Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:31:50 -0500 (EST) | From | Rob Hagopian <> | Subject | Re: again security proposal |
| |
So why is the SYN cookies synflood protection in the kernel then? According to the config, it has "a small probability of introducing a non timed-out failure to connect in the remote TCP." Sounds like a violation of standards to me, so lets rip it out! (<-- sarcasm)
Besides: - the noexec patch doesn't violate any UNIX standard - the link patch violates a standard, but AFAIK, noone has actually found a program that will break, and the one case that I have seen that will break could be fixed easily with /proc tuning.
-Rob H.
On 30 Dec 1997, Vladimir Volovich wrote:
> "YK" == Yuri Kuzmenko writes: > > YK> I run chown fido.uucp -R /var/spool/ifmail > YK> (+ chmod g+rw) every 10 minutes from cron. Yes, I know, that is > YK> not better solution. > > Please, do not violate UNIX standards! Change your scripts better! > We do not need a "security" section in kernel which will be nothing more than > violation of standards and bloating the kernel source. This thread is not really > a kernel issue, and should be solved from user space! > > BTW, Happy New Year to all of you! > > Best regards, -- Vladimir. > -- > I've got a very bad feeling about this. > -- Han Solo >
| |