Hi,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:55:40PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 02:44 +0200, Dick Kniep wrote:
I do not want to secure the entire server. I only want a door that can
be locked. So I allow a user to use the terminal. Okay he is allowed
to use the terminal
On 11-04-01 04:58, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 03/31/2011 08:44 PM, Dick Kniep wrote:
Hi list,
Reading all comments on my stone in the pond I still think it is not
really clear what the problem is (and my proposed solution)
I do not want to secure the entire
Hi LIst,
I completely agree with you John, it looks like some people understand the need
for this and others simply don't see the point (and probably for good
reasons).
However the problem is more complex than it seems, because to be able to use a
wrapper, changes must be implemented in
Hi Alex, hi Dick,
On Fr 01 Apr 2011 10:07:15 CEST Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
Maybe this can be achieved also by apparmor, but it looks to me that
apparmor is intended to secure the entire system which is really not
what I want. (Or maybe I am mistaken because of lack of knowledge of
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 10:31:51AM +0200, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Sorry, I mixed both systems up. I want to refer to SELinux... I haven't
work with any of them, and only know them from reading. However, I think
the time being invested by someone in a wrapper script (-Dick...) it
could
Hi list,
Reading all comments on my stone in the pond I still think it is not really
clear what the problem is (and my proposed solution)
I do not want to secure the entire server. I only want a door that can be
locked. So I allow a user to use the terminal. Okay he is allowed to use the
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 02:44 +0200, Dick Kniep wrote:
Hi list,
Reading all comments on my stone in the pond I still think it is not
really clear what the problem is (and my proposed solution)
I do not want to secure the entire server. I only want a door that can
be locked. So I
On 03/31/2011 08:44 PM, Dick Kniep wrote:
Hi list,
Reading all comments on my stone in the pond I still think it is not
really clear what the problem is (and my proposed solution)
I do not want to secure the entire server. I only want a door that can
be locked. So I allow a user to
Hi list,
First of all sorry for the somewhat provocative way I entered this discussion.
Now about the use case we have:
We are providing an application over the internet to users. This application
should run seamlessly on the desktop of the user. So we do NOT export a
complete
Hi all,
On Di 29 Mär 2011 16:55:50 CEST Alexander Wuerstlein wrote:
On 11-03-29 15:36, Dick Kniep dick.kn...@lindix.nl wrote:
An authorized user running commands over ssh is not a security problem
at all. It works as intended. ssh provides shells.
As Reinhard has mentioned in another
10 matches
Mail list logo
