[lkml]   [1997]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: security warning
    > > 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

    Well to start with elm breaks for me, screen stopped working right at the
    time I tried it. Several programs that use symlinks for locking died
    (mostly custom stuff0

    > 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.

    non exec stack doesnt change the system behaviour to a non unix one. And
    Im looking forward to glibc 2.1 so I can try and get non-exec into the kernel
    2.3.x as a default

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.017 / U:6.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site