From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EU8Dt-0007GY-PA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:43:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9OJfoPC018702; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:41:50 GMT Received: from redweb.harvee.org (dsl093-191-107.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.191.107]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9OJYTvr017241 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:34:29 GMT Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by redweb.harvee.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EE576D46 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from harvee.harvee.org (harvee-xeno.harvee.org [192.168.25.100]) by redweb.harvee.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635F476D46 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.30] (unknown [192.168.0.30]) by harvee.harvee.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41E53DE30 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <435D3741.3060307@harvee.org> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:34:25 -0400 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051006) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0 References: <435D30B2.4020906@harvee.org> <20051024212005.463d5d0d@mating-tux.renatik.de> In-Reply-To: <20051024212005.463d5d0d@mating-tux.renatik.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Camram: capability; stamp X-Archives-Salt: addb6109-b2a4-4334-a231-39c3e25e635f X-Archives-Hash: 6f439da772fe878315bbea2d2aab4d98 Renat Golubchyk wrote: > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" > wrote: >> The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the >> same. The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code. >> >> This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened? Did >> something go wrong in the emerge process? There's no sign of any >> attackers. > > They are always the same since net.eth0 (and all other net.) > is a symlink to net.lo. then that's what broke. net.lo looks like it should and my net.eth0 looks like: relay2 ~ # more /etc/init.d/net.eth0 #!/sbin/runscript # Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/rc-scripts/init.d/net.lo,v 1.10 2004/04/21 17:09:18 vapier Exp $ start() { ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} up" /sbin/ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 up 2>/dev/null /sbin/route add -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 \ gw 127.0.0.1 dev lo 2> /dev/null eend 0 } stop() { ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} down" /sbin/ifconfig ${IFACE} down &>/dev/null eend 0 } I thought they were the same because I was debugging one machine over the telephone and looking at a couple of different machines for examples and things got a mite confused. In other words, it's wrong just not the wrong way I thought it was. --- eric -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list