Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:52:05 +0100 (CET) | From | "Homme R. Bitter" <> | Subject | Re: Unexecutable stack |
| |
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Gabor Lenart wrote:
> Hmmm. But kernel contains features marked 'experimental'. Like experimental > things, secure Linux patch can go into kernel with some remark like experimantal. > (in this case: "big warning, ...").
Indeed, warning that this doesn't prevent you against getting hacked should be in order. I use the patch for a while now on production boxes, it has proven useful and not in the way for me.
> BTW, restricted proc fs should go into kernel tree (do not care in this case > if unexecutable stack goes in or not), because it's the minimum to have > an ability to hide my processes from others. It's VERY simple and trivial > patch, only alters file access permissions in /proc.
I couldn't live without it on our public telnet servers, our users should have some form of "privacy". We can all imagine what nasty things can happen when someone is doing a ps and sees personal data carelessly put in a commandline of some users process. I think at least parts of these patches should be considered for optional inclusion.
Regards,
---------------------------draw-conclusion-here------------------------ Homme R. Bitter *NIX admin, BOFH, MCSE, parttime divine entity.
REM This is a comment, I realy, really, really love comments.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |