FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-08-2011, 05:57 PM
Eero Volotinen
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

2011/5/8 Jason <slackmoehrle.lists@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> I want to know thoughts on if I am being to paranoid/security conscious.
>
> CentOS 5.6, Apache, MySQL, running an Firewall in front of everything and obviously the built-in firewall on the box. I have ssh on a different port and starting to use Keys instead of password authentication. I host an intensive website and I am getting about 150 unique visitors per day.
>
> What I am seeing is LogWatch reporting a lot of 404's like:
>
> 404 Not Found
> //PHPMA/: 1 Time(s)
> //admin/myadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //admin/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //adming/: 1 Time(s)
> //ascils/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //blog/wp-content/plugins/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //database/: 2 Time(s)
> //db/: 1 Time(s)
> //dba/: 1 Time(s)
> //dbadmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //html/phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //html/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //lamp/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //myadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //mydatabase/: 1 Time(s)
> //mydb/: 1 Time(s)
> //myphp/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysql-admin/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysql/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysqladmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //mysqlmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.0.2/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.1-rc1/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.1/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.2/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpadm/: 2 Time(s)
> //phpma/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpmy/: 2 Time(s)
> //phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //pma/: 1 Time(s)
> //pmaadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //pmadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //sql/: 1 Time(s)
> //sqladmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //sqldatabase/: 2 Time(s)
> //sqlmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //sqlweb/: 1 Time(s)
> //typo3/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //webadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //webdb/: 1 Time(s)
> //websql/: 1 Time(s)
> //wp-content/plugins/phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //wp-content/plugins/wp-phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //xampp/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
>
> So I turned on Apache ReWrite and I created a file and I put in rules like: (just a small subset)
>
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmy(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpma [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmyadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpgadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phppgadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmyadmin(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php-my-admin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php-myadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmy-admin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmanager [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/player(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/plugins [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pma [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/p/m/a [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pmadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pmaadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/scripts [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sd(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sql [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sqladmin [NC,OR]
>
> and if one of these is hit I use a Rule of:
>
> RewriteRule .* http://%{REMOTE_ADDR}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301,QSA]
>
> Everyday I look at the LogWatch E-Mail and I add one people are trying to hit and restart apache.
>
> This yields a few questions.
>
> 1. Am I being to paranoid by doing this? My logic is they dont belong here and I could get mad if someone walked up to my apartment and tried jiggling the door handle to see if it was unlocked.
>
> 2. I know I can simplify these rules. Wouldn't RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] get most of the attempts for thinks like /php, /php-myadmin, /phpmyadmin-2.0.8.8, etc?
>
> 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?
>
> 4. Why does LogWatch show this to me as a 404 , when a rewrite rule is hit and they are re-directed back to themselves? My rules seem to be working, if I try and hit /scripts right now, it does what I expect.
>
> Can anyone shed some light for me on my thoughts/questions?

You should take a look at mod_security: http://www.modsecurity.org/ ,
if provides better ways to block hostile attacks and probes.

--
Eero
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 06:24 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

quick answer: even paranoids have enemies

On Sun, 8 May 2011, Jason wrote:

> So I turned on Apache ReWrite and I created a file and I put in rules like: (just a small subset)
>
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmy(.*) [NC,OR]
.snip

> 2. I know I can simplify these rules. Wouldn't RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] get most of the attempts for thinks like /php, /php-myadmin, /phpmyadmin-2.0.8.8, etc?
>
> 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?

I wrote about my approch some time ago ...

http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-logs-part-3-run-your-updates.html

Send them safely off your box, and back home

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 06:24 PM
Benjamin Franz
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

On 05/08/2011 10:46 AM, Jason wrote:
> 4. Why does LogWatch show this to me as a 404 , when a rewrite rule is hit and they are re-directed back to themselves? My rules seem to be working, if I try and hit /scripts right now, it does what I expect.
[...]

Because the remote loader is a robot, not a web browser. It is throwing
stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. It flat out doesn't care if
you send back a redirect - it is just looking for a response that
indicates a vulnerability and anything else is ignored by it.

Redirects are largely ineffective in combating bots hunting for
exploitable scripts and programs. You would be better off using
something like Fail2Ban to dynamically update firewall rules against
detected attackers.

--
Benjamin Franz
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 07:02 PM
Jason
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

Hi Russ,

> > 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?
>
> I wrote about my approch some time ago ...
>
> http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-logs-part-3-run-your-updates.html
>
> Send them safely off your box, and back home

I read your article and It seems we are doing the same thing? Is there a benefit I dont understand to use your approach versus the one I am using already?

Is it true that you can to (.*) to handle easier matching?

Say phpmyadmin, phpadmin, php-myadmin

Could I do something like: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] and that would handle all of them?

