First a technical query: I applied the 2.0.31-teardrop patch by
'route' from www.linux.org as soon as it was available, then the
2.0.32 expecting to have patch appear to discover a reverse patch. It
didn't, that 2.0.31-teardrop patch wasn't in the 2.0.31->2.0.32
patch. Excuse my (relative) naivety, but why wasn't it, and should I
reverse it, for machines supposed to be running production kernels. (I
am interested in attempts at teardrop attacks being signalled/logged.)
Second, your opinion please: for production servers do you believe
2.0.32 is or will prove to be superior to and more stable than 2.0.30,
where the servers in question have been seen to be capable of uptimes
in excess of one month on 2.0.30 without intervention (e.g. me
accidentally leaning on the reset button I ought to have disabled), or
should I simply apply a teardrop patch to 2.0.30?
Third, probably a newbie query but the answer's out of date in the
'Welcome' FAQ, is there a changelog or similar accompanying patches
that I just haven't found?
If these questions are unsuitable for this list, please feel free to
flame/notify me by private mail. If you were going to ignore this mail
I assume you would have done so by now...
Many thanks,
John. _ _
-- _ | |___| |_ _ _
John Robinson 46 Bank Street, Dumfries DG1 2PA, UK | |_| / . \ ' \| ' \
+44 1387 247249 http://www.intelligent.co.uk/~john/ \___/\___/_||_|_||_|
When the wolf is howling underneath the moon... --Marc Cohn