lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans