On Monday 02 May 2005 07:14, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 01 May 2005 07:06 am, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > (That said, if you do use -p to get get a setuid bash, there's several
> > > other things you should do to make this marginally less dangerous. And
> > > I wouldn't trust myself to remember
On Sunday 01 May 2005 07:06 am, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > (That said, if you do use -p to get get a setuid bash, there's several
> > other things you should do to make this marginally less dangerous. And I
> > wouldn't trust myself to remember them all off the top of my head...)
>
> No, I'm not say
On Friday 29 April 2005 01:38, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 29 April 2005 03:16 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > Hmmm... I suppose I could always have a wrapper script
> >
> > which can't be setuid if in bash, could if in Perl and perlsuid is
> > installed.
>
> Actually you can run bash setuid with
On Friday 29 April 2005 03:16 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Hmmm... I suppose I could always have a wrapper script
>
> which can't be setuid if in bash, could if in Perl and perlsuid is
> installed.
Actually you can run bash setuid with the -p option. From bash's "flags.c":
/* Non-zero means tha
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 03:23, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Saturday 23 April 2005 08:57 am, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > Can't do it before
> > > running the UML kernel because A) it needs to make its memory file, 2)
> > > it needs to access /proc/self/exe, III) it needs to loopback mount its
> > > ex
On Saturday 23 April 2005 08:57 am, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > By the way, I've toyed with the idea of running this sucker in an
> > otherwise empty chroot environment (/proc/self/fd is likely to exist and
> > have fairly uninteresting contents. As a chroot environment, it just has
> > symlinks that
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
By the way, I've toyed with the idea of running this sucker in an otherwise
empty chroot environment (/proc/self/fd is likely to exist and have fairly
uninteresting contents. As a chroot environment, it just has symlinks that
point to nothing), but to chroot
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 12:06, Rob Landley wrote:
> http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/notes.html
>
> It's a ~80 meg tarball (half of which is the gcc, binutils, and
> linux-2.6.11 source tarballs) on a friend's machine, so don't hit the poor
> server too hard. I intend to move it to a faster
http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/notes.html
It's a ~80 meg tarball (half of which is the gcc, binutils, and linux-2.6.11
source tarballs) on a friend's machine, so don't hit the poor server too
hard. I intend to move it to a faster connection after I get back from
Penguicon...
Yeah, I kno
