What are the security problems with IRC? I use it to chat in ASCII and
make a log. Evidently it has other, more dangerous capabilities I'm
not aware of.
https://www.google.com/search?q=irc+client+exploit
Are there any drawbacks to naming the root account something other
than 'root'?
On 25/03/2015 12:00, dng-requ...@lists.dyne.org wrote:
That's so true, Clarke! This systemd debacle increased by an order of
magnitude the Linux users who understand the underpinnings of the
system and are prepared to take control. This is a Renaissance in the
Linux community. Well, except for
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 05:56:34AM +0200, Martijn Dekkers wrote:
I believe a lot depends on how you use the computer in question. When you
are a desktop-mostly user, it is a very good idea to not run as root. This
is mostly due to the fact that certain less secure application you use to
renaming root account does not leverage increased security in my opinion
It would be easy to find out new name of the superuser
So whats the advantage to rename root?
I run a puppy linux kind of os and automatically login as root, desktop
user
But I run critical applications as web-bowsers in a
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:14:13PM +0100, shraptor shraptor wrote:
[cut]
Every software can be hacked via bugs of course but hopefully
it wil make it harder for tha hacker
Beware Close all those doors or the hackers might find you and
suck your soul
:D
KatolaZ
--
[ Enzo
Le 25/03/2015 18:04, Jude Nelson a écrit :
3) I don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks
on Ulrich Drepper or on Ulrich Drepper's leadership of glibc.
Ulrich Drepper's bad attitude is cited as one of the main reasons
Debian switched from glibc to eglibc. Source:
3) I don't think this is a great place for unsubstantiated attacks on
Ulrich Drepper or on Ulrich Drepper's leadership of glibc.
Ulrich Drepper's bad attitude is cited as one of the main reasons Debian
switched from glibc to eglibc. Source: http://blog.aurel32.net/47.
-Jude
On Wed, Mar 25,
-Original Message-
From: Joerg Reisenweber [mailto:reisenwe...@web.de]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:33 PM
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Subject: Re: [Dng] [dng] vdev status update and milestone
On Tue 24 March 2015 22:17:20 Steve Litt wrote:
This systemd debacle increased by an
Are you for real?
[T.J. ] Just to clear things up.
If so:
1) Drepper maintained glibc, not gcc. These are two separate projects.
True. I always treat GCC and glibc as somewhat synonymous since they go
hand in hand. You can't have one without the other for all intents as
KatolaZ,
[T.J. ] What I said was: It should be important to note that a segfault
can be caused by any number of things, that can be unrelated to systemd
itself. I do grant you that systemd has its share of undesirables, but it
could be exposing a flaw in the lower libraries as well. A lot
Defaults are not necessarily caused by glibc itself
Defaults = Segfaults. Don't you just hate autocorrect?
T.J.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
If something goes wrong somewhere and X11 segfaults (which I think does
not happen more than once in a few decades, at least with the stable
version
of Xorg), then we might complain and make a fuss, but in the end is not
that
big deal. Having systemd as PID 1 segfaulting is a completely
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:31:47PM -0500, T.J. Duchene wrote:
KatolaZ,
[T.J. ] What I said was: It should be important to note that a segfault
can be caused by any number of things, that can be unrelated to systemd
itself. I do grant you that systemd has its share of undesirables, but
13 matches
Mail list logo
