[F9] Proxychains question
by Luc MAIGNAN
Hi,
I try to pass via proxies by setting proxychains.
The proxies I use are availables.
In the facts,
proxychains ping host => OK
proxychains ssh host => access denied
proxychains telnet host => access denied
proxychains lynx host => access denied
Has someone an idea ?
BR
16 years, 1 month
DES, kerberos, and kermit?
by Tom Horsley
I tried to build kermit from source on fedora 9, and got
a bunch of link errors when I built with kerberos support
turned on. Here's a bit of correspondence from the kermit
guru, Frank da Cruz:
>> I tried the linux+krb5+openssl+zlib+shadow+pam, but I get the
>> impression that whatever is in the krb5 libs on fedora 9 isn't
>> what the source expects. Lots of link errors (though it compiles
>> OK), and I couldn't find any of the undefined symbols in any
>> libraries I poked around it (but didn't do an exhaustive search):
>>
>Here's what my expert said:
>
> Looks like Fedora 9 removed all DES support. That will effectively
> kill off kerberized telnet and rlogin.
>
>Sigh. Maybe you could send them some feedback and see what they say.
Have I merely failed to install and/or link with some library? Or
has DES been utterly ripped out by fanatical lawyers? Or something
else? Anyone on the fedora list know what going on here?
16 years, 1 month
should I bugzilla xcdroast
by Aaron Konstam
As I said last week I can not get xcdroast to work in f7 or f8. No
matter what I do xcdroast reports that No CD Loaded. k3b however works.
So before a bugzilla on this problem a question.
Has anyone gotten xcdroast to work on f7 or f8? Does it work on f9?
If it works for you are there any tips you want to share?
--
=======================================================================
What does it mean if there is no fortune for you?
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
16 years, 1 month
UUID and Cryptluks-Partitions
by Thomas Kappelmueller
Hello!
I'm having problems using UUIDs and crypted harddrives in Fedora 8.
I have a few harddisks in my server crypted with cryptsetup. No LVM.
(Harddisk<->crypto device<->filesystem)
"cryptsetup luksUUID <device>" returns an UUID.
"blkid" shows all the UUIDs for the crypted harddisks.
When i do a "ls -la /dev/disk/by-uuid/" I don't get the UUIDs for the
crypted harddisks, and i can't mount them with UUID. (I need/want this
because some of the disks are changed around for backups)
Is it a problem if i set the links manually?
Additionally cryptsetup doesn't get along with UUID yet (with luksOpen),
but that shouldn't matter when i just use the path (/dev/disk/by-uuid...).
Thanks for any help in advance
-Tom
16 years, 1 month
Dual boot f8 and f9: bad experiences
by Joachim Backes
Having an F8 installation on my box with some free partition. On this free partition I installed
F9. So far so good: booting F9 was after install ok. Then I rebooted into the old F8 and ma a new
/boot/grub/menu.lst including F9.
But re-writing the bootloader by grub-install failed: problems to read /boot/grub/stage1.
(the correspondent log in /tmp: "Error 2: BAd file or directory type")
Booting after this with grub was impossible.
Checking the inode size of the F8 partition showed me that the inode size was now 256.
It seems that the F9 installer had changed the inode size of the F8 partition to 256.
I had to rebuild the F8 partition by "mkfs.ext3 -I 128 ...", copy and re-copy... After this,
grub-install was running properly in F8.
--
Joachim Backes <joachim.backes(a)rhrk.uni-kl.de>
University of Kaiserslautern,Computer Center [RHRK],
Systems and Operations, High Performance Computing,
D-67653 Kaiserslautern, PO Box 3049, Germany
--------------------------------------------------
Phone: +49-631-205-2438, FAX: +49-631-205-3056
16 years, 1 month
Re: verifying iso images downloaded by jigdo during installation
by Mohammed El-Afifi
The problem is that there's no single site the iso is downloaded from. Jigdo works by downloading single package files from several sites(mirrors) and then accumulating them into a single iso file. I downloaded the jigdo file(the file containing information about the iso images) form the fedoraunity website, however there were no SHA1SUM for these ISO images at that site.
I posted a request on the fedoraunity site so that they may publish the SHA1SUM for these images. If anyone knows where such SHA1SUM files for these images may exist, it would be greatly helpful.
