main

main@lists.alug.org.uk

10369 discussions

Would someone burn a distro for me?
by James Freer 24 May '14

24 May '14

My PC I think has a faulty DVD drive/corrupted installation as it doesn't seem to burn. My spare machine with a CDROM doesn't seem to work now and for some odd reason neither boot on the USB (even with PLoP). Not been a good day! If someone is prepared to help me out maybe you can reply off list - I live North of Bury. The distro is Fedora xfce and Salix (CDs as opposed to DVD). thanks james

1 2

Fwd: Re: Overheard in the bar
by RustyHinge 24 May '14

24 May '14

Apropos Chalk Hill? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Overheard in the bar Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:53:41 +0100 From: Znep <E-0C001302-5256-E(a)cleopatra.co.uk> Organization: None, really.... Newsgroups: uk.rec.sheds etc. In uk.rec.sheds, (Murff) wrote in <ll917d$q4k$20(a)dont-email.me>:: >On Sun, 18 May 2014 01:58:53 +0100, Mike Fleming wrote: > >> I've had some that's been good and >> some that hasn't coped so well. > >Just finishing some Naylor's Old Ale, from Kildwick. About 1 mile from >here, bought by the case from the brewers. At that distance, whether beer >travels or not is rather less of an issue. Um. I once took a mate of mine to the Lass o'Gowrie, and had a pint of their finest- which I rather liked. He didn't. "Where's this from?" he asked. "They make it out the back, there." "Huh. Doesn't travel well, does it?" -- Marc

1 0

I haven't tried *really* hard, but...
by Anthony Anson 19 May '14

19 May '14

Thunderguts is set to read Usenet offline. Posts for only one group are duly downloaded, but try to access them? Every time I try to open one, the cursor on the newsgroups column goes to the next one, where there are, of course, only headers. Is this a feature? Or am I doing something silly? -- Tony http://www.girolle.co.uk/

1 0

Re: [ALUG] Is there any point in using an 'unusual' private IP address range for security?
by Phil Ashby 18 May '14

18 May '14

On 18/05/14 12:00 Chris Green <cl(a)isbd.net> wrote: > ... > What I'm thinking of doing to improve my security (or at least reduce > the likelihood of a break-in doing much damage) is to have a dedicated > 'dmz' server on the LAN/WAN between the Speedtouch router and the > 2820n's WAN port. I can then open up the appropriate ports on *that* > system to provide access from the outside world but if someone breaks > in they won't be able to see anything much except that machine and a > couple of routers. This would be a "good thing" (tm), provided there are appropriate firewall settings on the 2820 that prevent connections from the DMZ back into the house network (ie: treat the DMZ as the internet from the house network point of view). > My question is about what private IP address ranges to use, currently > they're as follows:- > > 2820n - 192.168.1.1 > This has *everything* hanging on it, backup NAS, family > computers, media boxes, etc. > > Speedtouch - 192.168.13.254 > 2820n WAN - 192.168.13.65 (assigned by Speedtouch DHCP) > New dmz computer would be added to this LAN > > > Would it be worth changing things around so that the Speedtouch LAN is > 192.168.1.x (the almost universal default for home LANs) and the 2820n > one is 192.168.13.0, or even 10.0.0.0 or 172.16.0.0 so that an > intruder is less likely to guess that there's another LAN to look for? > I know this is 'security by obscurity' to some extent but it's no > effort really except some minor configuration changes to some static > addresses and DHCP servers so if it offers any advantage it's probably > worth doing. Prior knowledge of internal network addressing may help someone prepare a drive-by attack on your 2820 via your browser, otherwise there won't be much extra protection once they are on the DMZ host and can see all the network traffic passing by. Phil

1 0

Is there any point in using an 'unusual' private IP address range for security?
by Chris Green 18 May '14

