[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: security warning
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I would strongly suggest the following patch:
> >
> > I hope that patch gets in the kernel soon, default to "Y".
> Why do we want a patch breaking symbolic links and several applications.
> Fix the applications or fix the use of /tmp even better still.

What applications break? I've heard lots of warnings of "applications
will break", but not actually experienced any. The same can be said for
the non-executable stack patch. I know it may cause problems with libc6,
but as long as I'm using libc5, the extra layer of security it provides is
invaluable. I know for a fact that it's saved me from 2 attempts at
cracking root. Not only did it stop them...but it also gave me immediate
notification that I had an univited guest.

Jon Lewis <> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
______ for PGP public key____

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.091 / U:4.412 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site