LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Security
User Name
Password
Linux - Security This forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-07-2007, 05:08 PM   #1
SlowCoder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Debian based
Posts: 1,250

Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
catworld: Question about comment in another thread


catworld (or anyone else that can answer),

This is in reference to a comment you posted in another thread ( http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=543518 ) regarding firewall security and routers.

I'm assuming that you're talking about personal routers, such as the Linksys, DLink, etc. that many people purchase for their homes.

I do realize that no system that is connected to the Internet is 100% secure, and that this includes routers, even high-end ones such as Cisco and Foundry. I have had a few different routers, and have password-protected them, and configured them for packet forwarding to my internal servers, and WPA2 encryption. I also realize that since these are targetted for personal use, and not for business use, they are limited in their functionality for simplicity, especially when it comes to firewall configuration.

Would you mind clarifying the statement you made about router security: "Routers are OK, but they are more easily hacked, and not as secure by design."

Why are you saying this is "by design"? Specifically in what ways do you consider them more insecure?

Last edited by SlowCoder; 04-07-2007 at 05:41 PM.
 
Old 04-08-2007, 10:20 AM   #2
macemoneta
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Manalapan, NJ
Distribution: Fedora x86 and x86_64, Debian PPC and ARM, Android
Posts: 4,593
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344
I think the point being made was that a router's function is to route packets, not to provide security. NAT and ACLs are not security systems and can (have) been bypassed.

However, many routers now include firewall functionality, even small home units. Many of these small inexpensive "routers" are even Linux-based, and run iptables.

I personally run multiple layers of security as well at home. A TrendNET router with NAT and firewall that faces the Internet in front of a ZyXEL router with NAT and firewall in front of my Linux systems - each of which runs iptables with custom intrusion detection for ports that open to the Internet.

Keeping your router firmware up to date is as important as maintaining your Linux systems. Both are areas many people ignore. Your choice of Linux distributions is also important, as they don't all have the same security features.

There's never an end to how much security you can add. You just need to decide for yourself what is adequate.

Last edited by macemoneta; 04-08-2007 at 10:25 AM.
 
Old 04-08-2007, 10:35 AM   #3
catworld
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Horseheads, New York
Distribution: Mandriva 2010.1 / KDE 4.5.2, Slax, Knoppix, Backtrack & etc...
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 36
First off, if someone really wants to, it's only a matter of time to break encryption. I recall reading somewhere with average traffic there's enough to break most encryption in 8-10 minutes.

Your inexpensive routers usually have no, or weak if any, firewall. I believe I said in that post that NAT is not a firewall, though it does make it quite a bit harder to get by if it's dropping unsolicited traffic. Still, these routers have small "brains" and extremely well known hardware/software configurations. Better than nothing. But it's not the average cracker I'm concerned about.

I taught an A+ certification class in the past, I have strong suspicions about the 'loyalties' of hardware manufacturers. This goes quintuple in an IPv6 world now. It appears to me the $40 router you buy in the big-box stores may cooperate between ...whoever ...whatever ...somewhere "out there," and your windows machines behind it. Vista is all about blathering all manner of info about your machine (and your documents) out over the wild blue ether, most of it without your knowing. (and this being "mandatory" in Vista, you bet the routers are in on it) This is only going to get worse in the future, and the average shmoo will shell out righteous bucks for future "features" we've not seen yet. From here on out I see any new "eye candy" coming down the pike as a potential security breach.

The future is intended to have ever greater, seamless cooperation between "appliances" on the 'net. No thanks, not for me. Moore, of "Moore's law," that stated computing power would double every 18 months, recently declared his own law dead. Not because the technology isn't advancing at the same rate, but that in future, the way hardware is intended to be deployed, the added gains in power will all be consumed with greater (in volume and effect) security needs. It wasn't the chip size, it was the script kiddies and the designers of "the future" who killed Moore's law.

