From: Roberto <ro...@ir...> - 2003-01-28 22:59:22
|
We are working on USB ADSL modem support for firewalls on DL. Is planned the USB suppport in DL 0.6? USB core + acm + CDCEther + hotplug for this application. Delete hotplug if this is a problem. DL works great, thanks for the excellent distro. Thanks, Roberto |
From: <Her...@sp...> - 2010-03-08 13:55:26
|
Hi List I'm glad to hear that DL 1.4 is making progress! Lately, I have tested RC2 and in my environment, it runs stable. I run it from a write protected CF card in a nexcom NSA appliance. The config file is loaded from a USB stick. I'm using the feature with the signed config file and it works grat for me, as long as the signature is valid. Here I'd like to have the following functionality: If the signature of the config file is not valid, the system should ask if it should continue to load it (as it does already). If this question times out or is not confirmed, the system should load a backup config file if the signature of the backup config file is valid. Doing this, we have a fallback configuration, in case the main configuration is not valid for some reason, and the system can still be operated from remote and the problem with the main configuration can be fixed. What do you think about this? Regards, Herbert |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-03-08 14:01:29
|
Quoting Her...@sp...: > > Hi List > > I'm glad to hear that DL 1.4 is making progress! Lately, I have tested RC2 > and in my environment, it runs stable. I run it from a write protected CF > card in a nexcom NSA appliance. The config file is loaded from a USB stick. > > I'm using the feature with the signed config file and it works grat for me, > as long as the signature is valid. Here I'd like to have the following > functionality: > If the signature of the config file is not valid, the system should ask if > it should continue to load it (as it does already). If this question times > out or is not confirmed, the system should load a backup config file if the > signature of the backup config file is valid. > > Doing this, we have a fallback configuration, in case the main > configuration is not valid for some reason, and the system can still be > operated from remote and the problem with the main configuration can be > fixed. > > What do you think about this? Not a bad idea. We need a naming standard for the backup file. The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, correct? -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2010-03-08 20:22:56
|
Quoting Her...@sp...: > Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote on 08.03.2010 15:01:17: > >> > >> > Hi List >> > >> > I'm glad to hear that DL 1.4 is making progress! Lately, I have tested > RC2 >> > and in my environment, it runs stable. I run it from a write protected > CF >> > card in a nexcom NSA appliance. The config file is loaded from a USB > stick. >> > >> > I'm using the feature with the signed config file and it works grat for > me, >> > as long as the signature is valid. Here I'd like to have the following >> > functionality: >> > If the signature of the config file is not valid, the system should ask > if >> > it should continue to load it (as it does already). If this question > times >> > out or is not confirmed, the system should load a backup config file if > the >> > signature of the backup config file is valid. >> > >> > Doing this, we have a fallback configuration, in case the main >> > configuration is not valid for some reason, and the system can still be >> > operated from remote and the problem with the main configuration can be >> > fixed. >> > >> > What do you think about this? >> >> Not a bad idea. >> We need a naming standard for the backup file. >> The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, > correct? >> > > I'm glad you like the idea. > > What about etc-mods-fb.tar.bz2 or etc-mods-fallback.tar.bz2? How about etc-mods.bak.tar.bz2? That reminds be of the good old (not really) DOS days.... ;-) -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <Her...@sp...> - 2010-03-09 06:29:02
|
Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote on 08.03.2010 21:22:48: > > Quoting Her...@sp...: > > > Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote on 08.03.2010 15:01:17: > > > >> > > >> > Hi List > >> > > >> > I'm glad to hear that DL 1.4 is making progress! Lately, I have tested > > RC2 > >> > and in my environment, it runs stable. I run it from a write protected > > CF > >> > card in a nexcom NSA appliance. The config file is loaded from a USB > > stick. > >> > > >> > I'm using the feature with the signed config file and it works grat for > > me, > >> > as long as the signature is valid. Here I'd like to have the following > >> > functionality: > >> > If the signature of the config file is not valid, the system should ask > > if > >> > it should continue to load it (as it does already). If this question > > times > >> > out or is not confirmed, the system should load a backup config file if > > the > >> > signature of the backup config file is valid. > >> > > >> > Doing this, we have a fallback configuration, in case the main > >> > configuration is not valid for some reason, and the system can still be > >> > operated from remote and the problem with the main configuration can be > >> > fixed. > >> > > >> > What do you think about this? > >> > >> Not a bad idea. > >> We need a naming standard for the backup file. > >> The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, > > correct? > >> > > > > I'm glad you like the idea. > > > > What about etc-mods-fb.tar.bz2 or etc-mods-fallback.tar.bz2? > > How about etc-mods.bak.tar.bz2? > That reminds be of the good old (not really) DOS days.... ;-) > Fine... when can I test :-) |
