On Monday, December 24, 2001, at 10:52 , Gary MacDougall wrote:
Someone said that St. Jude was what I was looking for, and I think
its pretty much *exactly* what I was pointing out.
Can't, in general, stop an attack. All the attacker has to do is
not do unusual calls which jude monitors,
Hi,
Gary MacDougall wrote:
Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100% security until
there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking that occurs.
Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
laws can´t do anything against
Moin
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Martin
Hi,
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
i think the
It doesn't need to spawn a new shell to allow root access. It
can just load the a properly-linked shell into memory (not
calling execve), then jump to main.
Or it can not use a shell at all. Shells aren't special in any way.
True, shells aren't special. But if someone tries to smash the
Selam sana bir site oneriyorum kesin bak! ,
OYUNLAR SADECE 2.750.000 TL!
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
iyi gunler,
Bu mesaj
htp://www.aslan.mekani.com üzerinden yollanmistir!
Uye olmak icin ;
http://astavilla.kolayweb.com/haber.htm
The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
me besides the point. I'll never understand why
people want to put labels on someone trying to do
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks
have -- to me, they're equally
A major point concerning laws is that they prevent nothing. Laws against murder have
been around since the idea of laws was invented, yet murder still happens. Sometimes
in new and spectacular ways.
Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an individual
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
making the disks readonly is not trivial ...
lots of work to make it readonly.. a fun project ...
Not really. Nothing should write anywhere except /var and /tmp
(did I miss any). Also, if you have users, then /home.
/etc is written into
Actually your point of view basically states that its ok for anyone to
tresspass.
In the US, we have laws against such activity. People are *not* allowed to
break
the law, regardless of how stupid the victim is.
Law's were created to protect. Regardless of the type of crime or injustice.
Just
Although you raise a very good point. I have a severe problem
with this notion of a whitehat cracker.
For example:
If I left the keys in the door and someone unlocked my door,
walked in and then called me and said hey, stupid, i'm in your
home -- I'm calling you from there, see!. I'd say hey,
On Monday, December 24, 2001, at 10:52 , Gary MacDougall wrote:
Someone said that St. Jude was what I was looking for, and I think
its pretty much *exactly* what I was pointing out.
Can't, in general, stop an attack. All the attacker has to do is
not do unusual calls which jude monitors,
Hi,
Gary MacDougall wrote:
Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100% security until
there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking that occurs.
Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
laws can´t do anything against
Moin
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Martin
--
Hi,
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
i think the
It doesn't need to spawn a new shell to allow root access. It
can just load the a properly-linked shell into memory (not
calling execve), then jump to main.
Or it can not use a shell at all. Shells aren't special in any way.
True, shells aren't special. But if someone tries to smash the
Selam sana bir site oneriyorum kesin bak! ,
OYUNLAR SADECE 2.750.000 TL!
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
iyi gunler,
Bu mesaj
htp://www.aslan.mekani.com üzerinden yollanmistir!
Uye olmak icin ;
http://astavilla.kolayweb.com/haber.htm
The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
me besides the point. I'll never understand why
people want to put labels on someone trying to do
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks
have -- to me, they're equally
The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
me besides the point. I'll never understand why
people want to put labels on someone trying to do
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks
have -- to me, they're equally
A major point concerning laws is that they prevent nothing. Laws against
murder have been around since the idea of laws was invented, yet murder still
happens. Sometimes in new and spectacular ways.
Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an
individual
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
making the disks readonly is not trivial ...
lots of work to make it readonly.. a fun project ...
Not really. Nothing should write anywhere except /var and /tmp
(did I miss any). Also, if you have users, then /home.
/etc is written into
hi ya
for a simple 5 minute kernel patch...
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Harden/kernel.gwif.html
- apply openwall if you are using 2.2.x kernels
- ruh libsafe if you wanna try a prevent some buffer overflows
- if you wanna get into all the fun stuff... lots of other
Actually your point of view basically states that its ok for anyone to
tresspass.
In the US, we have laws against such activity. People are *not* allowed to
break
the law, regardless of how stupid the victim is.
Law's were created to protect. Regardless of the type of crime or injustice.
Just
Although you raise a very good point. I have a severe problem
with this notion of a whitehat cracker.
For example:
If I left the keys in the door and someone unlocked my door,
walked in and then called me and said hey, stupid, i'm in your
home -- I'm calling you from there, see!. I'd say hey,
Gary,
While I understand your theory, reality is that laws only provide a framework
for punishment. If their existence in fact did not allow something, such as
murder, murder would therefore not happen. Murder does in fact happen, just
like trespass, yet is not ok. If, as you say, people were
25 matches
Mail list logo
