Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 06:07:38 +0100 as
excerpted:
> Well as I've said, getting that in via USB may be only one way.
> We're already so far that GNOME automount devices when plugged...
Ugh. ... And many know that's the sort of thing that made MS so much of
a
On Sun, 2015-12-06 at 04:06 +, Duncan wrote:
> There's actually a number of USB-based hardware and software vulns
> out
> there, from the under $10 common-component-capacitor-based charge-
> and-zap
> (charges off the 5V USB line, zaps the port with several hundred
> volts
> reverse-polarity,
On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 13:19 +, Duncan wrote:
> The problem with btrfs is that because (unlike traditional
> filesystems)
> it's multi-device, it needs some way to identify what devices belong
> to a
> particular filesystem.
Sure, but that applies to lvm, or MD as well... and I wouldn't know
On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 12:01 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:28:24AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 13:07 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > > I don't think it'll cause problems.
> > Is there any guaranteed behaviour when btrfs encounters two
> >
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:51:20 +0100 as
excerpted:
> You have things like ATMs, which are physically usually quite well
> secured, but which do have rather easily accessible maintenance ports.
> All of us have seen such embedded devices rebooting themselves, where
>
Thinking a bit more I that, I came to the conclusion that it's actually
security relevant that btrfs deals gracefully with filesystems having the same
UUID:
Getting to know someone else's filesystem's UUID may be more easily possible
than one may think.
It's usually not considered secret and
