[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:0.069 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site