Regards, George Toft On 7/5/2024 5:43 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: > > > > On 2024-07-05 00:23, George Toft wrote: >> Had a chance to casually ask about the washed check thing today. Big >> eye-roll. Police report. Affidavits. Close the checking account. Big >> investigation. Sounds like a PITA. >> >> Regards, >> >> George Toft > > I just want to approach this in a way that I have reasonably safe bank > transactions.  I almost feel I need to learn cyber security. > > Thank you for all your feedback!! > BINGO!!! "Reasonably safe" is the fundamental goal post that we seek. What is one's risk appetite for any endeavor? There is no such thing as 0% loss. Obviously 100% loss is a non-starter. So somewhere in between is our goal. I won't beleaguer the list anymore, but this is the fundamentals of risk analysis, which is what I do at work. An on-topic example: In the not-Sudo solution we have, we discovered one application that would not work with it. One app - 6 servers out of 50,000 servers. Do I risk the 50,000 servers to make not-Sudo work on 6 when the original configurator made a fundamental programming error? No - we accept the risk. Actually, I'm now stuck with that misconfiguration without executing a ton of regression testing which would take months just to distill a reasonable test set, and my management isn't going to support spending thousands of salary dollars on something this trivial. Lastly, the 7 banks that own Zelle are getting hauled in to talk to Congress about their "acceptable fraud rate." They cheerfully announce they have less than 0.1% fraud rate. These huge banks don't care about 0.1% - that's acceptable. But if 0.1% of all e-mail you receive got through the filters and infected your system, that becomes another story. Peace. > > > > >> >> On 7/4/2024 3:14 PM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: >>> Thanks George!!  Lot s to think about. >>> >>> >>> On 2024-07-04 14:23, George Toft wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> George Toft >>>> >>>> On 7/4/2024 6:50 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: >>>>> Thank you so much George!! >>>>> >>>>> Another Question.  I was a police officer in the 80's and 90's. >>>>> During my tenure the bank was on the hook for any criminal acts as >>>>> long as the customer was not negligent. I only dealt with this on >>>>> a couple occasional. >>>>> >>>>> So If someone gets access to my online banking and I report it in >>>>> a timely manner, or if someone washes one of my checks and I >>>>> report it in a timely manner, is the bank on the hook or am I? >>>> >>>> There are a ton of rules with more acronyms than the IT world has. >>>> I would love to tell you what I understand, but I'd be talking out >>>> my ass. >>>> >>>> >>>>> BTW I thought going old school was the most secure.  I do not >>>>> trust the Internet.  My daily driver is a Linux Box and I do not >>>>> use my cellular phone for anything except to talk and read some >>>>> news.  I am semiretired and have home officed for a long time. >>>> >>>> Not sure there is any magic incantation that I can say that would >>>> put you at ease, other than "Risk Analysis," "Government >>>> Regulation," "Audit and Reviews," "Compliance," "Controls and >>>> Countermeasures," and "Fines." We have to comply with a bazillion >>>> rules all designed to protect you, the bank customer. Some regions >>>> are really strict and their governments show they really care, like >>>> the EU - their rules are so restrictive. Here's an example: You >>>> cannot log into a server that serves the EU if Payment Card >>>> Information (PCI) is involved with the same user ID that you used >>>> to log into your work station. This prevents lateral movement from >>>> an insider attack should the attacker get an employee's credentials >>>> or Kerberos TGT (Hey!!! It's now on-topic!!!) . This is just an >>>> example. We have external inspectors and government auditors on >>>> site almost every two weeks making us prove compliance with all the >>>> rules, and the bigger we get, the more rules and more regulatory >>>> auditors we get to talk to. We actually have two people on my team >>>> of 27 whose job used to be project management, now is audit and >>>> compliance. All of this to protect you. >>>> >>>> Let's not forget about the Security Operations Center monitoring >>>> employee activities. Refer to the GTFOBins email from yesterday. I >>>> documented a chained attack to get root based on that page, and the >>>> SOC came knocking saying "George, we noticed suspicious activity on >>>> this server and this date. Whatcha doin'?" Fortunately, I >>>> documented everything and emailed it to my manager, so all I had to >>>> do was forward that back to the SOC. >>>> >>>> Mail scares me. I had to send my LEA ID in recently via USPS. I'm >>>> hoping they got it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Any suggestions are appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2024-07-03 21:48, George Toft wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, Kieth, I have bad news for you. You took a 30+ year leap >>>>>> backwards in security. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can tell you for certain, from my bank fraud analyst friend >>>>>> (just got promoted to financial crimes investigator), checks are >>>>>> the second most insecure way of transferring money, first being >>>>>> putting the money in the envelope. They helped the USPS bust a >>>>>> fraud ring who worked in the Post Office - fraudsters were >>>>>> pulling checks out of envelopes inside the local Post Office. My >>>>>> friend pulled out all the details for the Postmaster General. >>>>>> >>>>>> ACH is free (for you) and secure and guaranteed by the originator >>>>>> as they are on the hook to prove the identity of who initiated >>>>>> the transaction and they have to pay. It's all very complicated, >>>>>> and I'm not going into details here. >>>>>> >>>>>> I use ACH all the time. My physical devices have multi-layer >>>>>> physical protection. Logical access control is in-place. Both >>>>>> have multi-factor authentication. Password resets require >>>>>> multi-factor authentication. