On Wednesday 30 May 2007 14:22, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > > Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
> >
> > Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove that?
>
> 1. Well, you're still bound to the Linux security model.
hi Alexey,
The security
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 21:22 +0200, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Druid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/30/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
> >
> > Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove
On 5/30/07, Druid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove that?
1. Well, you're still bound to the Linux security model.
2. as a
On Wed 30 May 07 11:31, Druid wrote:
> lunatic
You've finally started to help yourself by recognizing of your problem.
Now, go get treatment for it.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove that?
It does neither improve neither lower it. Obscurity is not security.
Breaking standards among the linux distros improves anything?
And here we are again wasting time in a dumb discussion... Thanks a
lot, alexey, again, for making peo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2007-05-30 at 09:38 -0300, Druid wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
>
> Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove that?
It
On 5/30/07, Alexey Eremenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adding /sbin/ to user's $PATH doesn't lower your security. (because
Thats your oppinion or do you have some way to prove that?
Its very interesting that everybody using linux and defining LSB and
FHS are wrong and you are correct...
Let's
