this viewpoint a number of places. IMO, it's a shame that the
community seems to be giving up on local system security. In various
situations, it would be quite convenient if I could give other people
shell accounts on my machine without risking compromise of all of my
data. The virtualization solutions
into having already lost. Meh.)
I've seen this viewpoint a number of places. IMO, it's a shame that the
community seems to be giving up on local system security. In various
situations, it would be quite convenient if I could give other people
shell accounts on my machine without risking compromise
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
But prevention of DoS on the part of local actors is just not a game you
can win. If nothing else, remember that the way Linux implements
malloc() assumes you have infinite memory, which means you overcommit
resources, which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/05/2011 04:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
But prevention of DoS on the part of local actors is just not a game you
can win. If nothing else, remember that the way Linux
code on your system,
which means you're pretty far into having already lost. Meh.)
I've seen this viewpoint a number of places. IMO, it's a shame that the
community seems to be giving up on local system security. In various
situations, it would be quite convenient if I could give other
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:13:25 -0500
Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
But prevention of DoS on the part of local actors is just not a game you
can win. If nothing else, remember that the way Linux implements
malloc() assumes you have infinite memory, which means you overcommit
resources,
