Anton Karpov wrote > > > If he can break in as a lowly user uname -a will tell him what it is > > anyway. And don't tell me we should disable that command or cause it to > > lie because then I'll shoot you down another way. > > > > Re-read my message, please. I didn't tell he cannot stat os version and > arch. But he may has to find similar os version and arch, to compile his > code. Hmmm, There's a lot more that I don't know about this stuff, but seems like to whatever extent security by obscurity can actually work, (actually it is quite effective -- but it does have to be obscure -- obscure is very removed from ubiquitous (with whatever trappings)) you have a lot more opportunities with locatized "options" and such. Intruder must compile elsewhere because the locally installed stuff breaks the intruders stuff. (gcc bugs as security enhancements?? -- yuck but probably effective)
Now, without an installed compiler, methinks you dare not even think about any such. With installed and just horsing around, ??? > > > > > > Back to the circus, Anton, you ain't funny any more. Pathetic is more > > like it. > > > > Yeah, but you ARE quite funny. The man who cannot read emails carefully is > always funny Actually the opposite. They know enough to make asnwers which are legitimate regardless of whatever it is they are in reply to. (As opposed to ...)
