|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?
From: Jan Räther (jan
newtention.de)Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 05:32:42 CST
- Next message: Boris Lorenz: "RE: [suse-security] chroot"
- Previous message: r.maurizzi
gvs.it: "Re: [suse-security] Firewall 4.0"
- In reply to: Kurt Seifried: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Next in thread: Roman Drahtmueller: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Reply: Jan Räther: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > Hi,
> >
> > > running on it. I have here a Linux-Box which acts as a
> > > Masquerading-Gateway. There a no services running on it, just the
> > > Masq-Script as described in the SuSE Support Database ...
> >
> > Be sure not to start the inetd and for doubleproof
> > comment out all services in the /etc/ined.conf
>
> rpm -e inetd. why needlessly complicate things.
>
inetd is not installed.....
Jan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe
suse.com
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help
suse.com
- Next message: Boris Lorenz: "RE: [suse-security] chroot"
- Previous message: r.maurizzi
gvs.it: "Re: [suse-security] Firewall 4.0"
- In reply to: Kurt Seifried: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Next in thread: Roman Drahtmueller: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Reply: Jan Räther: "Re: [suse-security] is it "safe" ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]