Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Currently when people download executables from the network, say for
installing software, they can not execute them because the execute bit
is not set.
So typical installation instructions for a Unix application look like
this:
1. Click on this link to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 08:52 PM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
You should be able to mock up your idea by adding a simple application
that
is registered as the handler for elf/a.out files which does what you
described.
Ok, I have implemented this. I am just waiting for approval to
Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
Currently when people download executables from the network, say for
installing software, they can not execute them because the execute bit
is not set.
Does this actually happen? Can anyone remember the last time they
downloaded a single binary executable from
So sprach Christian Rose am Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:27:51PM +0200:
I think that a big security warning would be appropriate when
double-clicking a binary without execute permission set, though. This
Dunno, but for some reason I'd think that people might just ignore this
warning. People might
As has been already mentioned, nautilus has a way how to change perms
without launching a shell (I bet gmc has too, dunno).
Of course I know this. And you do too. And yes, gmc has this as
well.
The problem is not that *we* know that this exists. But the problem
is that I have *seen*
This is not sufficient. You would have to check for more - Target
architecture, required libraries, library versions, other
dependencies.
My program checks for target architecture. For all the other cases,
they all boil down to `Program can not be executed for XXX reason'.
And this is easy
There are several IRC clients that can do auto-dcc, and some default
the dcc-save directory to your homedir. This is stupid.
And I am sure there are users who dont understand DCC and what
it is once we get more novice users to GNOME. So DCC send a .desktop
file
On 23 May 2001 14:59:31 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
It would be cool to be able to:
Click on a RPM link to download the RPM file
and then have an installer kick off that shows
the RPM info and asks for an installation
confirmation. Then, prompt for the root
It would be cool to be able to:
Click on a RPM link to download the RPM file
and then have an installer kick off that shows
the RPM info and asks for an installation
confirmation. Then, prompt for the root
password before actually installing the package.
On 23 May 2001 17:13:22 -0400, Iain wrote:
A warning is better than no warning and letting a user just set the
bit himself.
Well, Outlook/IE has a warning, and still the viruses keep coming.
Linux 2.6 will have security hooked much more deeply into the kernel.
Even without this, if a
In regards to mail attachment viruses that propagate themselves using
mail address lists, I'd say Evolution should probably not execute script
attachments at all.
It does not. But this is a different problem as it has a different
usage pattern.
I know that this is heresy for Linux geeks
what if someone distributes a malicious elf/a.out binary as
foo-1.5-2.i386.rpm the user will open the file with gmc/nautilus and
instead of telling the user no viewer capable of opening this file (or
whatever it says when someone runs a binary w/o the execute bit) it will
set the execute
Em 23 May 2001 22:27:25 -0300, Evandro Fernandes Giovanini escreveu:
what if someone distributes a malicious elf/a.out binary as
foo-1.5-2.i386.rpm the user will open the file with gmc/nautilus and
instead of telling the user no viewer capable of opening this file (or
whatever it says when
On 23 May 2001 22:27:25 -0300
Evandro Fernandes Giovanini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what if someone distributes a malicious elf/a.out binary as
foo-1.5-2.i386.rpm the user will open the file with gmc/nautilus and
instead of telling the user no viewer capable of opening this file
(or
whatever
14 matches
Mail list logo
