Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:53:14 +0100 (MET) | From | Sebastian Krahmer <> | Subject | Re: Linux Kernel 2.0.x/2.2.x local Denial of Service attack |
| |
hi,
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The point now is, that many Linux distributions ship with no resource > > limitations activated by default, and a lot of administrators don't know > > about them or how to enable them. By raising public attention to this > > problem you bring many administrators to raise the barrier by enforcing > > resource limits, which is good. > > Agreed. > > > On the other hand, Unix wasn't build for DoS-users, and I'm sure Alan is > > able to crash mostly anything. But using resource limits anyway is a good > > thing and any admin should use them. > > I can't think of what is bad about saying this. > > I'd love to eventually get Linux to the point it has resource management > equal to VM/CMS, but not if it turns into CMS 8) > > > it independently though), no one would know it today. So please don't > > blame me that I cannot read 250++ mails per day just to ensure we don't > > release something already known to some people. > > Nod > > Isn't it possble to have sth. like FreeBSD? I mean linux already has something like MIN_TAKS_LEFT_FOR_ROOT (or such:) so the same thing should be possible for memory? How does BSD the protection against such attacks?
regards, Sebastian
- 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/
| |