On Thursday 27 January 2005 11:18, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a path, either direct, or
> > > > indirect between the secure net and the internet.
> > &g
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 13:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> > > This isn't relevant at all. The Navy doesn't have any secure
> > > systems connected to a network to whic
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 13:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jesse Pollard wrote:
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
This isn't relevant at all. The Navy doesn't have any secure
systems connected to a network to which any hackers could connect.
The TDRS
On Thursday 27 January 2005 11:18, Zan Lynx wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a path, either direct, or
indirect between the secure net and the internet.
Other than letting people use secure computers after
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
[snip]
> > In this context, it doesn't make sense to deploy a protection A or B
> > without the companion protection, which is what I meant.
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[snip]
In this context, it doesn't make sense to deploy a protection A or B
without the companion protection, which is what I meant. You're
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
>When booting to a bzImage kernel, bytes 508 and 509 can be used to name
>the minor and major number of the intended root device (although it can
>be overridden with a command line parameter). Other characteristics are
>also available this way, through bytes
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
When booting to a bzImage kernel, bytes 508 and 509 can be used to name
the minor and major number of the intended root device (although it can
be overridden with a command line parameter). Other characteristics are
also available this way, through bytes in
"Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jim Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kurt Maxwell Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J Sloan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
[snip]
In that case, I have
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>>I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
>>for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
>
>No, but you might be forced out of a job.
Apolo
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>On Sunday 01 July 2001 13:48, you wrote:
>> Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
>> > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
>> > Solaris, and the other
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 01 July 2001 13:48, you wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
Solaris, and the other operating
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
No, but you might be forced out of a job.
Apologies for the followup
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> --- Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "This is almost always the result of flakiness in
> > your hardware - eit
>
>
> "This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
> RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely). "
>
> I cannot understand this. There are many other
> stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem.
This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
I cannot understand this. There are many other
stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. Again
- Received message begins Here -
--- Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is almost always the result of flakiness in
your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:04:02PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > andrew may wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a standard way to make multiple copies of a network device?
> > >
> > > For things like the bonding/ipip/ip_gre and others they seem
- Received message begins Here -
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:04:02PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
andrew may wrote:
Is there a standard way to make multiple copies of a network device?
For things like the bonding/ipip/ip_gre and others they seem to expect
>
> On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > > > I am trying to change the spin rate of my IDE DVD-ROM drive. My system is
> > > > an Apple PowerBook G4, and I am using kernel 2.4. I want the drive to
> > > > spin at 1X when I watch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner):
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >By author:Jorgen Cederlof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been
> >> chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under
> >> the new root, it should be
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 25 June 2001 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> > I learnt my computing on a PDP8/E with papertape punch/reader, RALF,
> > Fortran II, then later 2.4Mb removable cartridges (RK05 I think). toggling
> > in the bootstrap improved your concentration.
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Monday 25 June 2001 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I learnt my computing on a PDP8/E with papertape punch/reader, RALF,
Fortran II, then later 2.4Mb removable cartridges (RK05 I think). toggling
in the bootstrap improved your concentration. Much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner):
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
By author:Jorgen Cederlof [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been
chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under
the new root, it should be perfectly safe to
On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
I am trying to change the spin rate of my IDE DVD-ROM drive. My system is
an Apple PowerBook G4, and I am using kernel 2.4. I want the drive to
spin at 1X when I watch movies. Currently,
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > "Pete" == Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roland> The rough idea is that WSD is a new user space library
> Roland> that looks at sockets calls and decides if they have to go
> Roland> through the usual kernel
- Received message begins Here -
Pete == Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roland The rough idea is that WSD is a new user space library
Roland that looks at sockets calls and decides if they have to go
Roland through the usual kernel network stack, or
Rick Hohensee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> > >2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
> > >already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
> > >
> > > forget POSIX
> > > The standards that matter
Rick Hohensee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
forget POSIX
The standards that matter are de-facto
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
>already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
>
>The "thou shalt not fork" commandment made sense at one point, when free
>unix was a lost tribe wandering hungry in
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
The thou shalt not fork commandment made sense at one point, when free
unix was a lost tribe wandering hungry in the
- Received message begins Here -
>
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 17:20, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > Rob Landley writes:
> > > My only real gripe with Linux's threads right now [...] is
> > > that ps and top and such aren't thread aware and don't group them
> > > right.
> > >
> > > I'm told they
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part
Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 17:20, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Rob Landley writes:
My only real gripe with Linux's threads right now [...] is
that ps and top and such aren't thread aware and don't group them
right.
I'm told they added some kind of
- Received message begins Here -
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others who
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Cleanup is a nice idea , but Linux should support old hardware and should
> not affect them in any way.
>
> Jaswinder.
I agree - and added my comments below.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
- Received message begins Here -
Cleanup is a nice idea , but Linux should support old hardware and should
not affect them in any way.
Jaswinder.
I agree - and added my comments below.
- Original Message -
From: Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Linux kernel
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>
> >> Is it possible by any means to isolate any given process, so that
> >> it'll be unable to crash system.
> > You just gave a nice description what an OS kernel should do :)
- Received message begins Here -
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
Is it possible by any means to isolate any given process, so that
it'll be unable to crash system.
You just gave a nice description what an OS kernel should do :)
* Sigh *
Ishikawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Anyway, this time, here is what was printed on the screen (the tail end
> of it).
> --- begin quote ---
> ... could not record the above. they scrolled up and disapper...
> Out of Memory: Killed process 4550 (XF8_SVGA.ati12).
> __alloc_pages: 0-order
Ishikawa [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyway, this time, here is what was printed on the screen (the tail end
of it).
--- begin quote ---
... could not record the above. they scrolled up and disapper...
Out of Memory: Killed process 4550 (XF8_SVGA.ati12).
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation
Bob Glamm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Finally, there has to be an *easy* way of identifying devices from software.
> You're right, I don't care if my network cards are numbered 0-1-2, 2-0-1,
> or in any other permutation, *as long as I can write something like this*:
>
> # start up networking
>
Bob Glamm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Finally, there has to be an *easy* way of identifying devices from software.
You're right, I don't care if my network cards are numbered 0-1-2, 2-0-1,
or in any other permutation, *as long as I can write something like this*:
# start up networking
for i in
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > IIRC, the 6 character linker requirement came from when the Bell Labs folk
> > ported the C compiler the IBM mainframe world, not from the early UNIX (tm)
> > world. During the original ANSI C meetings, I got the sense from the IBM rep,
- Received message begins Here -
IIRC, the 6 character linker requirement came from when the Bell Labs folk
ported the C compiler the IBM mainframe world, not from the early UNIX (tm)
world. During the original ANSI C meetings, I got the sense from the IBM rep,
6
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> > > root@kama3:/home/szabi# cat /proc/mounts
>> > > /dev/hdb2 /usr ext2 rw 0 0
>> > > root@kama3:/home/szabi# swapon /dev/hdb2
>> >
>> > - Doctor, it hurts when I do it!
>> > - Don't do it, then.
>> >
>> >
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
root@kama3:/home/szabi# cat /proc/mounts
/dev/hdb2 /usr ext2 rw 0 0
root@kama3:/home/szabi# swapon /dev/hdb2
- Doctor, it hurts when I do it!
- Don't do it, then.
Just what behaviour had you
"Joel Beach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Until three or four weeks ago, I have been running kernel 2.4.2 with no
> problems. However, my hard disk now seems to be playing up. In my system log, I
> get the following messages.
>
> May 3 08:13:14 kinslayer kernel: hda: dma_intr: error=0x40 {
>
Joel Beach [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Until three or four weeks ago, I have been running kernel 2.4.2 with no
problems. However, my hard disk now seems to be playing up. In my system log, I
get the following messages.
May 3 08:13:14 kinslayer kernel: hda: dma_intr: error=0x40 {
On Sat, 05 May 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>kspamd/H3sm is now making continuous writes to tty1 from an
>in-kernel thread. It was locking on a write to /dev/console by
>init, so I made /dev/console a plain file. This is after
>hollowing out sys_syslog to be a null routine, and various
>other
On Sat, 05 May 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
kspamd/H3sm is now making continuous writes to tty1 from an
in-kernel thread. It was locking on a write to /dev/console by
init, so I made /dev/console a plain file. This is after
hollowing out sys_syslog to be a null routine, and various
other minor
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> > Doesn't this bypass all of the network security controls? Granted
> - it is
> > completely reasonable in a dedicated environment, but I would
> think the
> > security loss would prevent it from being used for most
> > Define 'direct sockets' firstly.
