Linux Vendors Warn of Flaws

[Kurt]

MS will be switching to patches instead of full binary replacement. Dunno when but it's in the pipe. So no more 300MB downloads.

[albatorsk]

The best way to update mandrake is to configure your sources(for web update) and then type

urpmi --auto-select
(or something similar)

In the console, yes I do know I keep harping on about liking gui tools, but this by far the easisast way to update mandrake.

Originally posted by The PIT
Sadly in this day and age you shouldn't have to do that.

I'm sorry, but why not? Is there something wrong with your keyboard? If it's used mainly for telneting to other machines, shouldn't you be rather comfortable with typing in commands? Or if the complaint is about having to manually tell the machine to update, then just put it in a crontab and it'll do it all by it self.

[leech]

Ok, I actually have quite a bit of experience with MDK 9.2 (well, just took it off my server, because quite frankly I love debian ). The reason that the kernel-update probably isn't listed for you, is because you have to check a configuration in it to specifically look for kernel-updates. Probably just to preven people from flubbing it.

If all you use your box for is telneting.... THERE is your first security risk right there! no one uses telnet anymore, SSH is where it's at...

GUI tools are nice, but in my experience, it's best to have it both ways. For instance, copying and moving files is SO much easier and faster with a command line. With GUI file managers, you have to either open up two windows where you want to copy from and to, or you have to open one window, right click, select copy, then go to the folder you want it in, then right click and paste. Now unless your other hand is busy doing something else (like if you're a fat guy sitting in front of his PC eating chips with his left hand and doesn't want his keyboard greasy) then it's SO much easier to just copy with the command line like so, 'cp /us[tab]shar[tab]...' well, you get the picture. I love the auto-complete

Leech

[DentyCracker]

or just say copy to and browse like in xp. no one opens two windows anymore i hope

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by DentyCracker
or just say copy to and browse like in xp. no one opens two windows anymore i hope

How do I do that? I'm sitting with a WindowsXP Pro-installed PC right now, and I assumed it would be in the context menu of a selected file, but the only thing I can find which resembles that is "Send to", which doesn't allow me to browse.
Note: This isn't my PC so something may be changed from a default install.
Note 2: I found it. "Tasks" under "Folder options -> General" was set to "Use Windows classic folders".

[MultimediaMan]

If all you use your box for is telneting.... THERE is your first security risk right there! no one uses telnet anymore, SSH is where it's at...

Spoken like a truly vapid Linux fanboy. Try doing that in the Enterprise with thousands of boxen: It won't work.

[Sasq]

MMM you still use telnet at work?
ouch

[dZeus]

Originally posted by MultimediaMan
Spoken like a truly vapid Linux fanboy. Try doing that in the Enterprise with thousands of boxen: It won't work.

you do realise that someone only has to sniff some packets to get full access to your company network when you use telnet, right?

[MultimediaMan]

Sasq; I understand this very well.

Without going into too much detail; There are ways to secure a network other than using SSH that don't require as much bandwidth. Sniffing a Switched Network is a difficult proposition nowadays anyway.

[Sasq]

yes, there are other ways to secure the network, however I am more concerend with passwords being sent in clear text.

Wouldn't it be much saner to use ssh and rsa keys? and do away with passwords all together.

Nor should you be accessing the systems so much via telnet that bandwidth is even a factor.

[dZeus]

when would bandwidth for SSH start playing a role? when you open a couple of thousand concurrent connections to the same box????

[MultimediaMan]

Again, I can't comment on how our network security is handled, but I can say that bandwidth is extremely limited.

The Entire network is private.

[dZeus]

limited as in 2400 baud? can't think of any other situation where SSH would require enough more bandwidth than telnet that it would make any difference.

[Sasq]

it's only so private with how many employees. still bad MMM still very very bad.

I can guess what you use, and I still think your network security head is a hick

[MultimediaMan]

I didn't say I agreed with everything they have implemented. But seriously, in a switched network, sniffing is not as practical a tool as it once was, and topology plays a part in security.