On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 09:29 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:06 -0500, Vincent Onelli wrote:
- Re: Wireless, Broadcom (Patrick O'Callaghan)
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:22:14 -0430 From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" pocallaghan@gmail.com Subject: Re: Wireless, Broadcom To: fedora-list@redhat.com Message-ID: 1225986734.594.35.camel@bree.homelinux.com Content-Type: text/plain
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 05:28 -0500, Vincent Onelli wrote:
I could not connect to the above link a message came on give me 2 choice "get me out of here" and "add exception" adding exception indicate high security risk, I decided not to go forward. any advice? thank you.
It just means Firefox didn't recognize the site certificate. Which is normal for sites that don't want to pay an exorbitant fee to Verisign or whatever. I wouldn't worry about in this case since the RPMs are signed anyway. I would worry if it was your bank.
Thank you, but I bump in some more problems. I followed OK up to step 6 blacklisting, on step 7 "remove the old module and activate the new one", did not work for me. First it could not find rmmod so I used /sbin/rmmod then could not find modprobe so I used the /sbin/modprobe but now it could not find wl. plese help.
Use "su -" (instead of just "su") and you'll get root's version of $PATH.
Note that this changes in F10 i.e. /sbin and /usr/sbin will be on everyone's path.
/sbin on a normal user's path? A bit dangerous, no? I thought it was separate from /usr/sbin for that specific reason.
Do you think Linux security relies on not knowing where the binaries are? AFAIK the stuff in /sbin is there because it could be needed during the boot process, possibly before /usr/bin is mounted. Presumably it's also to reduce the clutter in /usr/bin.
poc