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the DoD is worse - their systems have so many layers, it was >>>>>> easier to just let my account get deleted from lack of use and >>>>>> rebuilt it from scratch. I have notes that tell me >>>>>> screen-by-screen what to put in each box and which ones to >>>>>> ignore. It's so secure, legitimate users can't even get in... and >>>>>> this is just my health insurance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where all of this can break down - getting on topic - is with the >>>>>> SSH protocol and web proxies. When you connect to a website using >>>>>> HTTPS using a web proxy, your web browser uses it's cert to set >>>>>> up the connection, or so it thinks. What's really happening is >>>>>> the proxy is responding to the request and decrypting the >>>>>> message, then it forms a new request and sends it to the bank, >>>>>> which believes the proxy and sends it back. Everything gets >>>>>> decrypted on the proxy, so whoever has admin access to the proxy >>>>>> can see everything. Kinda like opening envelopes in the mail room >>>>>> :) Disclaimer: This is what some networking guys told me in a >>>>>> presentation about 10 years ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> In summary, ACH is safe if you do it from home without a proxy. >>>>>> Of course "safe" is relative, but it's safer than checks in the >>>>>> mail. Drop into your bank and ask the branch manager, or call >>>>>> their customer service and ask. They won't tell you checks are >>>>>> bad, but they will steer you to ACH and tell you it's better. >>>>>> Break out the Rosetta Stone and figure out what "better" means in >>>>>> corporate-speak. Banks are in it to win it, and they don't offer >>>>>> something for free unless they are saving money (cost avoidance) >>>>>> on the alternatives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> George Toft >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:21 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2024-07-02 18:20, George Toft via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> I work for a bank, and you would be amazed at how much security >>>>>>>> is baked into the connecting your browser to their web servers. >>>>>>>> Makes the NSA look like freshmen. And no, I'm not telling you >>>>>>>> who I work for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> George Toft >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to hear more.  The world is a hostile place. I recently >>>>>>> went old school.  I asked the bank to disarm my online banking.  >>>>>>> I now deal with paper statements and everything gets paid by >>>>>>> check. Not as convenient as on-line banking, however I am hoping >>>>>>> it makes my world a little bit more secure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are your thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/29/2024 5:19 PM, Keith Smith via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>> Mike, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The world is a hostile place.  The more precautions you take >>>>>>>>> the better.  I cover the camera on my cellular phone while not >>>>>>>>> in use.  I cover the camera that is built into my laptop while >>>>>>>>> it is not in use. I think on-line banking is dangerous.  At >>>>>>>>> some point I want to turn off WIFI and go to wired only on my >>>>>>>>> local net. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We lock our cars and houses for a reason. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do not know as much security as I'd like, however it might >>>>>>>>> be necessary at some point to to become more cyber. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About 24 years ago the members of the Tucson Free Unix Group >>>>>>>>> (TFUG) helped me build a server that I ran out of my home.  We >>>>>>>>> left the email relay open and I got exploited. About 10 years >>>>>>>>> ago I became root and I accidentally overwrote my home >>>>>>>>> directory. yikes... both were painful. The first example is a >>>>>>>>> reason we must be more aware of what we are doing. The 2nd is >>>>>>>>> an example why we should use sudo as much as we can instead of >>>>>>>>> becoming root. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-29 08:55, Michael via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I just realized, while 99% of the people on this list are >>>>>>>>>> honest there >>>>>>>>>> is the diabolical 1%. So I guess I enter my password for the >>>>>>>>>> rest of >>>>>>>>>> my life. Or do you think that it really matters considering >>>>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>>>> only a mailing list? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 10:22 AM Michael wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for saying this. I realized that I only needed to run >>>>>>>>>>> apt as >>>>>>>>>>> root. I didn't know how to make it so I could do that..... but >>>>>>>>>>> chatgt did! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 5:53 AM Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NO WORRIES FROM THIS END RUSTY. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As a general rule, I use sudo only for very specific tasks >>>>>>>>>>>> (usually updating my development package tree on OS X) and no >>>>>>>>>>>> where else will I run anything as root. I have seen what >>>>>>>>>>>> happens >>>>>>>>>>>> to linux machines that run infected binaries as root and it >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> get ugly pretty fast. In one case, I couldn’t take the machine >>>>>>>>>>>> out of service because of other items I was involved with, >>>>>>>>>>>> so I >>>>>>>>>>>> simply made part of the dir tree immutable after replacing >>>>>>>>>>>> a few >>>>>>>>>>>> files in /etc. That would fill up the system logs with an >>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>> message about a specific binary trying to replace a small >>>>>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>>>>> of conf files. Once the offending binary was found, it made >>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>> easier trying to disable it or get rid of it. However, after a >>>>>>>>>>>> while, I simply pulled the drive and ran it through a Dod >>>>>>>>>>>> secure >>>>>>>>>>>> erase and installed a newer linux bistro on it. I did use >>>>>>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>>>>>> trick with chattr to make /bin, /sbin and /etc immutable. That >>>>>>>>>>>> last turned out to be handy as I caught someone trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> rootkit >>>>>>>>>>>> my machine using a known exploit, only they couldn’t get it to >>>>>>>>>>>> run because the binaries they wanted to replace couldn’t be >>>>>>>>>>>> written to. :)Yes, this would be a bit excessive, but over the >>>>>>>>>>>> long run, proved far less inconvenient than having to wipe and >>>>>>>>>>>> reinstall an OS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Eric >>>>>>>>>>>> From the central Offices of the Technomage Guild, security >>>>>>>>>>>> Applications Dept. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2024, at 6:43 PM, Rusty Carruth via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Deep breath.  Calm...) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't figure out how to respond rationally to the below, so >>>>>>>>>>>> all I'm going to say is - before you call troll, you might >>>>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>>>> to research the author, and read a bit more carefully what >>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote.  I don't believe I recommended any of the crazy >>>>>>>>>>>> things you >>>>>>>>>>>> suggest.  And I certainly didn't intend to imply any of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, it may not have  been clear, so I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>> just say >>>>>>>>>>>> "Sorry that what I wrote wasn't clear, but english isn't my >>>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>> language.  Unfortunately its the only one I know". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And on that note, I'll shut up. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 15:05, Ryan Petris wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel like you're trolling so I'm not going to spend >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very much >>>>>>>>>>>> time on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's been a generally good security practice for at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> last 25+ years to not regularly run as a privileged user, >>>>>>>>>>>> requiring some sort of escalation to do administrative-type >>>>>>>>>>>> tasks. >>>>>>>>>>>> By using passwordless sudo, you're taking away that >>>>>>>>>>>> escalation. >>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just run as root? Then you don't need sudo at all. In >>>>>>>>>>>> fact, why even have a password at all? Why encrypt? Why >>>>>>>>>>>> don't you >>>>>>>>>>>> just put all your data on a publicly accessible FTP server and >>>>>>>>>>>> just grab stuff when you need it? The NSA has all your data >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway >>>>>>>>>>>> and you don't have anything to hide so why not just leave >>>>>>>>>>>> it out >>>>>>>>>>>> there for the world to see? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for something malicious needing to be written to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sudo, >>>>>>>>>>>> why wouldn't it? sudo is ubiquitous on unix systems; if it >>>>>>>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> at least try then that seams like a pretty dumb malicious >>>>>>>>>>>> script >>>>>>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You also don't necessarily need to open/run something for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>>>>>> run. IIRC there was a recent image vulnerability in Gnome's >>>>>>>>>>>> tracker-miner application which indexes files in your home >>>>>>>>>>>> directory. And before you say that wouldn't happen in KDE, >>>>>>>>>>>> it too >>>>>>>>>>>> has a similar program, I believe called Baloo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There also exists the recent doas program and the systemd >>>>>>>>>>>> replacement run0 to do the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 12:23 PM, Rusty Carruth via >>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'd like to start a bit of a discussion on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, I know that for some reason RedHat seems to think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/insecure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know the logic there, as I think the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument FOR >>>>>>>>>>>> using sudo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is MUCH stronger than any argument I've heard (which, >>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty close to zero) AGAINST it.   Here's my thinking: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allowing users to become root via sudo gives you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - VERY fine control over what programs a user can use as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The ability to remove admin privs (ability to run as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root) >>>>>>>>>>>> from an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual WITHOUT having to change root password >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, remember, RH is supposedly 'corporate friendly'. As a >>>>>>>>>>>> corporation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 2nd feature is well worth the price of admission, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUS I >>>>>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow certain admins to run certain programs? Very nice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, for example, at my last place I allowed the 'tester' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>> to run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fdisk as root, because they needed to partition the disk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>>> test.  In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my case, and since the network that we ran on was totally >>>>>>>>>>>> isolated from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the corporate network, I let fdisk be run without needing a >>>>>>>>>>>> password. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and if they messed up and fdisk'ed the boot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partition, it >>>>>>>>>>>> was no big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal - I could recreate the machine from scratch (minus >>>>>>>>>>>> whatever data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been copied off yet - which would only be their most >>>>>>>>>>>> recent run), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 10 minutes (which was about 2 minutes of my time, and 8 >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripted 'dd' ;-) However, if the test user wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become >>>>>>>>>>>> root using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> su, they had to enter the test user password. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, back to the original question - setting sudo to not >>>>>>>>>>>> require a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> password.  We should have asked, what program do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>>>>> run as root >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without requiring a password? How secure is your system? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>>>>> else do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you use it for? Who has access?  etc, etc, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's one other minor objection I have to the 'zero >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defense' >>>>>>>>>>>> statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below - the malicious thing you downloaded (and, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume ran) >>>>>>>>>>>> has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written to USE sudo in its attempt to break in, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, or >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't matter HOW open your sudo was. (simply saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'su - >>>>>>>>>>>> myscript' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't do it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, if you're truly paranoid about stuff you download, you >>>>>>>>>>>> should: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - NEVER download something you don't have an excellent >>>>>>>>>>>> reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe is 'safe', and ALWAYS make sure you actually >>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded it from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where you thought you did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - For the TRULY paranoid, have a machine you use to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>> and test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software on, which you can totally disconnect from your >>>>>>>>>>>> network (not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JUST the internet), and which has NO confidential info, and >>>>>>>>>>>> which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can erase and rebuild without caring.  Run the downloaded >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff there, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time, until you're pretty sure it won't bite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - For the REALLY REALLY paranoid, don't download anything >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, disconnect from the internet permanently, get >>>>>>>>>>>> high-tech locks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for your doors, and wrap your house in a faraday cage! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And probably don't leave the house.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of number 3 is that there is always a risk, even >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well-known' software, and as someone else said - they're >>>>>>>>>>>> watching you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.  The question is how 'safe' do you want to be? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how >>>>>>>>>>>> paranoid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you, really? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, talk about rabbit hole! ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Let the flames begin!' :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 18:50, Ryan Petris via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted sudo not to require a password. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please reconsider this... This is VERY BAD security >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>>>>> There's basically zero defense if you happen to download/run >>>>>>>>>>>> something malicious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Michael via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I remember that a PLUG member mentioned ChatGPT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>> good at troubleshooting so I figured I'd give it a go. I >>>>>>>>>>>> sprint >>>>>>>>>>>> about half an hour asking it the wrong question but after >>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>>> took 2 minutes. I wanted sudo not to require a password. it is >>>>>>>>>>>> wonderful! now I don't have to bug you guys. so it looks >>>>>>>>>>>> like this >>>>>>>>>>>> is the end of the user group unless you want to talk about OT >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- :-)~MIKE~(-: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss