On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:09:01PM -0500, Will H. Backman wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject and this issue and the use of X
all together.
Not critical what so ever by any long shoot, but I was curious as to if
there is some window manage that actually DO
No idea if it even compiles nowadays, especially on OpenBSD, though. And
I don't know how this thing talks to video cards. Theo seems to indicate
that working with video cards pretty much requires a good dose of
'evil'.
May be we just run a workstation dedicated to remotely connect to other
On 16/03/06, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be we just run a workstation dedicated to remotely connect to other
workstations, or servers that run X server only where it's needed and
that have no video card in these servers or workstations! (:
Ugh, you aren't supposed to run the X
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 16/03/06, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be we just run a workstation dedicated to remotely connect to other
workstations, or servers that run X server only where it's needed and
that have no video card in these servers or workstations! (:
Ugh,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:40:45PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
No idea if it even compiles nowadays, especially on OpenBSD, though. And
I don't know how this thing talks to video cards. Theo seems to indicate
that working with video cards pretty much requires a good dose of
'evil'.
May be
snip
modern PC video card architecture containing a large
quantity of PURE EVIL.
This joke has a whole new meaning...
http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021029
As an aside, there are no alternative windows systems that are
functional or secure?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 01:56:44PM -0800, A Rossi wrote:
snip
modern PC video card architecture containing a large
quantity of PURE EVIL.
This joke has a whole new meaning...
http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021029
As an aside, there are no alternative windows systems that
On 2006/03/16 13:56, A Rossi wrote:
snip
modern PC video card architecture containing a large
quantity of PURE EVIL.
This joke has a whole new meaning...
http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20021029
As an aside, there are no alternative windows systems that are
functional or
...on Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:41:44PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yes, they have DMA engines. If the privilege seperate X server has a
bug, it can still wiggle the IO registers of the card to do DMA to
physical addresses, entirely bypassing system security.
Wow. As if running a
The current slogan for 3.8 is Free, Functional Secure. My opinion
is that it presents the project goals well in 4 simple words. It is not
boastful, remember Nothing is Impossible, or aims to create false
belief/concept. We have our fair share of those, just switch on your TV.
Theo and others did
I think the slogan Secure by default is an excellent description of
OpenBSD.
It implies that it is secure out of the box, and can only be made less
secure
by the user. As soon as you deviate from the default you are obviously
losing security points. Just my 2.
Robert
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
would give it some consideration ..., I didn't said they must or have
to.
Regards
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:11:49 -0600, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andrew Ng wrote:
The current slogan for 3.8 is Free, Functional
On 3/15/06, Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
snip
Can anyone guess who nimrod was in history? : )
rogern
John 3:16
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nimrod
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:59:26 -0800, Roger Neth Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 3/15/06, Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
snip
Can anyone guess who nimrod was
On 15/03/06, Roger Neth Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
snip
Can anyone guess who nimrod was in history? : )
rogern
John 3:16
RTFM.
Gen. 10:8-10
On 3/15/06, unixadmin99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/06, Roger Neth Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
snip
Can anyone guess who nimrod was in history? : )
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject and this issue and the use of X
all together.
Not critical what so ever by any long shoot, but I was curious as to if
there is some window manage that actually DO NOT need any of the X stuff
all together?
Meaning something that obviously will not be
On 3/15/06, Roger Neth Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, unixadmin99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/03/06, Roger Neth Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
cool it. I think you meant nimrod. I said I believe Theo and others
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject and this issue and the use of X
all together.
Not critical what so ever by any long shoot, but I was curious as to if
there is some window manage that actually DO NOT need any of the X stuff
all together?
Meaning something that
On 3/15/06, Will H. Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance on the subject and this issue and the use of X
all together.
Not critical what so ever by any long shoot, but I was curious as to if
there is some window manage that actually DO NOT need
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:24:41PM +, Robert Jacobs wrote:
I think the slogan Secure by default is an excellent description of
OpenBSD.
It implies that it is secure out of the box, and can only be made less
secure by the user. As soon as you deviate from the default you are
obviously
On 3/15/06, unixadmin99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God Bless you
rogern
Romans 12:14
Comon Roger,
Even you must have found a hint of humour in my reply. Oh and guess
what... The list has just found yet another resource:
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30
Surely that deserves a few
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:11:49 -0600, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Ng wrote:
The current slogan for 3.8 is Free, Functional Secure. My opinion
is that it presents the project goals well in 4 simple words. It is not
boastful, remember Nothing is Impossible, or aims to create false
I would like to educate people of something which many are not aware
of -- how X works on a modern machine.
Some of our architectures use a tricky and horrid thing to allow X to
run. This is due to modern PC video card architecture containing a
large quantity of PURE EVIL. To get around this
Hi Theo,
On 2006.03.14, at 9:41 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Well, recently we have changed our minds, because we still feel that
the aperture is too dangerous. And the vendors keep finding creative
ways to squeeze more and more evil into their video cards!
Please be aware that other operating
Therefore, after 3.9, that default for the install script question is
being changed to no.
I am sure this will at least double the number of I installed OpenBSD
and X11 won't work questions on this mailing list. But it sounds like
a good change in the interest of security.
Thanks,
Robert
user who sees that on his new CD jewel case will think
twice before posting silly questions.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Jacobs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 March 2006 04:11 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Reminder about the X Aperture
Therefore, after 3.9
Are these new programable cards capable of reading main memory, which
OpenBSD would not be able to prevent if machdep.allowaperture were
set to something other than 0?
Yes, they have DMA engines. If the privilege seperate X server has a
bug, it can still wiggle the IO registers of the
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:37:17 +0200, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the team should consider this for the OpenBSD 4.0 artwork.
Maybe with a tagline like The Admin who could not read or Annie get
your Glasses.
OR, (in light of so many users who expect list members
Thanks Theo,
On 2006.03.15, at 5:22 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Are these new programable cards capable of reading main memory, which
OpenBSD would not be able to prevent if machdep.allowaperture were
set to something other than 0?
Yes, they have DMA engines. If the privilege seperate X server
Are these new programable cards capable of reading main memory, which
OpenBSD would not be able to prevent if machdep.allowaperture were
set to something other than 0?
Yes, they have DMA engines. If the privilege seperate X server has a
bug, it can still wiggle the IO registers of the
J.C. Roberts wrote:
These days, you see computer security mentioned on the nightly news, yet
there's never any mention of correctness or quality. The result has been
obvious; people have flocked to OpenBSD in hopes of attaining this
supposed security thing but they never realized there is a lot
I agreed too. Anyone who choose to use OpenBSD should have a basic
understanding that no system is 100% secure. Even if there is, people
can still attack the weakest link(human) with social engineering.
OpenBSD and other projects allow us a choice against vendors who care
about making more $ than
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:50:31 -0700, Darrin Chandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The often used OpenBSD phrase Secure By Default actually encourages
the lazy attitudes and lack of learning. Worse yet, Secure By Default
is fairly misleading since systems are always secured by knowledge,
effort and
J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:37:17 +0200, Marius Van Deventer - Umzimkulu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the team should consider this for the OpenBSD 4.0 artwork.
Maybe with a tagline like The Admin who could not read or Annie get
your Glasses.
OR, (in light of so many
35 matches
Mail list logo
