Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

3 participants
34748 discussions

Roundcube does not show emails
by Nicolas Kovacs 09 Dec '19

09 Dec '19

Hi, I installed Roundcube 1.4.1 on a sandbox server running CentOS 7, Postfix and Dovecot, with half a dozen test email accounts. Mail is setup correctly under the hood, e. g. I can access any account via Thunderbird for sending and receiving mail. And SELinux is set to permissive until everything works correctly. I took some notes (in french) on the installation procedure under CentOS : * https://github.com/kikinovak/HOWTOs/blob/master/Roundcube-HOWTO.txt All tests in the installer (including SMTP and IMAP login) are OK. But still, when I login to an account, no emails are showing. The inbox shows up empty, even if it's not. Another malfunction is that I cannot edit any identity. When I click on the user's identity, I get a spinning wheel, and the page does not open. I already have Roundcube 1.4rc1 running on my main workhorse server, it runs nicely. I tried to figure out what I did differently on that machine, but couldn't figure it out so far. I took a peek in the various log files, but found nothing suspect. Or maybe I don't know what to look for. Any suggestions? I'm a bit clueless here and don't even know where to start. Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info(a)microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12

2 2

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 178, Issue 2
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 09 Dec '19

09 Dec '19

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://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. CEBA-2019:4106 CentOS 7 kernel BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes) 2. CESA-2019:4024 Important CentOS 7 SDL Security Update (Johnny Hughes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:34:10 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2019:4106 CentOS 7 kernel BugFix Update Message-ID: <20191206233410.GA4860(a)bstore1.rdu2.centos.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2019:4106 Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:4106 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: 7c0f528358d229f5d8a4943732c64c291eb4d622282a67211267f9848771e739 bpftool-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 68a58326f03e21a26ad8cfa06d98a66b40d3474cb7a1322d182aa85bd82fdffe kernel-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm dc08e2ce45e21a16867319de8bcfe07ccd19436238e67e2a14b49113143dfca7 kernel-abi-whitelists-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.noarch.rpm e86ddf679897f7c58f1cd7c59deea7c811d8e2b6c2eca45b66d4d72e0a13eb1d kernel-debug-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 16ecdbdf1899c9c7fc7749501289afb31ac41cb084d192a1b97704f0a7df6829 kernel-debug-devel-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 2b647e1c1b73c38452cf1b7e63ac14616950f09ff71c56a7d0ca6c1859cdfa99 kernel-devel-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 3913492dccc72776bdece5a9518ad8393cf1326cb9e8a13b32dde7c2d0459d0c kernel-doc-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.noarch.rpm 63e2f48f7e5a96597803e65f03f057095897e7fe810cadfd3a0b7b57755c355f kernel-headers-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 0ef3d34fcc37e6d8f6a3307e2480fb4beeb07a006ddd934418d02fbeeda2f8da kernel-tools-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 4036170eda34550546b6af42802e317d3ecc700ad04e6475a9b3db96d5571146 kernel-tools-libs-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 06a9ce6ac6d15cf2d151044880718433100a26b800f50be65bf0b6687eea0a62 kernel-tools-libs-devel-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm d94bf5dab81bb51ec6378c4b3a2bd71394610204cabc060786e29b63f30ec090 perf-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm 8ea59b7f8659cb632658c1ae8670c39a4d3c6bc408d70ec6bb3e18736d72d131 python-perf-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64.rpm Source: 236afc13e45937c5743783b535e69f38b62fb87f28aa22a91dff6da0394586d8 kernel-3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:34:45 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2019:4024 Important CentOS 7 SDL Security Update Message-ID: <20191206233445.GA5005(a)bstore1.rdu2.centos.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2019:4024 Important Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4024 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: e3e9919525fe486bdd22e798d6ca8111312381f94fd884f2954496ec730d2ee1 SDL-1.2.15-15.el7_7.i686.rpm 85d5a427278e873245663ec50c7b43ac344bc9065b00cd4524eceb1606dde028 SDL-1.2.15-15.el7_7.x86_64.rpm a1000d5515233e0c7df795a5ce8b8195c954944219c6e3c433e1e148565db5d7 SDL-devel-1.2.15-15.el7_7.i686.rpm a5ceebc69680d7c13c5b37e8832e191607a4b78a76494c960299e040d5cdc596 SDL-devel-1.2.15-15.el7_7.x86_64.rpm ec79803f3d0e7c6524813a770440c37e986189a852b182a576c5c103de1bff11 SDL-static-1.2.15-15.el7_7.i686.rpm e4b6bd7edae68323de424e56ceabdaaa3454a29a1903632a54e1543ebab93759 SDL-static-1.2.15-15.el7_7.x86_64.rpm Source: 7ee11ba232b1b2adc95fff9ceebd35c9ccd1153c920f6d19c1e140b9be0b8667 SDL-1.2.15-15.el7_7.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net Twitter: @JohnnyCentOS ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce ------------------------------ End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 178, Issue 2 ***********************************************