-Jason
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 07:11 PM
Robert Heller
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

At Sun, 8 May 2011 10:46:17 -0700 CentOS mailing list <centos@centos.org> wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> I want to know thoughts on if I am being to paranoid/security conscious.
>
> CentOS 5.6, Apache, MySQL, running an Firewall in front of everything and obviously the built-in firewall on the box. I have ssh on a different port and starting to use Keys instead of password authentication. I host an intensive website and I am getting about 150 unique visitors per day.
>
> What I am seeing is LogWatch reporting a lot of 404's like:
>
> 404 Not Found
> //PHPMA/: 1 Time(s)
> //admin/myadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //admin/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //adming/: 1 Time(s)
> //ascils/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //blog/wp-content/plugins/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //database/: 2 Time(s)
> //db/: 1 Time(s)
> //dba/: 1 Time(s)
> //dbadmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //html/phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //html/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //lamp/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //myadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //mydatabase/: 1 Time(s)
> //mydb/: 1 Time(s)
> //myphp/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysql-admin/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysql/: 1 Time(s)
> //mysqladmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //mysqlmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.0.2/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.1-rc1/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.1/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin-2.8.2/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpadm/: 2 Time(s)
> //phpma/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //phpmy/: 2 Time(s)
> //phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //pma/: 1 Time(s)
> //pmaadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //pmadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //sql/: 1 Time(s)
> //sqladmin/: 2 Time(s)
> //sqldatabase/: 2 Time(s)
> //sqlmanager/: 1 Time(s)
> //sqlweb/: 1 Time(s)
> //typo3/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //webadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //webdb/: 1 Time(s)
> //websql/: 1 Time(s)
> //wp-content/plugins/phpMyAdmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //wp-content/plugins/wp-phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
> //xampp/phpmyadmin/: 1 Time(s)
>
> So I turned on Apache ReWrite and I created a file and I put in rules like: (just a small subset)
>
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmy(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpma [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmyadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpgadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phppgadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmyadmin(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php-my-admin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php-myadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmy-admin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/phpmanager [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/player(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/plugins [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pma [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/p/m/a [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pmadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/pmaadmin [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/scripts [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sd(.*) [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sql [NC,OR]
> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/sqladmin [NC,OR]
>
> and if one of these is hit I use a Rule of:
>
> RewriteRule .* http://%{REMOTE_ADDR}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301,QSA]
>
> Everyday I look at the LogWatch E-Mail and I add one people are trying to hit and restart apache.
>
> This yields a few questions.
>
> 1. Am I being to paranoid by doing this? My logic is they dont belong here and I could get mad if someone walked up to my apartment and tried jiggling the door handle to see if it was unlocked.

Well, yes. There is a simplier way -- Apache does have an 'error page'
handler, where you can customize your 404 page or how Apache responds
to a 'page not found' error. Doing the redirect is not really going to
solve anything anyway. Most (all?) of these accesses are from a
program -- a kind of 'bad' robot, which is probably going to ignore the
301 status and come to the conclusion that these URIs are actually
working and report success to its (human) master. That will open you
up for more (automated) attacks and/or piss off the human hacker, who
will just come up with more and nastier attacks or maybe just launch a
dos attack for spite. You are better off just letting Apache handle
these as 404. Imagine you have a storefront and people come by after
hours and see the lights off and the closed sign -- people will go away
and come back later. Imagine that the lights are on and there is no
closed sign, and instead you have some poor clerk there answering the
door telling people to go away. That is likely to cause more trouble,
since people will just come back in 5-10 minutes and ask if the store
is open now. Or worse, wait around until there is some indication that
the store is open.

>
> 2. I know I can simplify these rules. Wouldn't RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] get most of the attempts for thinks like /php, /php-myadmin, /phpmyadmin-2.0.8.8, etc?
>
> 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?
>
> 4. Why does LogWatch show this to me as a 404 , when a rewrite rule is hit and they are re-directed back to themselves? My rules seem to be working, if I try and hit /scripts right now, it does what I expect.

Question: are you using virtual hosts? If so, they the 'visitors' are
either NOT sending HTTP 1.1 headers or not using the virtual host name.

>
> Can anyone shed some light for me on my thoughts/questions?
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 07:15 PM
Jason
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

