On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 08:03:11PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > find / -uid 0 -perm 0400
>
> I guess this should have been 04000
Actually, it should be
find / -uid 0 -perm +4000
Sorry about that..
--
bda
Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk.
http://mirrorshades.org
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 08:03:11PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > find / -uid 0 -perm 0400
>
> I guess this should have been 04000
Actually, it should be
find / -uid 0 -perm +4000
Sorry about that..
--
bda
Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk.
http://mirrorshades.
. From that point, they have
root access. And don't bother hiding themselves at all, which is lucky
for you, really.
Of course, all of the above is simply a hypothesis based on incomplete
information, but...
I would suggest taking a look at what CGI you or your customers are
running, and searching
. From that point, they have
root access. And don't bother hiding themselves at all, which is lucky
for you, really.
Of course, all of the above is simply a hypothesis based on incomplete
information, but...
I would suggest taking a look at what CGI you or your customers are
running, and searching
people try to insist I use things just
because they're `cutting edge' and are therefore so much "kewler" than
what's currently standard. This is idiotic. I use applications that
work. That's it.
If it doesn't work, it has zero value to me. "Work", however, has a
number of connotations:
Is it easy to maintain?
Is it easy to automate?
Is it secure?
Can I easily replicate it if the machine it's currently living
on falls into a pit and is eaten by Cthulu and his dancing harem of
tenor sax playing gerbils?
> aside from bind, there are replacements for all of those programs which
> solve their problems while still providing backwards compatibility.
Yet again, there is backwards compatibility. It's called converting your
precious zone files to a less stupid format.
What all of this seems to come down to is that the "djb One True Way"
you continue to refer to rubs you the wrong way. Well, that's perfectly
fine. However, the fact that YOU act like djb has some sort of
obligation to do things he doesn't agree with simply because you don't
like how his software works is both insulting and counter-productive.
It seems to me, having used djb software for going on two years, that he
doesn't suffer fools -- and neither does his software.
The same could be, and has been, said for UNIX itself.
--
bda
Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk.
http://mirrorshades.org
people try to insist I use things just
because they're `cutting edge' and are therefore so much "kewler" than
what's currently standard. This is idiotic. I use applications that
work. That's it.
If it doesn't work, it has zero value to me. "Work", however, has a
number of connotations:
Is it easy to maintain?
Is it easy to automate?
Is it secure?
Can I easily replicate it if the machine it's currently living
on falls into a pit and is eaten by Cthulu and his dancing harem of
tenor sax playing gerbils?
> aside from bind, there are replacements for all of those programs which
> solve their problems while still providing backwards compatibility.
Yet again, there is backwards compatibility. It's called converting your
precious zone files to a less stupid format.
What all of this seems to come down to is that the "djb One True Way"
you continue to refer to rubs you the wrong way. Well, that's perfectly
fine. However, the fact that YOU act like djb has some sort of
obligation to do things he doesn't agree with simply because you don't
like how his software works is both insulting and counter-productive.
It seems to me, having used djb software for going on two years, that he
doesn't suffer fools -- and neither does his software.
The same could be, and has been, said for UNIX itself.
--
bda
Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk.
http://mirrorshades.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6 matches
Mail list logo