I was saying 4 years ago Vista was going to be a disaster. It's worse than I thought, but I was on about the fact that it was going to lock the end user out of any knowledge as to many things that are going on inside...

I would put money on that manufacturers of home-use routers are well in line with <ahem> "standards" that allow for "extra functionality" in both Vista and IPv6 in general. I'd bet all the actors consider this "seamless" as well, meaning YOU don't see what is and what isn't getting by. I don't trust the authors of "standards" as far as I can throw them. Here in the states, the permeation into all channels of communication by outlaw, bogus, unconstitutional "authorities" is near total. These same characters are the loudest voice when it comes to equipment manufacturer's "standards."

On another point, running a "firewall" on a windows host is, in my esteem, NOT a firewall. First off, all the "security" activity takes place where? Inside your running windows machine, of course. Not only does it consume resources, but it's a perpetual footrace running on your main use box, which windows will inevitably lose sooner or later.

I read all the above as "security breach," regardless of who is sniffing all the data your windoze machine is blabbering to the world. I have shut off IPv6 entirely inside my LAN. Don't think you can do that with a router, but don't know, I haven't tried because I went behind smoothwall years ago.

www.smoothwall.org

It's free, and it makes the old P-150 gathering dust in the basement the most valuable machine in the house. I set it up on a 486DX for someone and it ran beautifully. (until the machine just up and died) It (and guarddog, shorewall, etc) touches iptables, a much more secure and near infinitely configurable (and true) firewall.

On a Linux host, iptables doesn't slow things down at all like a windoze "firewall." In fact I've read arguments iptables actually speeds things up a bit. (not sure how that would work) And running on a smoothwall out on the front line, I can run a completely unprotected windoze host and not worry about it on the inside. As a test, I ran a win98 (not even second ed) install on an old laptop, unpatched, no AV, no "firewall." It ran for 6 years like new, without a hitch, until the screen died... The LAN in here is silent, thanks to smoothwall.

Don't trust routers 'cause I can't see what's going on inside 'em. Besides, why blow 40 bucks when someone will give you and old P-II or whatever, that'll run smoothwall and do a much better job for you?

Just as a hint: try to lay hands on an old box without a cpu fan. I've had a few burn up when the fan died. (lots of folks put the smoothwall in a closet, the basement or elsewhere well out of eye shot)

cat



Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowCoder
catworld (or anyone else that can answer),

This is in reference to a comment you posted in another thread ( http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=543518 ) regarding firewall security and routers.

I'm assuming that you're talking about personal routers, such as the Linksys, DLink, etc. that many people purchase for their homes.

I do realize that no system that is connected to the Internet is 100% secure, and that this includes routers, even high-end ones such as Cisco and Foundry. I have had a few different routers, and have password-protected them, and configured them for packet forwarding to my internal servers, and WPA2 encryption. I also realize that since these are targetted for personal use, and not for business use, they are limited in their functionality for simplicity, especially when it comes to firewall configuration.

Would you mind clarifying the statement you made about router security: "Routers are OK, but they are more easily hacked, and not as secure by design."

Why are you saying this is "by design"? Specifically in what ways do you consider them more insecure?
 
Old 04-08-2007, 11:39 AM   #4
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555
@ Catworld:
Thanks for some of the informative and concise points you make in your above post. I've learned a little tiny bit more about the whole 'internet-security' (or lack thereof) situation, and have a few new ideas to pursue because of that..
 
Old 04-08-2007, 06:59 PM   #5
SlowCoder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Debian based
Posts: 1,250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
macemoneta,

I, too, have a Zyxel router, and I, too, realize the importance of keeping my firmware updated.

catworld,

Just for the record, I am not attempting to pick a fight, I am just interested in this subject, and want to learn. I've been in the Windows world for a long time, but that does not mean I'm pro-Windows. Since about 1995 I've had an interest in Linux, but time constraints have kept me from working with it effectively. I have A+, MCSE and CCNA certifications, and am considering Linux+.

I run a IPTables firewall at my work, which handles, very well, the load of 500 concurrent connections. So I know IPTables is a very good system.

Wow, that's a lot of info, and it's obvious that you don't like certain entities that exist to make money off of the masses.

I have heard, and read, a lot of stuff, which I consider rumors until I see evidence, about how these entities collaborate, providing access to each other's protected resources, and how they hide their "inner workings" from the general public.

Is this conjecture, or can you provide proof of these statements?
 
Old 04-09-2007, 12:58 PM   #6
catworld
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Horseheads, New York
Distribution: Mandriva 2010.1 / KDE 4.5.2, Slax, Knoppix, Backtrack & etc...
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 36
e.g.

For the record, I'd never assume anyone was trying to 'pick a fight,' and it's pretty dang hard to get me started in anyway. I am one big-time peace loving guy.

I'll give one eg from some time ago.

I have a friend with a web site that's quite critical of the global power elite, and she publishes a lot of 'hard to find' books, some of which were nearly driven to extinction until she republished them. (a lot of very interesting stuff) So she's listed all over "official" and unofficial ledgers as all manner of "bad."

She used to have a radio show, military folk who listened told her her site was blocked as "hate speech." This is a gentle older woman who mostly gardens and takes care of her dogs. It's her exercise of free speech certain circles do not like. (also for the record I do not support 100% of the information she puts forth)

There's the setup.

Now, many moons ago there was a monopoly on name service on the web, (DNS) but all of a sudden along came monopoly-busting "gandi," in France.

The typical media "scandal" that led up to the demand for "competition" in that area smelled like the fix was in for some reason. Being a researcher and a journalist I looked into it.

I was also looking into accusations at the time that certain other faces coming along the "patriot" network in America were "spooks," "agents" or what have you.

Long story short, I found certain of these people, my friend included, had "certificates" for their web sites, whereas others in the lot did not. But A) the web masters and owners of the sites had NO CLUE there were any certificates for their sites and B) the entire world had no clue there were certificates for these sites... ONLY the inner workings of the gandi servers were aware of them.

Their function appeared to be to direct a second stream of the traffic to the sites of these people to a server located in South Africa. (what they had in common was they were overtly concerned with government-induced mayhem, very outspoken)

If you kow how the web works, every DNS hears every request for a domain, and they coordinate who among them will handle the actual call. Gandi would hear requests for these sites, some other DNS in the states would answer, but gandi would, of course, check the certs, and "realize" this request was for a that sever in South Africa, and sent the traffic on. You were not connected to the African server, you were deposited where you expected to go, but that African server was made fully aware of this traffic. The certs never made it out of the gandi server because they were not supposed to.

Can't do that with a single DNS provider.

They were standard certificates, which are supposed to be visible to the world, that's how they work. For just a few sites I tested, but not others, they were not publicly visible.

They were ONLY visible within gandi's servers, I discovered them by accident. If you ran a random whois off gandi, then manually entered the address of one of these sites, you'd get a certificate error showing the two conflicting destinations, gandi was internally confused and gave the standard error, and being you were within their database at the moment, gandi itself would be the one handling the request.

Conversely, if you just did normal browsing all over these sites and back, from anywhere OTHER than in the gandi database, you never saw the error because it was internal to gandi, which could be expected to not normally directly answer requests for these sites. I'd go from, say, Disney, to one of these sites, and it was seamless.

I published the facts with my friend's web master, and a within a week the hole had been plugged, you couldn't view the bogus certificates any more. I add that if you ran windows you would NEVER have seen them. I tried, you could only see them with Linux, leading me to believe Microsoft was cooperatively designed for whatever activity this was.

I believe there are far superior methods in place nowadays, bogus invisible certificates is a rather ham-handed way to do any traffic monitoring.

To this day I have screen shots of these certificates, which the owners and web masters of the sites were utterly unaware existed. To a one they told me they had never applied for any certificates.

That's for starters.

About 4-5 years ago, in case you hadn't noticed, all "traceroute" yields an IANA "black hole server" address as the very first step outside of any firewalls you have. Ever wonder?

3 Years ago I began getting an ARP flood on the local branch of my ISP. That turned out to originate from IANA, thought the ISP was dutifully spoofing for them. It lasted about a week, on and off, and then gone. I sniffed the packets, (simple) and saw the headers were destined for IANA. ARP is like the "marco!" of the game "marco polo," it's a request to get your machine to blabber whatever it will.

I have also been hit with dubious traffic that when run by "whois," is reported not to be a valid, assigned IP.

In the cat and mouse to keep things secure here, I have rarely been bothered by any script kiddies. I do routinely have to block IPs from DoD, British government, and many who are not listed in any whois database, in fact I'm told they are invalid addresses. The only crack of my servers here at home originated from the Langley, Virginia area. Spook central.

When I taught my class, I'd show how things work, such as how to monitor someone's specific traffic, then I'd say "and if an average shmoo like me can fathom this, then you can sure bet someone else somewhere is darn tootin' doing it right this minute!"

Then consider NSA built Vista "security," need I say any more?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010801352.html

ok, how about this then:

http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html

What possibly could be the point of royally screwing your own loyal customers? ...to the point that they are not even captive anymore?!? (i.e none of your existing software will run on Vista) Name their game, I'm all ears...

I could go on. Nowadays my friends (we're all quite political, including not a few ex-government officials) are fending off more mayhem from "authorities" than all other sources combined.

One of the "bogus certificate" victims, broadcaster Alex Jones, has well documented the slide into what he calls a "high-tech, global command and control slave grid." I have observed beta testing and deployment of various ways to seamlessly monitor the activity of the web, and gather information from targeted individuals. It's mostly automated, and half of it is spelled "V-I-S-T-A.".

So, yeah, I may have a burr under my saddle, but it is well founded. Hope this answers your concerns.

You did ask...

cat


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowCoder
macemoneta,

I, too, have a Zyxel router, and I, too, realize the importance of keeping my firmware updated.

catworld,

Just for the record, I am not attempting to pick a fight, I am just interested in this subject, and want to learn. I've been in the Windows world for a long time, but that does not mean I'm pro-Windows. Since about 1995 I've had an interest in Linux, but time constraints have kept me from working with it effectively. I have A+, MCSE and CCNA certifications, and am considering Linux+.

I run a IPTables firewall at my work, which handles, very well, the load of 500 concurrent connections. So I know IPTables is a very good system.

Wow, that's a lot of info, and it's obvious that you don't like certain entities that exist to make money off of the masses.

I have heard, and read, a lot of stuff, which I consider rumors until I see evidence, about how these entities collaborate, providing access to each other's protected resources, and how they hide their "inner workings" from the general public.

Is this conjecture, or can you provide proof of these statements?
 
Old 04-09-2007, 09:03 PM   #7
SlowCoder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Debian based
Posts: 1,250

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
catworld,

Wow! I actually found that quite captivating. I even almost forgot I was reading your post, as I was reading the articles you included. Very interesting!

I appreciate your candor, and patience. I plan to read more.

If you've got more info, I'd love to have a grab of it!

Thank you.
 
Old 04-10-2007, 09:11 AM   #8
catworld
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Horseheads, New York
Distribution: Mandriva 2010.1 / KDE 4.5.2, Slax, Knoppix, Backtrack & etc...
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 36
is IPv6 for RFIDs?

One further interesting point, the company behind the invisible certificates, which I eventually tracked down, was loaded with "former" Israeli Mossad agents. Their web site proudly proclaimed as much.

I contacted them for comment on the matter and never heard a peep back. Sending that request for comment was the scariest thing I've ever done with a computer, but I must be a thorough and objective journalist, lest I become a disservice to mankind.

