Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

Bug in freeradius 1.1.3-1.5.el5_4 rpm
by Ian Forde 22 May '10

22 May '10

I upgraded one of my servers to CentOS 5.4 today. The freeradius service (radiusd) didn't start up due to permissions errors. I tracked it to the permissions on the /etc/raddb/certs/ directory being set to 640 rather than 750, so the radius user couldn't enter the directory. In the spec file from the source rpm, line 200 should read: %attr(750,root,radiusd) %config (noreplace) /etc/raddb/certs rather than the current: %attr(640,root,radiusd) %config (noreplace) /etc/raddb/certs Note that this bug also exists in the the 1.1.3-1.4.el5 version that's part of the CentOS 5.4 release. I'm not sure if it exists upstream though, but there it is... ;) -I

3 3

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?
by Michael Lampe 22 May '10

22 May '10

> ... I understand now ... No, you don't. > is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue > receiving security updates? It's strictly linear and one-dimensional. Point releases only mark a specific point in time, where you get a little bit more, e.g. additional drivers, an optional new version of samba, etc. You always type 'yum update' and go ahead. Nothing else.

2 1

GRUB Hard Disk Error
by Jozsi Vadkan 22 May '10

22 May '10

I've got two pendrives. I want to install a Debian on them. RAID1. Ok... ... After I installed it in RAID1, it works perfectly, ok! :) When I pull out one of the pendrive [good pendrive], it still boots up, hurrah :) But: ... When I pull out the other pendrive [i plug in the first one i tried] it say's: GRUB hard disk error What can I do? I already tried: grub-install /dev/sdc <-that's the pendrive name [bios -> hard drive emulation=hard drive, not auto] or: # grub find /boot/grub/stage1 hd0,0 hd1,0 root (hd0,0) setup (hd0,0) etc. What's the solution? Please help me:\ I can't just dd the first 512 Byte of the "good pendrive", because the uuid is stored there. [needed for the sraid..] It gets to the grub, so it's not a ""boot-order problem"" How can I install grub to these two pendrives, so that if one of the pendrives die, it would still be a bootable system?

4 4

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 63, Issue 3
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 22 May '10

22 May '10

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2010:0423 Important CentOS 3 i386 krb5 - security update (Tru Huynh) 2. CESA-2010:0427 Moderate CentOS 3 i386 postgresql - security update (Tru Huynh) 3. CESA-2010:0423 Important CentOS 3 x86_64 krb5 - security update (Tru Huynh) 4. CESA-2010:0427 Moderate CentOS 3 x86_64 postgresql - security update (Tru Huynh) 5. CESA-2010:0423 Important CentOS 4 i386 krb5 - security update (Tru Huynh) 6. CESA-2010:0423 Important CentOS 4 x86_64 krb5 - security update (Tru Huynh) 7. CESA-2010:0428 Moderate CentOS 4 i386 postgresql - security update (Tru Huynh) 8. CESA-2010:0428 Moderate CentOS 4 x86_64 postgresql - security update (Tru Huynh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 00:00:31 +0200 From: Tru Huynh <tru(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2010:0423 Important CentOS 3 i386 krb5 - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20100521220031.GU23916(a)sillage.bis.pasteur.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2010:0423 krb5 security update for CentOS 3 i386: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2010-0423.html The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: updates/i386/RPMS/krb5-devel-1.2.7-72.i386.rpm updates/i386/RPMS/krb5-libs-1.2.7-72.i386.rpm updates/i386/RPMS/krb5-server-1.2.7-72.i386.rpm updates/i386/RPMS/krb5-workstation-1.2.7-72.i386.rpm source: updates/SRPMS/krb5-1.2.7-72.src.rpm You may update your CentOS-3 i386 installations by running the command: yum update krb5\* Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B

1 0

hello centos network
by fakessh 22 May '10

22 May '10

hello to postfix when a new update in the deposits postfix in the deposits is outdated

2 1

Re: [CentOS] setup firewall with 3 nic cards
by J.Witvliet＠mindef.nl 21 May '10

21 May '10

Hi Jerry, Just a general remark. When deploying a firewall, it is advisable to have (atleast for input, better for all) to have the general policy set to drop, and only allow in what you expect to be coming in. If you put a "-j log" line as a final line for each section, you'll see every packet you forgot about... Now the default is "allow", and only doing some SNAT and DNAT rules... hw -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Geis Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:10 AM To: CentOS ML Subject: [CentOS] setup firewall with 3 nic cards I have a centos box with 3 nics. eth0 is internal, eth1 is T1 data and eth2 is cable data. Everything is working on eth2 cable. External NAT is working just fine for eth2. However external address 74.x.x.x on eth1 is not working. Below is my iptables information. I setup eth1 same as eth2 just a different IP address of course. What did I miss that eth1 and NAT is not working? Just looking for both public IP's incoming to NAT to the correct IP address. Only 1 is working at this time. Thanks, Jerry --------------- Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT (2 references) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 255 ACCEPT esp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT ah -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 224.0.0.251 udp dpt:5353 ACCEPT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:631 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:631 ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:25 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:22 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:80 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-host-prohibited Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 24.123.23.170 tcp dpt:22 to:192.168.1.209:22 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 24.123.23.170 tcp dpt:25 to:192.168.1.209:25 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 24.123.23.170 tcp dpt:80 to:192.168.1.209:80 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 74.223.8.179 tcp dpt:22 to:192.168.1.58:22 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 74.223.8.179 tcp dpt:25 to:192.168.1.58:25 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 74.223.8.179 tcp dpt:80 to:192.168.1.58:80 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination SNAT all -- 192.168.1.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 to:24.123.23.170 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.209 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 SNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.58 to:192.168.1.1 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 24.123.23.168 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 eth2 74.223.8.176 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 0.0.0.0 24.123.23.169 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ______________________________________________________________________ Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten. This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.

