Sorry for the late reply. I left Mail running at home and didn't
catch this message until now.
On 07 Oct 2005, at 00:22, Tom R. no spam wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Arno S Hautala wrote:
Well this is confusing. I can understand protecting LS, but it still
seems a bit suspect. Especially the methods. I'd like to know in
what
ways LS ignores kill signals. Especially the un-ignorable SIGKILL.
Presumably the dev will be able to answer my questions more
thoroughly
and I look forward to that interchange.
No offense, but IMHO you're asking a bit much, and particularly
so in an open forum like this. If you don't know kernel
programming, etc well enough to guess how LS works or protects
itself, are you asking the LS people for a quick course? I,
also, might like such a quick course, but I wouldn't expect
that kind of info in an open list like this. Heck, who knows,
maybe it's a trade secret? :-)
Valid points. My response was partly based on behavior I'd seen in
10.4 compared with what ObDev reported about 10.3. I didn't
initially realize the version differences so my statements didn't
take into consideration that what worked in 10.3 might fail in 10.4.
Also, I've never seen _anything_ that ignores all kill attempts. And
granted I'm not very versed in kernel programming, but I'm not
looking for a tutorial. At most a brief overview or intro to how LS
protects itself. Just some info on how LS did, or will continue to
protect itself... if it's not secret. :) I wouldn't expect ObDev to
distribute that sort of info or an extensive tutorial. If it's
public and the dev is willing I'd follow up on that off list.
-- --
arno s. hautala /-\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- --
_______________________________________________
Littlesnitch-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://at.obdev.at/mailman/listinfo/littlesnitch-talk