The address space of IPv4 is encapsulated withing the much larger IPv6 space. The space "above and below" the embedded v4 carries much more specific information about your hardware, among other things, and will flag the origin and potentially something of the content of your work too, if you use MS Office, and Vista, which the article I linked shows is all about DRM. IPv6 will aid this, and aid Microsoft in matters of "piracy," and you can bet new "gee whiz" eye candy to come will avail itself of this protocol.

I see no reason IPv6 could not be used to run a real time key logger, though you'd probably have to be among the cleverest of clever to achieve something like that.

I am seeking how to determine whether the areas of IPv6 packets outside the embedded v4 are capable of leaking information beyond standard firewalls. My firewalls look only at v4 addressing. IPv6 filtering is available, such as in shorewall, but understanding what it all means is beyond me at the moment.

Fortunately, it's an easy matter to shut down v6 entirely with Linux. Windows claims to give you this option, but who ever knows? Without source you can't determine whether it's merely a button that says it's shut it off, but actually does nothing, like the fake alarm light on the dashboard of my car.

For the record, to stop IPv6 on your Linux boxes, add these lines:

To /etc/modprobe.conf add:

alias ipv6 off
alias net-pf-10 off

And/or to /etc/sysconfig/network add:

NETWORKING_IPV6=no

Either or both will work, it's that easy. (requires complete reboot)

IPv6 has enough space to address every grain of sand on the planet. I see a future where those grains of sand are literal; RFID devices, which when eventually spread about like dust will be able to locate and track every individual automatically. I wrote a sci-fi short story about this 9-10 years ago, my devices could also detect body chemistry and were used to flag "wrong thinking," the title of the story. My protagonist is to be executed for harboring a copyrighted thought without prior permission. (he thought of love)

Companies are deploying RFID like mad at the moment. The only thing I have ever heard in the mainstream is all supportive, with the disclaimer "though privacy groups have concerns..." or similar throw-aways.

Why do you believe there was such a push for cell phones and wireless, when it is well known to the insiders these technologies are extremely hazardous to every life form? There are tons of cases of brain cancers from cell phone use that don't get harped on by the media, I think you can Google up some local reports, and a few studies, but it never hits the mainstream. (like so many things)

I am still attempting to confirm news that the scientists who originally did the research on wireless health effects for the EU have stated the public pronouncements on safety are not supported by their research. But since the research they did is privately owned, (by the cell phone industry that commissioned it) they simply cannot use it publicly without permission... which is a no brainer they'll never get it. So they are reportedly at present attempting to duplicate it on their own nickel, so they can warn the public with the science to back it.

More odd than most odd facts; I have been informed by several technicians who work on these systems that the cell phone tower transmitters are capable of approximately 3 magnitudes greater power output than is required to run a cell phone system. That's a stunning amount of "overhead." They can also handle a much broader RF spectrum than called for by a simple communications system.

Your guess is as good as mine, but maybe this is to insure the eventual cloud of RFIDs have enough field strength to reliably function, and likewise so they can be reliably read from greater distances. ...? (maybe it's just a plain ol' weapon of whatever sort, lots of speculation in that area)

Lots of suspicious activities, and zero attention in the mainstream media. (go figure) I have always said "just because we can, doesn't mean we should." Nuclear weapons come to mind. Way things are going in this world, I can fairly expect that whatever we're told about technology isn't entirely forthcoming with the truth of the matter.

Look into IPv6 and RFID, for two good starting points to research. They both scare the Dickens out of me. Thank God for Linux, I at least know what's going on inside my machines.

cat

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowCoder
catworld,

Wow! I actually found that quite captivating. I even almost forgot I was reading your post, as I was reading the articles you included. Very interesting!

I appreciate your candor, and patience. I plan to read more.

If you've got more info, I'd love to have a grab of it!

Thank you.
 
Old 04-10-2007, 09:26 AM   #9
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555
An excellent read and intriguing. Myself being one of the, to use the term loosely, 'conspiracy theorists', I find this all extremely interesting.
Catworld, you ought to write a book. I'd buy it.
Thanks again for this useful & interesting information... And now, off to investigate my IPv6 situation, and reboot..


