Howdy,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:12:42AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> That said, this is not enough reason to entirely delete the code. It
> still has uses.
It's useful for checking ports are not dumping junk all over the
file-system. Please keep it.
Best Regards
Edd Barrett
(Freelance softw
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Jonathan Schleifer
wrote:
> It was removed when I reported a bug in NETBSD-5-0 that would crash
> the Kernel when you tried to use systrace. Instead of fixing that,
> they removed it.
Looks like you will have to run OpenBSD then. For my personal use, I
find syst
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
>
> > real; systrace does have the ability to "grant root" unless you build
>
> Should that read "does not"?
>
> > the policy specifically to do such a stupid thing (actually, I am not
Oh, indeed. Sorry. systrace cannot grant root u
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> real; systrace does have the ability to "grant root" unless you build
Should that read "does not"?
> the policy specifically to do such a stupid thing (actually, I am not
-g
Am 26.03.2009 um 16:12 schrieb Theo de Raadt:
> They freaked out and did the wrong thing.
It was removed when I reported a bug in NETBSD-5-0 that would crash
the Kernel when you tried to use systrace. Instead of fixing that,
they removed it.
> systrace has a small problem. It is a very diff
> > I guess you should take a look at Systrace:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systrace
>
>
> This was removed from NetBSD some time ago because it is vulnerable.
> They said it's not only possible to circumvent it, but also gain root
> using it. Is this fixed in OpenBSD somehow?
They frea
Am 26.03.2009 um 07:17 schrieb Tobias Weisserth:
> I guess you should take a look at Systrace:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systrace
This was removed from NetBSD some time ago because it is vulnerable.
They said it's not only possible to circumvent it, but also gain root
using it. Is this
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:58:45AM -0400, punoseva...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi misc,
>
> I was wondering if you could give me some input about the following security
> matter. It seems to me that using a web-browser, an email client, and
> a chat client (if permitted at all) are the
> un-safest for
ok ,
You can just create a Low Privileged user account ( webuser )
whose home is at /home/webuser or may be /tmp
and then use any browser , any client
-ARUN
--- On Wed, 25/3/09, punoseva...@gmail.com wrote:
From: punoseva...@gmail.com
Subject: chroot browser
To: misc@openbsd.org
Date
I guess you should take a look at Systrace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systrace
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:28 AM, wrote:
> Hi misc,
>
> I was wondering if you could give me some input about the following
> security
> matter. It seems to me that using a web-browser, an email client, and
> a cha
Hi misc,
I was wondering if you could give me some input about the following security
matter. It seems to me that using a web-browser, an email client, and
a chat client (if permitted at all) are the
un-safest forms of interaction of a typical desktop user with his/hers
computer. Apart of stand
11 matches
Mail list logo
