Discuss August 2009

discuss@lists.centos.org

282 participants
265 discussions

Re: [CentOS] BIND vulnerability
by shprahi shprahi 03 Aug '09

03 Aug '09

Hi All, I am using Caching DNS server with Bind 9 bind-utils-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.1 bind-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.1 bind-chroot-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.1 system-config-bind-4.0.3-2.el5.centos bind-libs-9.3.4-10.P1.el5_3.1 I am getting Error : named[22851]: mem.c:1061: REQUIRE((((ctx) != ((void *)0)) && (((const isc__magic_t *)(ctx))->magic == ((('M') << 24 | ('e') << 16 | ('m') << 8 | ('C')))))) failed named[22851]: exiting (due to assertion failure) Is this related to above bug? Thanks in advance shprahi On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Kenneth Porter <shiva(a)sewingwitch.com>wrote: > Slashdot carried this story yesterday on a BIND vulnerability: > > < > http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/0028231/New-DoS-Vulnerability-In-All-… > > > > The upstream report: > > <https://www.isc.org/node/474> > > Red Hat's Bugzilla: > > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514292> > > >From what I'm reading, if one has an Internet-facing master for a zone, > one > is vulnerable, even if dynamic DNS isn't being used. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >

1 0

things weirdly different in new installation
by fred smith 02 Aug '09

02 Aug '09

I've just built a new system and installed latest Centos 5.3 on it. My old box also has an up to date Centos 5 on it. Some things are just plain different between the two installations, and it's stumping me why that would be. Example: on the old box, the shutdown dialog offers restart, cancel, shutdown, and also standby and hibernate. and the standby and hibernate options work, too. The new box, it only offers restart, cancel, or shutdown. Oddly, the main "System" dropdown offers "suspend" as well as "logoff" and "shutdown" submenus. Since it's a desktop, I won't often want to suspend or hibernate, but it may occasionally be nice to have the option to hibernate (e.g., power is off, UPS is about dead, hibernate could save my work.) Ideas, anyone? Thanks! -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." ------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------

3 3

Embedded Question
by Joseph L. Casale 02 Aug '09

02 Aug '09

A friend asked me to setup an embedded appliance with an RO root for minimal maintenance to primarily stream shoutcast out to an amp. The only thing I knew that might do this is iMedia Linux, but the project is practically dead with little to no activity. Is it possible to do something like this with CentOS? Doesn't seem to be much info on the /etc/sysconfig/readonly-root file. Anyone know a good place to get info on this? I would rather use CentOS if possible as I also want to use this a firewall/vpn for them and that would be easy and reliable w/ CentOS. Thanks! jlc

4 3

Centos convert to rhel?
by Bob Hoffman 01 Aug '09

01 Aug '09

Hate to ask, but after reading the last few months of centos history online I am worried. And to learn the lead guy seems to have absconded with the cash and left all the hard working devs high and dry..well that is scary. They all worked so hard and who knows what will happen now. If centos falls I have no choice but to go to redhat. I am wondering if the conversion will be easy or a complete reinstall. I ponder the worries I think we are all faced with here. I think all of us would follow a fork... Whatever they end up calling it. But I am worried about the immediate future for the project. None of those guys deserve what is happening to them and all of us are affected. If anyone lives near Lance, perhaps a good call to the local news station and some you tube stuff may get him to release the project to the team who wants to continue. But an option to go full redhat is one I am now considering.. Discuss?

15 18

Re: [CentOS] Open Letter to Lance Davis
by James B. Byrne 01 Aug '09

01 Aug '09

Since 2004 or so, I have donated each year to the CentOS project, at the requested rate, for each of our servers. While I never really gave the matter any thought (fool that I am) I presumed that any organisation that solicited funds would, at a minimum, be incorporated, have a board of directors, duly appointed officers and hold all corporate identity elements such as internet domain names, brand trademarks and such as corporate property. Evidently, my beliefs in this matter were sadly unfounded. Now, I appreciate that whilst somewhat embarrassing, the immediate matter is easily resolved, turning as it does on retention or depreciation of the centos.org domain. Presumably those who donated bandwidth and servers to the CentOS.old project will in the main continue to support the CentOS.new project. Equally, unless some injury that has not yet come to light has been done to them, it seems likely that most of the current maintainers will move their loyalties and future technical contributions to CentOS.new. However, having been bitten once, I feel that I must ask this more formal question. What steps, if any, have been taken to establish the CentOS project as a separate legal entity distinct from any individual contributor? What protections are being put in place to prevent future misappropriations of donations and advertising revenue, even if it turns out that no such thing has as yet happened? Sincerely,

5 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss August 2009