If anyone also has downloaded DVD 2 of that re-spin, he/she may try to test it against the verification step in the installation process. You don't have to perform a real installation to verify the media, just boot a computer and wait till you get into the verification step. If it passes, please calculate the SHA1SUM for the image and post it.
Otherwise, I'm afraid I may have to re-download the the suspected iso image again, which may take a few other days.
----- Original Message ----
From: TV Sivaraman <tvsraman(a)gmail.com>
To: For users of Fedora <fedora-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 12:14:36 PM
Subject: Re: verifying iso images downloaded by jigdo during installation
You can verify using the sha1 text file provided at the download site:
sha1sum file.iso | grep -f sha1.txt.
You should be able to see sha1sum signature after this operation. If a blank line is retuned, means your download image is bad. The above operation takes a long time depending on your system's speed.
Sivaraman.
2008/5/28 Mohammed El-Afifi <mohammed_elafifi(a)yahoo.com>:
I'm downloading the DVD iso images for fedora 9 everything 64-bit using jigdo. This spin comes in 4 DVD's. I've finished downloading the first two DVD iso images completely. I then tried to install fedora 9 and booted my computer using the first DVD.
Before starting anakonda installer, I've the chance of verifying the installation media. When I was prompted for verification, I chose to verify the two DVD's I've till now. Actually, this was the sole purpose of running the installation DVD, to verify the images I downloaded so far.
Everything went all right with DVD 1, however DVD 2 was reported to have errors. I tried to verify DVD 2 using jigdo-file and the template file for DVD 2, and jigdo-file reported that the image is good.
The problem can't even be with my DVD burner, because I haven't burned the images yet. I used VMWare instead to boot a 64-bit virtual machine using the iso files.
So now DVD 2 is reported to have errors by the verification step in the installation process, while jigdo-file reports no errors about the image.
Are all the installation media of the everything spin of fedora 9 64-bit guaranteed to pass the verification process during installation or just the first DVD(probably because it may match the official distribution fedora 9 64-bit DVD while the other DVD's aren't part of the official distribution)? Is there a method to verify the image externally(with a third tool for example) to settle if it's good or not?
Appreciating your help.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Dr. T. V. Sivaraman,
Lane No. 5, 46A, Ravindrapuri,
VARANASI - 221005. INDIA
Ph. No. 91-542-2276605
919451273108
16 years, 1 month
I/O, Sector Error booting Fedora 9 DVD
by Marc Ferguson
Hi,
I'm not in front of my computer (and I'm a linux noob) so my terms and
details may be off a bit. I'm running Fedora 8 on my desktop and I
downloaded the full 4GB iso for F9. I burned the DVD at 18x or some
other god-forsaken slow speed. When I boot with the DVD it gives me
some wierd i/o, sector and I can't continue with the installation.
I'm trying to install it on my IBM Thinkpad R40, but I tried the boot
DVD on my desktop too with the same result.
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Marc F.
"..Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to
come.." -Rev1:4
16 years, 1 month
Fedora 9: Pure-ftpd authentication with pam ??
by fedora
Hi listers
you may tell me that this is ot for this list, but the pure-ftpd mailing
list is as inactive as can be.
I installed Fedora 9 from the live-CD. then, using
System/Administration/Add-Remove Software, I installed pure-ftpd.
Here, all authentication uses pam-ldap which works fine for login, ssh, ...
But with pure-ftpd it just does not work.
in ldap I created a user called taxi just to be flexible to change
attributes.
[taxi@vidigal ~]$ id taxi
uid=1084(taxi) gid=1000(webdesign) groups=1000(webdesign)
[taxi@vidigal ~]$
when i do an ssh logon to taxi:
[myuser@rosetta ~]$ ssh taxi@vidigal
taxi(a)vidigal.lan's password:
Last login: Wed May 28 13:02:29 2008
[taxi@vidigal ~]$
that is: pam-ldap for user taxi works fine. user taxi also has a valid
home-directory on the ftp-server.
when, however, I do an ftp-login I get:
[myuser@rosetta ~]$ ftp vidigal.lan
Connected to vidigal.lan (192.168.97.17).
220---------- Welcome to Pure-FTPd [privsep] [TLS] ----------
220-You are user number 1 of 50 allowed.