4 4

Updating firefox after a long time yum-excluded it and having installed it from .rpm
by wwp 08 Dec '19

08 Dec '19

Hello, I've been stuck for a while with an old version of firefox, installed from local .rpm (I know.. I should have downgraded using yum, instead) and added a exclude=firefox to the relevant .repo file. I did that after a yum-update has brought firefox 52+, and all add-ons were deprecated because of their new add-on scheme. Today that all the add-ons I need are available, I've tried upgrading to the latest Firefox version available from the updates repo.. I removed the exclude line in .repo file, but `yum update` didn't bring any firefox version at all: "No packages marked for update". I've struggled a bit, no way to get firefox installed using yum. See.. $ rpm -q firefox firefox-52.8.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 $ yum info firefox Installed Packages Name : firefox Arch : x86_64 Version : 52.8.0 Release : 1.el7.centos Size : 149 M Repo : installed From repo : /firefox-52.8.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 [snip] $ yum search firefox firefox.x86_64 : Mozilla Firefox Web browser $ yum update firefox No packages marked for update $ rpm -q firefox firefox-52.8.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 $ rpm -e firefox $ rpm -q firefox package firefox is not installed $ yum install firefox No package firefox available. Even: $ yum localinstall firefox-68.2.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm Examining firefox-68.2.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm: firefox-68.2.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 Nothing to do I still can install it using `rpm -i`, but I'm afraid yum-updates will not bring anything later. What an I doing wrong? Regards, -- wwp https://useplaintext.email/

2 2

abc
by matrix 07 Dec '19

07 Dec '19

1 0

Virtual problem
by Nikos Gatsis - Qbit 06 Dec '19

06 Dec '19

Hello list. I have already install winserver 2019 on centos 7 qemu and works fine. Now I install a second image with win 2019 and It connects to internet but I cant ping it or connect to it. Both installations use the same br0. Is that correct? Any other suggestions? Thank you. Nikos.

2 1

Re: [CentOS] VPN connections subject to hijack attack
by Stephen John Smoogen 06 Dec '19