From: Dick M. <di...@fo...> - 2010-03-09 07:57:24
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Quoting Her...@sp...: >> What do you think about this? > > Not a bad idea. > We need a naming standard for the backup file. > The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, correct? I would generalise it: use a version number - at boot sys scans round looking for all etc-mod.<ver>.tar.bz2 and loads the one with highest version. If you really want to be complete save-config could increment the version nnumber. Dick |
From: <Her...@sp...> - 2010-03-09 08:20:36
|
Dick Middleton <di...@fo...> wrote on 09.03.2010 08:42:00: > Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > Quoting Her...@sp...: > > >> What do you think about this? > > > > Not a bad idea. > > We need a naming standard for the backup file. > > The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, correct? > > I would generalise it: use a version number - at boot sys scans round > looking for all etc-mod.<ver>.tar.bz2 and loads the one with highest > version. > > If you really want to be complete save-config could increment the > version nnumber. Sounds good, but then I think, save-config should not keep more then a handfull of versions, maybe ten. A save-config run could move all backup files to the next version number. But if using multiple versions, the boot process needs to loop back the versions until it finds one with a valid signature in case signatures are used. I can work with either of the two mentioned solutions... Herbert |
From: Dick M. <di...@fo...> - 2010-03-09 08:31:45
|
Her...@sp... wrote: > Dick Middleton <di...@fo...> wrote on 09.03.2010 08:42:00: >> Heiko Zuerker wrote: >>> Quoting Her...@sp...: >>>> What do you think about this? >>> Not a bad idea. >>> We need a naming standard for the backup file. >>> The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, > correct? >> I would generalise it: use a version number - at boot sys scans round >> looking for all etc-mod.<ver>.tar.bz2 and loads the one with highest >> version. >> >> If you really want to be complete save-config could increment the >> version nnumber. > > Sounds good, but then I think, save-config should not keep more then a > handfull of versions, maybe ten. > A save-config run could move all backup files to the next version number. > But if using multiple versions, the boot process needs to loop back the > versions until it finds one with a valid signature in case signatures are > used. I'm not so sure about the save-config thing now. I was having breakfast at the time so no thought given. Problem is there may well be more than one device involved but not necessarily present so it might be difficult to choose reliably a new version number. Better to keep it simple. I would go with numbers though, even if only because it saves having to think of a name! :) Dick |
From: <Her...@sp...> - 2010-03-08 15:31:48
|
Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...> wrote on 08.03.2010 15:01:17: > > > > Hi List > > > > I'm glad to hear that DL 1.4 is making progress! Lately, I have tested RC2 > > and in my environment, it runs stable. I run it from a write protected CF > > card in a nexcom NSA appliance. The config file is loaded from a USB stick. > > > > I'm using the feature with the signed config file and it works grat for me, > > as long as the signature is valid. Here I'd like to have the following > > functionality: > > If the signature of the config file is not valid, the system should ask if > > it should continue to load it (as it does already). If this question times > > out or is not confirmed, the system should load a backup config file if the > > signature of the backup config file is valid. > > > > Doing this, we have a fallback configuration, in case the main > > configuration is not valid for some reason, and the system can still be > > operated from remote and the problem with the main configuration can be > > fixed. > > > > What do you think about this? > > Not a bad idea. > We need a naming standard for the backup file. > The backup file would be created manually because of the signature, correct? > I'm glad you like the idea. What about etc-mods-fb.tar.bz2 or etc-mods-fallback.tar.bz2? Regards, Herbert |
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2003-01-29 00:56:40
|
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:15:00 +0100 Roberto <ro...@ir...> wrote: > We are working on USB ADSL modem support for firewalls on DL. You will do it? Great ! > Is planned the USB suppport in DL 0.6? It's on the ToDo list, but I'm not sure when I will start working on it (could be a while). Of course when somebody takes over this task, I'm more then happy to include it in DL. > USB core + acm + CDCEther + hotplug for this application. > Delete hotplug if this is a problem. I can enable USB support in the Kernel if you want that's fairly easy. But that's the only thing I would do at the moment. > DL works great, thanks for the excellent distro. Thanks cya Heiko |