Hi!
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:07:35PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>[...]
>If you want X to talk to IO devices, what next? ls?
Oh why not? Surely, you'd get the directory listings 0.0005 percent
faster that way, won't ya? ;-)
SCNR, tongue in cheek, of course.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:27:00AM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:26:39PM +1000, Steffen Kluge wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 16:18 +0200, Ed White wrote:
> > > It seems XFree people disagree...
> > > [...]
> > > ...and some Linux developers too...
> > >
> > > Alan C
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:26:39PM +1000, Steffen Kluge wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 16:18 +0200, Ed White wrote:
> > It seems XFree people disagree...
> > [...]
> > ...and some Linux developers too...
> >
> > Alan Cox: What it essentially says is "if you can hack the machine enough
> > to
> >
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 16:18 +0200, Ed White wrote:
> It seems XFree people disagree...
> [...]
> ...and some Linux developers too...
>
> Alan Cox: What it essentially says is "if you can hack the machine enough to
> get the ability to issue raw i/o accesses you can get any other power you
> want"
> > Marc Aurele La France: Contrary to what too many security pundits think,
> > limiting root's power doesn't solve anything. Like bugs, security issues
> > will forever be uncovered, whether they be in setuid applications like an X
> > server or in a kernel itself. The trick, it seems, is to
Ed White wrote:
It seems XFree people disagree...
What a surprise.
Marc Aurele La France: Contrary to what too many security pundits think,
limiting root's power doesn't solve anything. Like bugs, security issues
will forever be uncovered, whether they be in setuid applications like an X
s
It seems XFree people disagree...
Marc Aurele La France: Contrary to what too many security pundits think,
limiting root's power doesn't solve anything. Like bugs, security issues
will forever be uncovered, whether they be in setuid applications like an X
server or in a kernel itself. The tri
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114657401630096&w=2
>
> If I understand correctly from what I've been told, this is not a
> hardware
> issue but an 'X' issue.
It is the job of the operating system to shield the hardware from
userland processes. That's what every operating system
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:00:40 +0200, "Ed White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> A researcher of the french NSA discovered a scary vulnerability in modern
> x86
> cpus and chipsets that expose the kernel to direct tampering.
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/print/columnists/402
>
> The problem is that
A researcher of the french NSA discovered a scary vulnerability in modern x86
cpus and chipsets that expose the kernel to direct tampering.
http://www.securityfocus.com/print/columnists/402
The problem is that a feature called System Management Mode could be used to
bypass the kernel and execut
10 matches
Mail list logo