06 Dec '19

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 04:40, Kenneth Porter <shiva(a)sewingwitch.com> wrote: > > <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-linux-vulnerability-lets…> > Thanks for the heads up > This affects all VPNs and is a consequence of using "loose" reverse path > filtering for anti-spoofing. The default CentOS setting is strict filtering > but you may have changed this to loose for some unusual routing situations. > Check that the value of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter is still set > to 1. If it's set to 2 (loose filtering), you're vulnerable. > So for ipv4 CentOS 7 and 8 may not be vulnerable out of the door (they set to 1 versus 0 which the announcement says is kernel default and sfe). However, they found ipv6 works without rp_filter so this is a problem. But guess what it gets worse .. every Unix and semi Unix OS seem vulnerable.. from the email: We have discovered a vulnerability in Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, MacOS, iOS, and Android which allows a malicious access point, or an adjacent user, to determine if a connected user is using a VPN, make positive inferences about the websites they are visiting, and determine the correct sequence and acknowledgement numbers in use, allowing the bad actor to inject data into the TCP stream. This provides everything that is needed for an attacker to hijack active connections inside the VPN tunnel. Now if 2 is needed for anything like docker/containers/etc then people are going to be royally screwed. > Technical details: > > <https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2019/q4/122> > > According to the report, systemd changed the default to 2 in November 2018 > so many distros are vulnerable. > > Here's Red Hat's explanation of why you might want to use a value of 2. > "When RHEL has multiple IPs configured, only one is reachable from a remote > network. Or why does RHEL ignore packets when the route for outbound > traffic differs from the route of incoming traffic?" > > <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/53031> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Stephen J Smoogen.

2 1

Failed to load SELinux policy- freezing
by Bill Gee 06 Dec '19

06 Dec '19

This is annoying! I have a CentOS7 virtual machine running on VirtualBox. Short version: At boot the system locks with a message: "Failed to load SELinux policy, freezing." VirtualBox thinks it is still running, and I can see it consuming a small amount of CPU time. But it never goes past this message. The problem actually started with a problem in the sound system on this virtual machine. It would boot a ways through, then abort with no warning and no message. It just went away. Looking at the VirtualBox log file, I saw that the last line in the file was something about failing to initialize a stream associated with PulseAudio. In VirtualBox settings for the machine I disabled all audio. It then booted. I was in the process of gathering information for a problem report at VB when it started giving the message about SELinux policy. There were several aborts including one where it almost got to loading the X server and going graphical. SELinux is disabled on the computer, so I don't understand why it is even trying to load a policy. Is there a kernel parameter I can give it to stop SELinux? Is there any other way to get past this message? -- Bill Gee

1 1

VPN connections subject to hijack attack
by Kenneth Porter 06 Dec '19

06 Dec '19

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-linux-vulnerability-lets…> This affects all VPNs and is a consequence of using "loose" reverse path filtering for anti-spoofing. The default CentOS setting is strict filtering but you may have changed this to loose for some unusual routing situations. Check that the value of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter is still set to 1. If it's set to 2 (loose filtering), you're vulnerable. Technical details: <https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2019/q4/122> According to the report, systemd changed the default to 2 in November 2018 so many distros are vulnerable. Here's Red Hat's explanation of why you might want to use a value of 2. "When RHEL has multiple IPs configured, only one is reachable from a remote network. Or why does RHEL ignore packets when the route for outbound traffic differs from the route of incoming traffic?" <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/53031>

1 0

updates to rpm/kernel-rt
by Mercado, Ronaldo (DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI) 06 Dec '19

06 Dec '19

Hi, I am writing because I would like to know if centos will update the kernel-rt package from https://git.centos.org/rpms/kernel-rt/releases ? I ask because bz#1550584 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550584 mentions "fixed in version kernel-rt-3.10.0-1063.rt56.1023.el7" And the latest tag in "releases" link above is for kernel-rt-3.10.0-1062.7.1.rt56.1030.el7 1062 vs 1063 I would like to see if the kernel update fixes my latency problem. Thanks. Ronaldo -- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom

1 0

Forcing TLS for SMTP?
by Lists 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

I have a goal of securing email. Updated the company mail server and DNS (CentOS 7 + Postfix, otherwise pretty stock) with support for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. So far, all good, and everything "just works". Our mail server has supported SMTP / TLS for a long time, but recently I've been considering requring TLS all the time. Is there anybody here who's done this? Has it caused any particular fallout? I'm curious about: 1) Requiring SMTP / TLS for any inbound email. 2) Requiring SMTP / TLS for any outbound email. Thanks

4 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