> Direct Sockets is the ablity by which the application(using sockets)
> can use the hardwares features to provide connection, flow control,
> etc.,instead of the TCP and IP software module. A typical hardware
> technology is Infiniband . In
Define 'direct sockets' firstly.
Direct Sockets is the ablity by which the application(using sockets)
can use the hardwares features to provide connection, flow control,
etc.,instead of the TCP and IP software module. A typical hardware
technology is Infiniband . In Infiniband,
- Received message begins Here -
Doesn't this bypass all of the network security controls? Granted
- it is
completely reasonable in a dedicated environment, but I would
think the
security loss would prevent it from being used for most usage.
Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am trying to add a process which is to be managed by init. I have added the
> following entry to /etc/inittab
>
> SV:2345:respawn:env - PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin svscan /service
> dev/console
>
> After saving, I execute the following
Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to add a process which is to be managed by init. I have added the
following entry to /etc/inittab
SV:2345:respawn:env - PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin svscan /service
/dev/null 2 dev/console
After saving, I execute the following
Tim Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:37, you wrote:
> > Personally, I think
> >>proc_printf(fragment, "%d %d",get_portnum(usbdev), usbdev->maxchild);
> > is shorter (and faster) to parse with
> > fscanf(input,"%d %d",,);
>
> Right, but what happens if you need
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> > > suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> > > will have root capabilities.
> >
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wednesday 25 April 2001 19:10, you wrote:
> > The command
> > more foo/* foo/*/*
> > will display the values in the foo subtree nicely, I think.
>
> Unfortunately it displays only the values. Dumping numbers and strings
> without
- Received message begins Here -
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 19:10, you wrote:
The command
more foo/* foo/*/*
will display the values in the foo subtree nicely, I think.
Unfortunately it displays only the values. Dumping numbers and strings
without knowing their
Tim Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:37, you wrote:
Personally, I think
proc_printf(fragment, %d %d,get_portnum(usbdev), usbdev-maxchild);
is shorter (and faster) to parse with
fscanf(input,%d %d,usbdev,maxchild);
Right, but what happens if you need to
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for
Tomas Telensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> >
> > > of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> > > root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> > >
Tomas Telensky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
1024? Is there
- Received message begins Here -
1. email - sendmail
2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
...
Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for this to
Olaf Titz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ehh.. I will bet you $10 USD that if libc allocates the next file
> > descriptor on the first "malloc()" in user space (in order to use the
> > semaphores for mm protection), programs _will_ break.
>
> Of course, but this is a result from sloppy coding. In
Olaf Titz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ehh.. I will bet you $10 USD that if libc allocates the next file
descriptor on the first "malloc()" in user space (in order to use the
semaphores for mm protection), programs _will_ break.
Of course, but this is a result from sloppy coding. In general,
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Jesse Pollard replies:
> to Leif Sawyer who wrote:
> >> Besides, what would be gained in making the counters RO, if
> >> they were cleared every time the module was loaded/unloaded?
> >
> > 1. Knowl
Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And that introduces errors in measurement. It also depends on
> > how frequently an uncontroled process is clearing the counters.
> > You may never be able to get a valid measurement.
>
> This is true. Which is why application programmers need to write
>
Brunet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >>I suppose that running the child first also has a minor
> >> advantage for clone() in that it should make programs that spawn lots
> >> of threads to do little bits of work behave better on machines with a
>
>
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> .. ie: cat /etc/printcap > /dev/lp0(or /dev/par0)
> gets me :
>
> /c#eodiecnyotai rhernili s to rpaemn
> s eehpo o-.ROLPR0 roif{\=sl:x
>
Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > From: Ian Stirling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Manfred Bartz responded to
> > > > Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who writes:
> >
> > > > You just illustrated my point. While there is a reset capability
> > > > people will use it and accounting/logging
Leif Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Ian Stirling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Manfred Bartz responded to
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] who writes:
snip
You just illustrated my point. While there is a reset capability
people will use it and accounting/logging programs will get
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
.. ie: cat /etc/printcap /dev/lp0(or /dev/par0)
gets me :
/c#eodiecnyotai rhernili s to rpaemn
s eehpo o-.ROLPR0 roif{\=sl:x
Brunet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
"Adam J. Richter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suppose that running the child first also has a minor
advantage for clone() in that it should make programs that spawn lots
of threads to do little bits of work behave better on machines with a
There is another
Leif Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And that introduces errors in measurement. It also depends on
how frequently an uncontroled process is clearing the counters.
