Mailing List Archive For debian-security@debian.org Jan 2008 By Date

• Thu Jan 31 2008 - 19:04:22 EST
  • Re: syslogd lsitening on per default Luis Mondesi 
• Thu Jan 31 2008 - 11:37:23 EST
  • Promocao de instrumentos da area medica e odontologica BM Comunicação 
• Thu Jan 31 2008 - 06:18:35 EST
  • Re: syslogd lsitening on per default morla 
• Thu Jan 31 2008 - 02:02:41 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Chris Ferguson 
• Wed Jan 30 2008 - 22:21:09 EST
  • Re: strange output for command ps Steve Suehring 
• Wed Jan 30 2008 - 19:58:09 EST
  • Re: strange output for command ps Stephen Gran 
• Wed Jan 30 2008 - 17:48:10 EST
  • strange output for command ps Lindo Nepi 
• Fri Jan 25 2008 - 16:57:53 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Michelle Konzack 
• Wed Jan 30 2008 - 03:40:04 EST
  • Security review wanted Sebastian Pipping 
• Tue Jan 29 2008 - 19:32:04 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 
• Tue Jan 29 2008 - 14:42:14 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1479-1] New Linux 2.6.18 packages fix several vulnerabilities vasudeva 
• Tue Jan 29 2008 - 13:36:25 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1479-1] New Linux 2.6.18 packages fix several vulnerabilities David Nowak 
• Tue Jan 29 2008 - 10:11:08 EST
  • syslogd lsitening on per default morla 
• Tue Jan 29 2008 - 05:08:13 EST
  • RE: [SECURITY] [DSA 1478-1] New mysql-dfsg-5.0 packages fix several vulnerabilities Frederic Thery 
• Mon Jan 28 2008 - 15:43:01 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Jose Marrero 
• Mon Jan 28 2008 - 12:43:27 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Florian Weimer 
• Sun Jan 27 2008 - 16:25:07 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Florian Weimer 
• Sun Jan 27 2008 - 16:20:48 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 
• Sun Jan 27 2008 - 16:12:02 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Jonas Andradas 
• Sun Jan 27 2008 - 15:58:37 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 
• Sat Jan 26 2008 - 11:40:14 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1475-1] new gforge packages fix cross site scripting wetzel(at)zapware.de 
• Fri Jan 25 2008 - 14:36:29 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 
• Fri Jan 25 2008 - 13:25:27 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Török Edwin 
• Fri Jan 25 2008 - 12:45:26 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 
• Fri Jan 25 2008 - 08:44:51 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Brent Clark 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 19:51:59 EST
  • °µºô¸ô¦æ¾P°e±MÄݺô¯¸ ¥u¨ì2¤ë©³ Yahoo¦n±d³ø³ø 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 18:35:58 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Russ Allbery 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 17:36:04 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Maximilian Wilhelm 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 18:07:15 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? James Shupe 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 17:22:41 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Florian Weimer 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 16:52:02 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Riku Valli 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 16:31:54 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Riku Valli 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 14:03:04 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Rolf Kutz 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 14:15:18 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? William Twomey 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 13:44:33 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Riku Valli 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 13:11:19 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Vincent Deffontaines 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 13:08:15 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Ondrej Zajicek 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 11:48:33 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Riku Valli 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:57:18 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? maximilian attems 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:56:47 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Rolf Kutz 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:29:25 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Michael Loftis 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:37:15 EST
  • Re: Why not have firewall rules by default? Thomas Damgaard 
• Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:19:01 EST
  • Why not have firewall rules by default? William Twomey 
• Tue Jan 22 2008 - 21:18:43 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1466-3] New xfree86 packages fix regression Sven Mueller 
• Sun Jan 20 2008 - 10:22:21 EST
  • I'm keen to get more info about your business Darren Chord 
• Fri Jan 18 2008 - 12:10:32 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1466-1] New xorg-server packages fix several vulnerabilities Cyril Brulebois 