Robert,

> > 1. Am I being to paranoid by doing this? My logic is they dont belong here and I could get mad if someone walked up to my apartment and tried jiggling the door handle to see if it was unlocked.
>
> Well, yes. There is a simplier way -- Apache does have an 'error page'
> handler, where you can customize your 404 page or how Apache responds
> to a 'page not found' error. Doing the redirect is not really going to
> solve anything anyway. Most (all?) of these accesses are from a
> program -- a kind of 'bad' robot, which is probably going to ignore the
> 301 status and come to the conclusion that these URIs are actually
> working and report success to its (human) master. That will open you
> up for more (automated) attacks and/or piss off the human hacker, who
> will just come up with more and nastier attacks or maybe just launch a
> dos attack for spite. You are better off just letting Apache handle
> these as 404. Imagine you have a storefront and people come by after
> hours and see the lights off and the closed sign -- people will go away
> and come back later. Imagine that the lights are on and there is no
> closed sign, and instead you have some poor clerk there answering the
> door telling people to go away. That is likely to cause more trouble,
> since people will just come back in 5-10 minutes and ask if the store
> is open now. Or worse, wait around until there is some indication that
> the store is open.
This is a good analogy. It does open up more to stating: "Damn'd if you do, damn'd if you dont".
> > 4. Why does LogWatch show this to me as a 404 , when a rewrite rule is hit and they are re-directed back to themselves? My rules seem to be working, if I try and hit /scripts right now, it does what I expect.
>
> Question: are you using virtual hosts? If so, they the 'visitors' are
> either NOT sending HTTP 1.1 headers or not using the virtual host name.
Yes, I am and I have a few domains on this box. Each <virtual> has an include to a file that stores my rewrite rules so I just maintain them in a single place.

-Jason
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 08:05 PM
"Jason Pyeron"
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: centos-bounces@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:02
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Am I being to paranoid?
>
> Hi Russ,
>
> > > 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?
> >
> > I wrote about my approch some time ago ...
> >
> >
> http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-logs-part-3-run-your-update
> > s.html
> >
> > Send them safely off your box, and back home
>
> I read your article and It seems we are doing the same thing?
> Is there a benefit I dont understand to use your approach
> versus the one I am using already?
>

The point you missed was that he packaged the conf gile as a RPM and then added
it to his local yum repo, so all his machines would get it durring the update
cycle.

> Is it true that you can to (.*) to handle easier matching?
>
> Say phpmyadmin, phpadmin, php-myadmin
>
> Could I do something like: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI}
> ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] and that would handle all of them?
>
> -Jason
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>




--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- -
- Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us -
- Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 -
- +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 -
- -
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 08:11 PM
Eric Viseur
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

My 2 cents : OSSEC is quite good at actively blocking attackers in situations like this.

2011/5/8 Jason Pyeron <jpyeron@pdinc.us>




> -----Original Message-----

> From: centos-bounces@centos.org

> [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jason

> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:02

> To: CentOS mailing list

> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Am I being to paranoid?

>

> Hi Russ,

>

> > > 3. Is there a better way to right these rules?

> >

> > I wrote about my approch some time ago ...

> >

> >

> http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-logs-part-3-run-your-update

> > s.html

> >

> > Send them safely off your box, and back home

>

> I read your article and It seems we are doing the same thing?

> Is there a benefit I dont understand to use your approach

> versus the one I am using already?

>



The point you missed was that he packaged the conf gile as a RPM and then added

it to his local yum repo, so all his machines would get it durring the update

cycle.



> Is it true that you can to (.*) to handle easier matching?

>

> Say phpmyadmin, phpadmin, php-myadmin

>

> Could I do something like: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI}

> ^/php(.*) [NC,OR] and that would handle all of them?

>

> -Jason

> _______________________________________________

> CentOS mailing list

> CentOS@centos.org

> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

>









--

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -

- Jason Pyeron * * * * * * * * * * *PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us -

- Principal Consultant * * * * * * *10 West 24th Street #100 * *-

- +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 * * * * * *Baltimore, Maryland 21218 * -

- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.







_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 08:53 PM
"John R. Dennison"
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:57:23PM +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> You should take a look at mod_security: http://www.modsecurity.org/ ,
> if provides better ways to block hostile attacks and probes.

Really? 99 lines of untrimmed material for a 2 line reply?




John
--
We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.

-- Walt Kelly (1913-1973), creator of the Pogo comic strip
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-08-2011, 10:31 PM
John Hinton
 
Default Am I being to paranoid?

On 5/8/2011 4:53 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:57:23PM +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> You should take a look at mod_security: http://www.modsecurity.org/ ,
>> if provides better ways to block hostile attacks and probes.
> Really? 99 lines of untrimmed material for a 2 line reply?
I don't have personal experience with this, but I have heard that
modsecurity does not play nice with some websites. If you are in a
virtual hosting situation, it might be a bit too early to jump on that
ship? I'll hopefully wait for it to become more of a 'standard'.

I run Ossec on several servers and Fail2Ban on several others. At the
moment, I prefer Fail2Ban. Configuration is not straight forward on
either, but personally, I seem to get along better creating/editing
Fail2Ban rules. It's sort of hard to do comparisons as each server has
differing accesses, but my gut tells my that Fail2Ban is a little easier
on server loads. Both do a lot of reads, constantly monitoring for
intrusion attempts.

I know Fail2Ban is not a CentOS standard package, but it would be nice
if we could build a place on the CentOS website where rules could be
shared. Each environment is a bit different and so the rules need to be
adapted. I have found the need for edits even between CentOS 3, 4 and 5
boxes.

--
John Hinton
877-777-1407 ext 502
http://www.ew3d.com
Comprehensive Online Solutions

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:53 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org