You may never be able to get a valid measurement.
This is true. Which is why application programmers need to write
code as if
- Received message begins Here -
Jesse Pollard replies:
to Leif Sawyer who wrote:
Besides, what would be gained in making the counters RO, if
they were cleared every time the module was loaded/unloaded?
1. Knowlege that the module was reloaded.
2. Knowlege
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>>(There is no config file to disable/alter this .. no work-around that I
>>>know of ..)
>
>> You can't be serious. Go sit down and think about what's going on.
>
>Well, there are two potential solutions:
>
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
(There is no config file to disable/alter this .. no work-around that I
know of ..)
You can't be serious. Go sit down and think about what's going on.
Well, there are two potential solutions:
a) stop rebuild
kees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi
>
> Unix/Linux have a lot of daemons that have to run as root because they
> need to acces some specific data or run special programs. They are
> vulnerable as we learn.
> Is there any way to have something like an exec call that is
> subject to a sudo like
kees [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi
Unix/Linux have a lot of daemons that have to run as root because they
need to acces some specific data or run special programs. They are
vulnerable as we learn.
Is there any way to have something like an exec call that is
subject to a sudo like permission
avid Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>one of the key places where the memory is 'allocated' but not used is in
>the copy on write conditions (fork, clone, etc) most of the time very
>little of the 'duplicate' memory is ever changed (in fact most of the time
>the program that forks then executes some
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I just made a manipulation that disturbs me. So I'm asking whether it's a
> bug or a features.
>
> user> su
> root> echo "test" > test
> root> ls -l
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root5 Mar 29 19:14 test
> root> exit
>
Walter Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[snip]
> > Now, if ELF were to be modified, I'd just add a segment checksum
> > for each segment, then put the checksum in the ELF header as well as
> > in the/a segment header just to make
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03.29 Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > The penetration occurred because somebody changed our firewall
> > configuration
> > so that all of the non-DHCP addresses, i.e., all the real IP addresses had
> > complete
> > connectivity to the outside
Guest section DW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out
> > when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow
> > the plane to become
Guest section DW [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out
when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow
the plane to become overloaded.
"J . A . Magallon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 03.29 Richard B. Johnson wrote:
The penetration occurred because somebody changed our firewall
configuration
so that all of the non-DHCP addresses, i.e., all the real IP addresses had
complete
connectivity to the outside world. This meant
Walter Hofmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[snip]
Now, if ELF were to be modified, I'd just add a segment checksum
for each segment, then put the checksum in the ELF header as well as
in the/a segment header just to make things harder. At exec time
- Received message begins Here -
Hi,
I just made a manipulation that disturbs me. So I'm asking whether it's a
bug or a features.
user su
root echo "test" test
root ls -l
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root5 Mar 29 19:14 test
root exit
user rm test
rm:
avid Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
one of the key places where the memory is 'allocated' but not used is in
the copy on write conditions (fork, clone, etc) most of the time very
little of the 'duplicate' memory is ever changed (in fact most of the time
the program that forks then executes some other
Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > My suggestion would be to add a filesystem label (optional) to the
> > homeblock of all filesystmes, then load that identifier into the
> > /proc/partitions file. This would allow a search to locate the
> > device parameters for any filesystem being
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:40:42AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Now, if ELF were to be modified, I'd just add a segment checksum
> > for each segment, then put the checksum in the ELF header as well as
> > in the/a segment hea
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:15:57AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > objcopy - copies object files. Object files are not marked executable...
>
> objcopy copies executable files as well - check the kernel makefiles
> for examples.
Sean Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
> > but I don't think
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
>
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