• Fri Jan 18 2008 - 11:44:00 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1466-1] New xorg-server packages fix several vulnerabilities Adrian Minta 
• Fri Jan 18 2008 - 11:41:15 EST
  • Re: [DSA 1466-1] New xorg-server packages fix several vulnerabilities Nick Boyce 
• Fri Jan 18 2008 - 08:28:28 EST
  • Re: Tiger and changing ntp server Jens Schüßler 
• Fri Jan 18 2008 - 05:25:31 EST
  • Tiger and changing ntp server Johannes Graumann 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 18:25:05 EST
  • Security fix for xine-lib 1.1.2 (needs testing) Darren Salt 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 13:57:37 EST
  • re: [32D-0F221B4E-1950] [SECURITY] [DSA 1466-1] New xorg-server packages fix several vulnerabilities Support 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 12:31:32 EST
  • Re: CVE 2008-0001 already fixed? dann frazier 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 12:27:34 EST
  • Re: CVE 2008-0001 already fixed? Nico Golde 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 08:30:55 EST
  • CVE 2008-0001 already fixed? Christoph Anton Mitterer 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 11:14:51 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1465-1] New apt-listchanges packages fix arbitrary code execution Steve Kemp 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 11:27:54 EST
  • Re: How about carrying this list on gmane? Bjørn Mork 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 10:35:47 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1465-1] New apt-listchanges packages fix arbitrary code execution Philipp Kern 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 07:19:46 EST
  • Re: How about carrying this list on gmane? Johannes Graumann 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 07:20:42 EST
  • Re: How about carrying this list on gmane? Johannes Graumann 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 07:13:27 EST
  • Re: How about carrying this list on gmane? Peter Jordan 
• Thu Jan 17 2008 - 07:07:43 EST
  • How about carrying this list on gmane? Johannes Graumann 
• Mon Jan 14 2008 - 03:17:44 EST
  • Re: [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Nihil 
• Sun Jan 13 2008 - 17:33:20 EST
  • Re: [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Moritz Muehlenhoff 
• Sun Jan 13 2008 - 16:10:25 EST
  • Re: [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities chdh 
• Sat Jan 12 2008 - 19:11:14 EST
  • xine-lib (etch) buffer overflow fix Darren Salt 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 13:20:31 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability James Shupe 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 13:07:23 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Noah Meyerhans 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 12:53:08 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Joey Hess 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 08:51:32 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Noah Meyerhans 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 01:28:09 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Russ Allbery 
• Fri Jan 11 2008 - 01:24:28 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Thomas Bushnell BSG 
• Thu Jan 10 2008 - 23:37:15 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Noah Meyerhans 
• Thu Jan 10 2008 - 23:25:07 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Thomas Bushnell BSG 
• Thu Jan 10 2008 - 17:30:26 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Noah Meyerhans 
• Thu Jan 10 2008 - 17:29:18 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1458-1] New openafs packages fix denial of service vulnerability Thomas Bushnell BSG 
• Wed Jan 09 2008 - 14:12:12 EST
  • SMO Services rahul kumar 
• Wed Jan 09 2008 - 14:05:50 EST
  • SMO Services rahul kumar 
• Wed Jan 09 2008 - 04:36:27 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Livo 
• Tue Jan 08 2008 - 13:35:17 EST
  • Re: Advisory description text Moritz Muehlenhoff 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 07:06:59 EST
  • Re: www.juniorguide.com Michelle Konzack 
• Tue Jan 08 2008 - 06:32:06 EST
  • ÄãºÃѽ£¡ ´ú°ì˰Ʊ 
• Tue Jan 08 2008 - 00:38:21 EST
  • Goodbye from our Newsletter Webmaster 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 18:12:21 EST
  • Alborques Online Gallery jzarro(at)clix.pt 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 20:38:00 EST
  • Ref:Uk/9420X2/26 tradeseek16(at)comcast.net 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 19:26:48 EST
  • Clean Plus® The Next Billion Dollar Brand - Buy The Product www.cleanplus.com/shop - Distribute it www.cleanplus.com - Own a Part of It - Buy the Stock on the OTC Symbol FLKI Clean Plus® Product Group OTC : FLKI 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 18:16:05 EST
  • Update of the php.ini-paranoid example file (was Re: ping22: can not kill this process) Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 17:44:23 EST
  • Re: Advisory description text Rob Sims 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 16:20:40 EST
  • Re: Advisory description text Christoph Ulrich Scholler 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 14:54:54 EST
  • Advisory description text Adam Majer 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 05:52:13 EST
  • ÄãºÃѽ£¡ ´ú°ì˰Ʊ 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 03:01:45 EST
  • UZMAN-Ocak 2008 Egitim Takvimi bulten(at)uzmanbilgi.com 
• Mon Jan 07 2008 - 00:22:35 EST
  • Dear Beneficiary, Fondazion Di Vittorio 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 19:32:28 EST
  • BATCH NO: (N-222-6747,E-900-56) Fondazion Di Vittorio 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 15:52:51 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Nihil 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 15:36:56 EST
  • Re: netstat shows strange output Bernd Eckenfels 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 15:26:53 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Nihil 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 14:56:15 EST
  • Re: netstat shows strange output Noah Meyerhans 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 14:36:26 EST
  • netstat shows strange output William Twomey 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 14:14:21 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Bernd Eckenfels 
• Sun Jan 06 2008 - 13:54:38 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Florian Weimer 
• Sat Jan 05 2008 - 17:53:46 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Rick Moen 
• Sat Jan 05 2008 - 16:28:56 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Luis Mondesi 
• Sat Jan 05 2008 - 11:33:07 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Paul Hink 
• Sat Jan 05 2008 - 11:07:19 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1448-1] New eggdrop packages fix execution of arbitrary code Steve Kemp 
• Sat Jan 05 2008 - 04:33:06 EST
  • Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 1447-1] New tomcat5.5 packages fix several vulnerabilities Nihil 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 18:20:26 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Thomas Hochstein 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 19:50:48 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Bernd Eckenfels 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 18:26:37 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Hubert Chathi 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 16:30:18 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Bernd Eckenfels 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 14:06:50 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Hubert Chathi 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 13:53:56 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Rick Moen 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 13:41:55 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Raphael Geissert 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 12:22:42 EST
  • Re: Install process certification paddy(at)panici.net 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 09:33:02 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Marcin Owsiany 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 07:06:27 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Rick Moen 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 06:37:35 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Javier Fernandez-Sanguino 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 06:15:35 EST
  • Install process certification Keyser Söze 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 04:59:18 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Steve Kemp 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 03:04:50 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Felipe Figueiredo 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 02:23:45 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Bernd Eckenfels 
• Fri Jan 04 2008 - 01:46:48 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Rick Moen 
• Thu Jan 03 2008 - 22:13:40 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Mike Wang 
• Thu Jan 03 2008 - 20:55:11 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Luis Mondesi 
• Thu Jan 03 2008 - 18:18:31 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Mike Wang 
• Wed Jan 02 2008 - 10:49:57 EST
  • Re: Are the patches from the recent DSAs incorporated into the current etch kernel? Arne Nordmark 
• Wed Jan 02 2008 - 10:00:26 EST
  • Re: Are the patches from the recent DSAs incorporated into the current etch kernel? dann frazier 
• Wed Jan 02 2008 - 04:03:13 EST
  • Are the patches from the recent DSAs incorporated into the current etch kernel? Arne Nordmark 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 21:46:28 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Mike Wang 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 20:21:19 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Luis Mondesi 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 19:10:02 EST
  • Re: ping22: can not kill this process Mike Wang 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 09:56:22 EST
  • Re: www.juniorguide.com Florian Weimer 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 06:00:50 EST
  • www.pymexpress.com.ar Pls check this new site 
• Tue Jan 01 2008 - 04:39:10 EST
  • Re: www.juniorguide.com Jack T Mudge III 

  This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 05 2008 - 21:48:13 EDT