On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:26:50 +1000
Rod Whitworth wrote:
And I think that we'd all laugh at unpriveleged apps messing with the
rules.
Yeah it should be a completely seperate layer if anything. It can
already be done to some degree with systrace on OpenBSD and so I'd
guess strace on Linux.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 08:26:50AM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote:
Better tha
iptables?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/article.php/3934151/Fedora-15-Boosts
-Linux-Security.htm
maybe...
But apps opening pinholes?
That's just asking for trouble!
Oh dear.
Those of us running pf for
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 08:26:50AM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote:
Better tha
iptables?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/article.php/3934151/Fedora-15-Boosts
-Linux-Security.htm
maybe...
Imagine the dynamic firewall technology in the cloud!
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:49:22 -0500, John Jackson wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 08:26:50AM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote:
Better tha
iptables?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/article.php/3934151/Fedora-15-Boosts
-Linux-Security.htm
maybe...
But apps opening pinholes?
That's just asking
Better tha
iptables?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/article.php/3934151/Fedora-15-Boosts
-Linux-Security.htm
maybe...
But apps opening pinholes?
That's just asking for trouble!
sarcasm
You fuddy duddy guys don't know anything. Did you check wikipedia, the
authoritative source of
Nope. Was changing a iptable rule on the fly on a ubuntu server at
work yesterday. This is nothing new. The new shit is allowing programs
to talk to the firewall. This may or may not be a good thing depend on
how much control over which program may talk to it and what it can
change. I certainly
On 05/20/2011 05:26 PM, Rod Whitworth wrote:
Better tha
iptables?
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/article.php/3934151/Fedora-15-Boosts
-Linux-Security.htm
maybe...
But apps opening pinholes?
Oh dear.
Those of us running pf for years know that being able to do rule
changes on the fly is a
7 matches
Mail list logo