18 May '14

I am in the process of reconfiguring my home LAN. Currently my desktop computer (which is also an 'always on' server machine) is visible to the outside world on several ports: ssh, smtp, http and maybe a couple of others (I'd have to check the router configuration to be sure). I have two ADSL connections, both with static IP and I use a Draytek Vigor 2820n router for load balancing. The 2820n handles one ADSL connection and there's an old Speedtouch ADSL modem/router on the other phone line whose LAN side connects to the 2820n's ethernet WAN input. What I'm thinking of doing to improve my security (or at least reduce the likelihood of a break-in doing much damage) is to have a dedicated 'dmz' server on the LAN/WAN between the Speedtouch router and the 2820n's WAN port. I can then open up the appropriate ports on *that* system to provide access from the outside world but if someone breaks in they won't be able to see anything much except that machine and a couple of routers. My question is about what private IP address ranges to use, currently they're as follows:- 2820n - 192.168.1.1 This has *everything* hanging on it, backup NAS, family computers, media boxes, etc. Speedtouch - 192.168.13.254 2820n WAN - 192.168.13.65 (assigned by Speedtouch DHCP) New dmz computer would be added to this LAN Would it be worth changing things around so that the Speedtouch LAN is 192.168.1.x (the almost universal default for home LANs) and the 2820n one is 192.168.13.0, or even 10.0.0.0 or 172.16.0.0 so that an intruder is less likely to guess that there's another LAN to look for? I know this is 'security by obscurity' to some extent but it's no effort really except some minor configuration changes to some static addresses and DHCP servers so if it offers any advantage it's probably worth doing. -- Chris Green

1 0

Is there a better 'locate' anywhere?
by Chris Green 16 May '14

16 May '14

Does anyone else find that 'locate' does all the wrong things for them? It's not that it's incapable of doing what I want but the defaults seem to be set up to be purposely the opposite of what I actually need it to do. The defaults for 'find' on the other hand are almost exactly what I want to do when searching for files. When you give 'locate' a name to search for it finds everything with that string of characters in it, this nearly always results in zillions of hits I don't want. However 'find' only finds exact matches unless you specify an RE explicitly. Yes, I know that you can tell 'locate' to find only exact matches but the default is wrong for me. Secondly 'locate' searches the whole file system, I very rarely want to do this especially as there are incremental backups which produce dozens of near identical hits. With 'find' I can specify (have to specify in fact) the root of the search which again is nearly always exactly what I want to do. In this case it's much more difficult to make 'locate' work the same way as 'find' because you'd have to rebuild the database (I did do that once but my changes got lost in an upgrade I think). So, is there an alternative out there that works (by default preferably) like 'find' but uses a pre-built database like 'locate' so is reasonably fast? -- Chris Green

4 6

FTP server with compression for large text files
by Mark Rogers 16 May '14

16 May '14

I need to set up an FTP server to host fairly large text files (.CSV). At the FTP client level these need to be uncompressed but I'd like to reduce server disk requirements by using compression. I guess I could either do this at a file system (FUSE) level or transparently within an FTP server, assuming there is an FTP server that can do this. Anyone got any experience with this or suggestions? -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG

3 10

Scrap IT kit
by Laurie Brown 13 May '14

13 May '14

Hi all, Does anyone on the list know of a company in East Anglia that buys scrap IT kit? Servers, desktops, routers, that sort of thing. I've got quite a lot to clear, and I don't really want to give it to the Council! Cheers, Laurie. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Brown laurie(a)brownowl.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: [ALUG] What am I doing wrong?
by mark fernandes 11 May '14

11 May '14

But the mailing list page does point to this About.com page on setting various clients to plain-text http://email.about.com/od/netiquettetips/qt/When-In-Doubt-Send-Plain-Text-E… HTH, Mark

1 0

Why do apache2 and leafnode need /etc/hosts configured with a FQDN?
by Chris Green 10 May '14

10 May '14

I have just moved dnsmasq from one machine to another, the machine I moved it from was only running dnsmasq so it was a bit of a waste of electricity and configuration maintenance. I'm now running dnsmasq on the machine where I also run apache2 and leafnode. Both leafnode and apache2 were perfectly happy before the dnsmasq move, they got a FQDN from dnsmasq presumably as there was nothing in the local /etc/hosts. Since moving dnsmasq to the same machine as leafnode and apache2 I've had to add a line:- 192.168.1.4 chris.zbmc.eu to my /etc/hosts, just chris won't do, even though dnsmasq delivers a correct FQDN with just chris. It's as if leafnode and apache2 go direct to /etc/hosts first. It's hardly a big deal but it just seems wrong somehow, why don't apache2 and leafnode use 'the proper channels'? -- Chris Green

2 2

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

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

main