disk free space, and more
>>>importantly ssh/login attempts/failures/successes. I haven't looked too
>>>much into adding custom entries in Logwatch, but I think I might look
>>>into
>>>the GRSecurity logging extensions as well. I would definitely consider
>>>paying attention to any externally accessible services being analyzed
>>>(apache, mysql, etc). :)
>>>
>>>
>>I do more or less the same - but graphs say more than 1000words - so I
>>wrote some little extensions to phpWebSite to actually show me some data
>>on what is going on on my systems. Disk-Usage, CPU-Loads,
>>Login-Attempts/Failures, Detected Viruses, SMTP-Connections, passed mails,
>>detected Spam/Rejected Spam etc. Check it out on my
>>webpage:http://www.solsys.org/mod.php?mod=systat&op=disp_ind&host_id=1
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Joerg
>>
>>
>>
>>>HTH
>>>
>>>cheers!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>I just wanted to get your opinions on finding some interesting syslog
>>>>entries to capture with swatch or similar log analyser programs. Is
>>>>there a common knowledge base on this subject? (discussion list,
>>>>forums). I already analyse things like root password changes,switch to
>>>>promiscous mode, etc... What areyou guys looking for in your logs?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks! :)
>>>>Emre
>>>>--
>>>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>| Joerg Mertin : smurphy [at] solsys (Home)|
>>| in Forchheim/Germany : smurphy [at] linux (Alt1)|
>>| Stardust's LiNUX System : |
>>| Web: http://www.solsys.org |
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>PGP Fingerprint: AF0F FB75 997B 025F 4538 5AD6 9888 5D97 170B 8B7A
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-security [at] gentoo mailing list
|
