[possibly somewhat off-topic here, [EMAIL PROTECTED] can be used
for discussion about it]
I've written down some ideas how I think it would be possible to
implement easy to use and quite secure graphical user interface and
operating system around it to make it possible. It's available at
http://ik
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 05:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > classifying software simply to "trusted" and "untrusted" isn't enough. I
> > don't want my "trusted" web browser accessing files in my home directory
> > (due to security holes in it) unless I specifically tell it to upload or
> > download t
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 04:31, Charles E. Hill wrote:
> I read it, and have a couple comments.
..
Most of it was about how to run current operating systems slightly more
securely. I don't think it's nearly enough to provide good security.
> 5. Make a list of services allowed to make network connect
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 03:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 02:00:39 +0300, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > http://iki.fi/tss/security/friendly-secure-os.html
> >
> > I'd like to hear comments about it. I hope it's easily eno
For a while I've been wondering if it's possible to create an operating
system that would allow "stupid" users to easily do whatever they want,
but still prevent viruses and other malware from doing any harm.
Today I finally spent a few minutes thinking about it and then wrote
some of the thoughts
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:31:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you can see the 2 bugs in this code?, seems to of me that theo could
> not. i am of understanding that there are exploits working on this in
> the wild. 3 remote holes in default install now !
Since the patch is now available I'd
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 18:21, Nelson wrote:
> I disagree, pedophilia is about security, because we have to know how the users
> are using the network. It's about Security Policy.
Sorry for yet another _really_ off-topic post, but this pedophilia talk
got me really annoyed.
Is someone a pedophile j
On Saturday, Jul 19, 2003, at 00:11 Europe/Helsinki, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hmm, ever heard of procmail?
Yea, ugliest piece of code I've ever seen. I gave up trying to audit it
and I doubt anyone can be sure it's safe of buffer overflows. I
certainly won't be installing it in any of my server
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 07:12:32AM -, n d wrote:
> i was wondering why pid_t and size_t are defined as signed integers? im
> not too sure that a process id can be negative. and if strlen returns a
> 16-bit signed integer what would happen if strlen was passed a string with
> a size of 34000?
I
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 14:55, nag wrote:
> there is some rumor spreading about new sendmail vulnerability. i do not see
> any news at www.sendmail.org but supposedly ths is remote buffer overflow.
> i received the patch (see below), but o not have any exploit, so please
> don't mail me about it.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