220-Local time is now 11:39. Server port: 21.
220-This is a private system - No anonymous login
220-IPv6 connections are also welcome on this server.
220 You will be disconnected after 15 minutes of inactivity.
Name (vidigal.lan:cellino): taxi
331 User taxi OK. Password required
Password:
530 Login authentication failed
Login failed.
Remote system type is UNIX.
Using binary mode to transfer files.
ftp>
/etc/pam.d/pure-ftpd
[taxi@vidigal ~]$ cat /etc/pam.d/pure-ftpd
#%PAM-1.0
# Sample PAM configuration file for Pure-FTPd.
# Install it in /etc/pam.d/pure-ftpd or add to /etc/pam.conf
auth required pam_listfile.so item=user sense=deny
file=/etc/ftpusers onerr=succeed
auth include system-auth
auth required pam_shells.so
auth required pam_nologin.so
account include system-auth
password include system-auth
session include system-auth
[taxi@vidigal ~]$
we do not use the /etc/ftpusers file sofar, the file does not exist. so
the first step in the auth-sequence must succeed.
/etc/pam.d/system-auth:
[taxi@vidigal ~]$ cat /etc/pam.d/system-auth
#%PAM-1.0
# This file is auto-generated.
# User changes will be destroyed the next time authconfig is run.
auth required pam_env.so
auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass
auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet
auth sufficient pam_ldap.so use_first_pass
auth required pam_deny.so
account required pam_unix.so broken_shadow
account sufficient pam_localuser.so
account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet
account [default=bad success=ok user_unknown=ignore] pam_ldap.so
account required pam_permit.so
password requisite pam_cracklib.so try_first_pass retry=3
password sufficient pam_unix.so sha512 shadow nullok
try_first_pass use_authtok
password sufficient pam_ldap.so use_authtok
password required pam_deny.so
session optional pam_keyinit.so revoke
session required pam_limits.so
session optional pam_mkhomedir.so
session [success=1 default=ignore] pam_succeed_if.so service in
crond quiet use_uid
session required pam_unix.so
session optional pam_ldap.so
[taxi@vidigal ~]$
I checked to see if the pure-ftpd does an ldap-request, when I try to
ftp-login: yes he does and he gets a positive reply from the
ldap-server, when doing the bind with the authentication parameters for
taxi.
the login failure then must be caused by additional pam.d/pure-ftpd
activities
so I checked to see, whether the shell of taxi (/bin/bash) is in
/etc/shells. yes it is.
and there is no /etc/nologin file on the ftp-server.
has anyone got an idea, how I have to change the environment in order to
make pure-ftpd accept pam authentication?
changing to another ftp-server is no option, because i need the
virtual-ftp-accounts provided by pure-ftpd.
thanks for any information
suomi
16 years, 1 month
install from not-the-first cdrom possible with kickstart?
by Gianluca Cecchi
I'm trying to install f8 (and tried with rh el 5 too) on a dell 1950.
I'm using virtual floppy (for kickstart file) and virtual cd (for dvd iso
image), that are emulated as scsi over usb.
Onboard there is also a physical cd (seen as hda).
Virtual cd is seen initially as /dev/sr0 and then mapped by udev to
/dev/scd0.
Virtual floppy is seen as /dev/sdb
I'm able to boot from virtual cd and at boot prompt I can type:
linux ks=hd:sdb/ks.cfg
so that my automated installation starts correctly using the kickstart file,
where I have the lines:
install
cdrom
During installation phase I get an error about not founding cdrom device.
At this point I can choose "back" in the screen and the installation
proceeds automatically using the virtual cd.
Is there a way to tell ks (or in command line) to use automatically the
virtual cd instead of the physical one?
I noticed that in ks docs there is:
cdrom — Install from the first CD-ROM drive on the system.
Is it the "first" word above causing me the problem?
I would like to have a completely unattanded installation path.... without
necessarily pass through nfs or other network based installations?
I found suggestions about using idex=cdom at boot prompt and tried without
success:
linux ks=hd:sdb/ks.cfg sr0=cdrom
linux ks=hd:sdb/ks.cfg scd0=cdrom
Thanks,
Gianluca
16 years, 1 month
