Hi,
On 3/18/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I also find "secure chroot implementation" in the list. IMHO, the
> > unsafty of chroot is not caused by passive translator. In fact,
> > currently chroot is implemented totally at client side by changing the
> > INIT_PORT_CRDIR po
Scribit [EMAIL PROTECTED] dies 18/03/2008 hora 16:38:
> Now the problem is that a chrooted process can create a passive
> translator. When this translated node is accessed, the translator
> process currently won't be started in the context of the chrooted
> process, but in that of the normal global