UPDATE: Aaaargh! What if I don't have either of the files mentioned above?
Quote:
For the record, to stop IPv6 on your Linux boxes, add these lines:

To /etc/modprobe.conf add:

alias ipv6 off
alias net-pf-10 off

And/or to /etc/sysconfig/network add:

NETWORKING_IPV6=no
Is there a comparable location for me to put these arguments? For the record, I haven't compiled IPv6 support into my system, but still would like to add this extra bit of security.

Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 04-10-2007 at 09:38 AM.
 
Old 04-10-2007, 10:00 AM   #10
catworld
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Horseheads, New York
Distribution: Mandriva 2010.1 / KDE 4.5.2, Slax, Knoppix, Backtrack & etc...
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 36
what's your OS?

Have to know what operating system you're using to answer. If windows, can't help. I haven't touched windows in 9 years, except for other people's hopelessly gunked systems... I recover data for food.

cat


Quote:
Originally Posted by GrapefruiTgirl
An excellent read and intriguing. Myself being one of the, to use the term loosely, 'conspiracy theorists', I find this all extremely interesting.
Catworld, you ought to write a book. I'd buy it.
Thanks again for this useful & interesting information... And now, off to investigate my IPv6 situation, and reboot..


UPDATE: Aaaargh! What if I don't have either of the files mentioned above?

Is there a comparable location for me to put these arguments? For the record, I haven't compiled IPv6 support into my system, but still would like to add this extra bit of security.
 
Old 04-10-2007, 10:22 AM   #11
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555
LOL @ Windows.. Nope, check the sidebar!
<---- Slackware, 100%

Slack 11 2.6.20 to be exact.
 
Old 04-10-2007, 11:00 AM   #12
catworld
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Horseheads, New York
Distribution: Mandriva 2010.1 / KDE 4.5.2, Slax, Knoppix, Backtrack & etc...
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 36
Duh! Staring me in the face.

Don't have much experience with slackware, but I can't believe it doesn't have those files somewhere nearby. You must have an /etc on board, right? Maybe search it for "network" or "modprobe" and see what you come up with?

On the other hand slackware is a bit more BSD-ish, if memory serves. Don't have any experience with BSD at all. (though a friend just showed me his OpenBSD firewall... wow) Maybe you could search the slackware LQ forum, and if there's no joy, ask!

cat
 
Old 04-10-2007, 11:12 AM   #13
GrapefruiTgirl
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555Reputation: 555
Yup, I have /etc, and have searched/located/finded the computer already for any semblance of the files.. No go . I have /etc/modprobe.d/ but nothing good in there either.
Yes, it is BSDish, you're right on, there.
I shall make this todays undertaking.
<-- *...acts like a zombie* "must.. find.... IPv6... and destroy... all tracessss..."
Thanks for the mail, I'll get back to you; you and I, we could probably chat for hours.

UPDATE: Created file /etc/modprobe.d/no_ipv6 containing the aliases, and for good neasure created /etc/modprobe.conf with the same information (though when /etc/modprobe.d/ exists the modprobe.conf file is not used). Added NETWORKING_IPv6="no" to /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf, as the format of the rest of the NIC configuratrion arguments in there was the same, so it looked like the right place.
Re-ran rc.inet1 and restarted my firewall; no errors. I feel better thanks again.

Last edited by GrapefruiTgirl; 04-10-2007 at 12:33 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question about join a thread George2 Programming 4 08-22-2005 07:58 AM
perl thread question kevman Programming 2 08-04-2005 12:44 AM
Question About Thread sibtay Programming 1 08-26-2004 02:59 PM
please commend some linux source code forum Huiming Linux - Software 4 05-25-2004 08:19 AM
A Java Thread question megaspaz Programming 0 08-02-2003 01:33 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Security

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration