[CLUE-Tech] enabling ftp

[ian]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 08:33:08PM -0700, rfrank wrote:
> On Saturday 17 March 2001 17:51, Match (and others) wrote:
> > Roger,
> >
> > You ABSOLUTELY MUST DISABLE Telnet. Don't even use it. It uses cleartext
> > for everything.
> 
> Ok so now ftp, telnet, and POP3 are disabled.  I'll use ssh when I get that
> installed.  But when I was removing telnet from /etc/services, I saw there 
> were many many other services not commented out.  Are the other services
> secure -- I never hear them mentioned?
> 
> And then there are the ipchains rules.  I think I understand that services
> are controlled by /etc/services, but the legal paths for individual packets
> are controlled by /etc/rc.firewall.  The firewall rules I am using are from
> the August 1999 issue of Linux Magazine.  The rule set is very short
> compared to all the long, complicated ones I've found on the net.  I'm
> thinking I'm not really safe with my always-on connection until there
> are a lot more ipchains entries.
> 
> So much to learn.

Yeah.. No kidding.  I'm still beating my head against the keyboard every once
and a while when I want to make changes to the firewall scripts.  They are
not real easy to read and modify and I haven't found any tools to date that
work for a router / firewall / NAT / DHCP machine.  Almost all that I have
seen are very much one NIC interface setups.  

As for the /etc/services... You should comment it out or upgrade to xinetd
instead of straight inetd.  

www.xinetd.org (or your favorite RPM site for RedHat folks)

ian


Received: from dnvrpop5.dnvr.uswest.net (dnvrpop5.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.128.7])
	by clue.denver.co.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA04149
	for <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:43:49 -0700
Received: (qmail 58352 invoked by uid 0); 17 Mar 2001 22:48:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (63.227.56.141)
  by dnvrpop5.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 17 Mar 2001 22:48:25 -0000
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:48:01 -0700
Message-ID: <000a01c0af34$523d8ea0$0100007f at localhost>
From: "jjcohen" <cjabbe at qwest.net>
To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010317130219.00a76320 at support-one.com>
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] databases and timestamps ... 'since' idiom
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
Errors-To: clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
X-BeenThere: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
List-Id: CLUE technical discussions, questions and answers. <clue-tech.clue.denver.co.us>

How about just ">" (greater than)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Price" <davep at support-one.com>
To: <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: [CLUE-Tech] databases and timestamps ... 'since' idiom


> could someone here please point me in the direction of a simple way to 
> implement a 'since'
> syntax, either in bash or sql (or other) ...
> 
> what i have in mind is a comparison of timestamps contained in both 
> flat-file and postgres table to see if they are 'since' a given time ... 
> i.e. between 'then' and 'now()'
> 
> is there a nice shorthand or 'idiom' for this expression?
> 
> aloha,
> 
> dave price - davep at support-one.com - 303-378-9053
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Tech mailing list
> CLUE-Tech at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
> 
>