2 1

Re: [CentOS] OT: Strange Email Problem
by Mr Gabriel 21 May '10

21 May '10

You might want to run your MTA's ip address through a blacklist checker. Also, do you use srv records? Has anything here changed? I've found that when it comes to email, its quite plausible for your system to break because of an external party, for example, do you use the relay of your ISP? If you do, run their ip through a blacklist db, in case someone on their end has been spamming. If you didn't change anything, then consider the above factors, I hope it helps :) --- Kind Regards, Mr Gabriel (bberry mail)

1 0

Can't umount flash drive because an application has it locked
by MHR 21 May '10

21 May '10

This occasionally happens to me when I've been editing an OOo document that resides on a flash drive I use with one of my laptops. I've tried poking around in ps to find out which process has the drive locked, and I can't figure it out. Nothing directly refers to the flash drive except one of the hald processes, and it's just scanning the drive (I tried killing that and it made no difference). My usual sequence of events is as follows: 1. Plug in the flash drive. 2. Wait for it to appear on the desktop. 3. Start up a terminal window (which recognizes the flash drive and runs sudo to allow execute permissions on the drive). 4. Run the script that unzips the files I want. 5. Open the file with the OO writer, edit it for a while, then save and close it. 6. Update the zip archive (on the flash drive). 7. Close the terminal window. 8. Umount the drive, which fails. I've tried waiting for as much as five minutes, running sync - nothing. The last three times this happened, I had to shut down the laptop (which I was going to do anyway) in order to free the flash drive. This takes several minutes, which can be precious when I need to bag the laptop in a hurry. There's nothing in any of the syslogs. The laptop was just updates to the L&G CentOS 5.5. What am I missing? Thanks. mhr

4 5

Grub Error 22; no Windows
by Jeff Sadino 21 May '10

21 May '10

Hello, I have a GridEngine setup with 5 subnodes and two RAIDS attached. I backed up the OS drive - 120GB - to an external hard drive - 500GB - using ddrescue. The OS drive is partitioned as: sda1 has the OS and is about 7 GB sda2 has /var and is about 4 GB sda3 has swap and is about 1 GB After backing up, there were 4KB of errors, but all at the end of the disk around 118GB. This used to be a partition back in the day, but I deleted it accidentally. I want to back up to this new larger disk b/c the original 120GB disk is discontinued. I boot from a live cd - SystemRescue CD - and run e2fsck -c -c -C 0 y on sda1 and sda2 on the backup drive, and it seems to finish fine. Then I replaced the OS drive with the backup drive, and it goes to boot, then Grub Loading Stage 1.5; Error 22. Here's the important stuff from fstab: # This file is edited by fstab-sync - see 'man fstab-sync' for details LABEL=/1 / ext3 defaults 1 1 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 /dev/md0 /export ext3 defaults 0 0 none /proc proc defaults 0 0 none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0 LABEL=/var /var ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=SWAP-sda3 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sdb1 swap swap defaults 0 0 # The ram-backed filesystem for ganglia RRD graph databases. tmpfs /var/lib/ganglia/rrds tmpfs size=252709000,gid=nobody,uid=nobody,defaults 1 0 /dev/hda /media/cdrom auto pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0 I boot up from the live cd, and then tell it to search for bootloaders on the drives, and it finds one, and it goes through, and then throws errors b/c it is mounting the OS /sda1 drive and then trying to run fsck on it. I tried setting the error-check values to 0 for /1 and /var, but it is still trying to error check it. My blkid says that sda1, sda2, and sda3 all have different UUIDs. sdc1, sdd1, and md0 all have the same UUID. md0 is a RAID1 comprised of sdc1 and sdd1. sdc and sdd are identical drives. This used to happen, and I would just restart a couple of times, and it would sneak on past the error eventually, but to no avail this time. Does anyone have any ideas? Thank you so much! And thank you to the dozen people who offered advice on the best backup option. After reading all of the replies and the links, I think I will prob go with the rsync-backup suggestion. Mahalo, Jeff

1 1

Nautilus: Error: Not on the same filesystem
by Frank Cox 20 May '10

20 May '10

There appears to be a new bug in Nautilus in Centos 5.5 when trying to move and delete files. Error "Not on the same file system" while moving. A google search found this: http://centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26205&forum=37 -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss