Messages in this thread | | | From | "Sean McElroy" <> | Subject | RE: Unexecutable stack | Date | Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:06:02 -0600 |
| |
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Gabor Lenart wrote: > > > Hmmm. But kernel contains features marked 'experimental'. > Like experimental > > things, secure Linux patch can go into kernel with some > remark like experimantal. > > (in this case: "big warning, ..."). > > Indeed, warning that this doesn't prevent you against getting hacked > should be in order. > I use the patch for a while now on production boxes, it has > proven useful > and not in the way for me. > > > BTW, restricted proc fs should go into kernel tree (do not > care in this case > > if unexecutable stack goes in or not), because it's the > minimum to have > > an ability to hide my processes from others. It's VERY > simple and trivial > > patch, only alters file access permissions in /proc. > > I couldn't live without it on our public telnet servers, our > users should > have some form of "privacy". > We can all imagine what nasty things can happen when someone > is doing a ps > and sees personal data carelessly put in a commandline of some users > process. > I think at least parts of these patches should be considered > for optional > inclusion. > > Regards, > > ---------------------------draw-conclusion-here--------------- > --------- > Homme R. Bitter *NIX admin, BOFH, MCSE, parttime > divine entity. > > REM This is a comment, I realy, really, really love comments.
The unexecutable stack patch will probably always be a "hotbutton issue", but I too would really like to see the /proc permission patch go in to the standard kernel.
-Sean
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |