Re: TI-H: Linux ftp
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Linux ftp
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:00:29PM -0900, Grant Stockly wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 01:45:26PM -0900, Grant Stockly wrote:
> >>
> >> >If he wants to run an FTP server, than DHCP is not the solution. Also,
> >> >there should be no problem with the things that are started at startup.
> >> >Unless of course you installed samba (uninstall that, it's microsloth
> >> >networking stuff). If you're running RedHat 5.2, you don't need to upgrade
> >> >sendmail, it's already the latest version. And Grant, since when did you
> >> >know dick about using Linux?
> >>
> >> Hmmm... applecyber.dyndns.com? gussie.alaska.net? Linux/68k.
> >>
> >> DHCP is the solution for his windows box.
> >Uh...no? He wants both the Linux box and the windows box on the same
> >ethernet port, i.e. using the SAME IP address (I doubt that GATech gives
> >you more than one). So the easiest (although for such a small network, it's
> >almost a toss-up) solution is to give the PC a static IP like 192.168.1.2
> >(in fact i recommend that one) and the second ethernet card on the Linux box
> >192.168.1.1 and then letting the primary ethernet card use DHCP to get it's
> >IP, and setting up IP Masquerading. That way, if he wants to add more
> >boxen, he just has to hook them up to the secondary ethernet card's
> >network, and give them unique IP's in the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet.
>
> Ummm... No. DHCP server for the linux box. He'd be smart to look at what
Are you implying that you want to run a dhcp server on the Linux box so the
Windows box can grab an IP from it? Because that'd just waste startup time
on the windows box. It's easier to just give them all static IPs in the
non-internet IP range.
> was installed... There are a ton of holes in the set that comes with
In the older RedHat's, yes (i.e. 5.0 and 5.1), but 5.2 is relatively error
free, at least from an external standpoint. Besides, a newbie Linux user
would have no idea which programs were possibly eploitable. The only one
you've really got to worry about is sendmail, it's had more externally
accessibly buffer exploits than all other daemons combined.
> RedHat.
>
> >> And Jon, since when did you know "dick" about me?
> >Well, I've seen loads of your posts to this list. From what I've seen in
> >the past year or 2, you seem to be leaps and bounds ahead of me in
> >electronics, but you seem to know considerably less about software. And
> >just because you can set up a pair of Linux boxen doesn't mean you know "the"
> >solution to a problem. Anyone with a little time and experience can set up
> >a Linux box, there is almost always more than one solution to a problem
> >(although in this case I don't see any easy one other than masquerading,
> >becuase you're trying to carry two boxen over one IP).
>
> I never post about software, so how do you know? do a little dns lookup
> and you'll find they are the same server.
>
> I don't just set them up, I admin them and program for them. Would you
> like a linux program that will run on your pc and display strings you send
> to it? Or how about a dyndns mockup server?
>
> Gee...
>
Follow-Ups:
References: