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    [W:0.021 / U:0.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site