Messages in this thread | | | From | (Alan Cox) | Subject | Re: security warning | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:52:54 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > 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
| |