Re: lastlog is looking strange
A month ago wtmp was corrupted, today wtmp mysteriously is working fine.
My experiences contradict those posted in this list:
1. I use ssh with no ill affects on wtmp.
2. mgetty was not installed on my system for over a year. While corruption
lasted I was using getty.
3. Long uptimes does not seem to produce negative affects. My uptime today
is 19 days and have no wtmp corruption.
Since last month, I have probably installed less than 15 packages from bo.
It looks like this problem is somehow corrected and will disappears
as new packages get installed.
Ioannis Tambouras
ioannis@flinet.com, West Palm Beach, Florida
Signed pgp-key on key server.
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Tim Sailer wrote:
>
> > In your email to me, Joey Hess, you wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Stone:
> > > > so am i the only one getting this?
> > >
> > > I'm getting it on two machines now. Both use ssh, if it's relevant.
> > > The second is really bad:
> >
> > Bingo!! That seems to be the common factor. If you can reboot, do so.
> > The problem seems to go away except for the accounts that are using
> > ssh. My logins look like:
> >
> > tps tty2 *@ Sun Mar 2 23:56 - 02:26 (02:30)
> >
> > while others that have no ssh files look normal.
>
> I use ssh on all of my machines, and i use it regularly (instead of rlogin
> and rcp and rsh).
>
> I don't get this wtmp corruption on most of these machines. I get a lot
> of corruption on machines which have modems attached and a lot of modem
> logins, a little corruption on machines with only a few modem logins, and
> no corruption on machines with no modems.
>
> i initially suspected the new mgetty 1.1. however, i've just downgraded
> to mgetty 1.0 and the corruption is still happening. So, the modem logins
> may be completely irrelevant.
>
> Next on my suspect list is ssltelnet - i remember that weird things
> happened in the utmp (but not wtmp) file just after i first installed
> ssltelnet. i'm going to try reverting to normal telnet for a while and
> see if that makes any difference.
>
> craig
>
>
Reply to: