When installing a new kernel (CentOS in this case) I've always done a full
shutdown and boot from the console following the advice on the Customer
Information page. However, this time I accidentally did a "shutdown -r" but
it did actually pick up the new kernel.
Have improvements in Xen made the advice redundandant?
Thanks,
Mike
Hi,
I've seen a bunch of scans for this exploit across my hosts, and
have already heard of some hosts compromised by it:
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2014/Apr/240
So if you run Nagios NRPE, please make sure to:
- Firewall it off appropriately
- Use its config options for restricting who can talk to it
- Disable client specification of command arguments if possible
- Upgrade to a fixed version
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce
Hello,
If you've been reading tech news in the last 24 hours then you're
probably aware of "heartbleed", but if not then you will want to
have a read of:
http://heartbleed.com/
and take appropriate action.
If you trust this site you can use it to check if your HTTPS server
is vulnerable or not:
http://filippo.io/Heartbleed/
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce
636 - ldaps (caught me out at work)
Cheers,
Alun.
--
Sorry for any typos - sent from my phone
Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:31:42PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
>> We're going to do some scans of our IPv4 space to look for services
>> vulnerable to the OpenSSL "heartbleed" vulnerability, so we can open
>> tickets with customers about it¹.
>
>The first round of these tickets has now been created, so if you
>didn't get one that means:
>
>- Congratulations, you weren't vulnerable! Or;
>- We missed something, or;
>- Our email (from support(a)bitfolk.com) went into your spam folder
>
>At the moment we are only checking ports: 25, 443, 465, 587, 993,
>995, 8443. Can you think of any others that are likely to have SSL
>services on?
>
>I'll save further discussion for the users list from now on.
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
>
>--
>http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
>_______________________________________________
>announce mailing list
>announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com
>https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce
>
>_______________________________________________
>users mailing list
>users(a)lists.bitfolk.com
>https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
On 11 April 2014 09:00, <users-request(a)lists.bitfolk.com> wrote:
> We're going to do some scans of our IPv4 space to look for services vulnerable to the OpenSSL "heartbleed" vulnerability, so we can open tickets with customers about it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/11/heartbleed_health_checking_services…
I hope nobody calls the police :) Just in case I confirm my explicit permission.
Steve
Hello all,
Wondering if any of you have experience with this.
I have two domains, wiggly.org (A) and alertferret.com (B).
A has been registered since 1994.
B was registered very recently, within 6 months.
I run email for both of these domains on the same server,
otter.wiggly.org using Exim.
I have the exact same MX and SPF records for both domains;
@ 3600 IN MX 10 mail.wiggly.org.
@ 3600 IN SPF "v=spf1 mx -all"
@ 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx -all"
Sending email from domain A to gmail/hotmail appears in the main inbox.
Sending email from domain B end up in the spam folder for both.
Now, I am wondering why this would be seeing as there has been
practically no email from domain B and therefore I find it unlikely that
the domain itself has been flagged.
All I can see is that domain A is a lot older but I have only recently
added SPF and have never really had problems with my emails from domain
A being consumed by spam folders.
Checking a couple of blacklist checkers I cannot find my domain or my MX
on any of them.
Does anyone have an idea as to why domain B would be getting caught in
spam traps whilst A does not?
I have had someone suggest using mandrill or other external hosted
solution but quite frankly if the mail is being blocked because it is
being sent from domain B then that surely wouldn't give me any improvement?
Any help, ideas, thoughts or further resources would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Nigel
It's on this PC rather than on a server, but apt-get has become
incredibly slow recently. Reading the package lists is taking many
minutes - using time to see how long 'sudo apt-get update' takes reckons
it's
Fetched 115 kB in 6s (17.7 kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done
real 28m27.642s
user 0m19.944s
sys 0m7.828s
The root partition with /var/lib/dpkg is on an SSD drive, which has
80+GiB free space and is regularly 'trimmed'. There's nothing using an
enormous amount of CPU or disk access. Even large applications are quick
to start.
Any ideas as to why this is happening?
Ian
Dear All
Today I did 'git clone myUser@myHost.ch:myProject'. The I saw for quite
a while 'Receiving objects: 100% (338/338), 23.88 MiB | 92 KiB/s'.[1]
So, receiving rate was around 100 KiB/s. Is that a reasonable speed? I
think download speed at my home should be around 2000 KiB/s.[2]
Do I have to be worried that some nasty person is using bandwith of my
vps?
Regards,
Sam
[1]
Cloning into 'myProject'...
remote: Counting objects: 338, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (323/323), done.
remote: Total 338 (delta 126), reused 0 (delta 0)
Receiving objects: 100% (338/338), 23.88 MiB | 92 KiB/s
[2]
wget
https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-27.0.1-SSL&os=linux&lang=de
[snip]
12% [====> ] 2.999.240 2,33M/s
--
Samuel Bächler
Obere Bläsistrasse 1
8049 Zürich
+4143 817 4628
+4179 478 4942
