Alexander Viro wrote:
> a) take a look at /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh. Around "Cleaning: /tmp", that is.
So you're editing a file in /tmp and you're worried about the DEADJOE
file lying around after a reboot? What about the file itself?
> b) several editing sessions in parallel.
Well yeah, the file
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:55:00PM -0700, Mike Fisk wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
> packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
> have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
> yourself or do a fu
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:26:13AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > >
> > > what's wrong with the current practice of putting deadjoe in the current
> > > directory?
> >
> > cwd == /tmp
>
> Belive it or not, it is actually possible to
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > a) take a look at /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh. Around "Cleaning: /tmp", that is.
>
> So you're editing a file in /tmp and you're worried about the DEADJOE
> file lying around after a reboot? What about the file itself?
cd /tmp
joe
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:26:13AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> >
> > what's wrong with the current practice of putting deadjoe in the current
> > directory?
>
> cwd == /tmp
Belive it or not, it is actually possible to write files to /tmp
securely. It's pretty silly to contemp
Alexander Viro wrote:
> a) take a look at /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh. Around "Cleaning: /tmp", that is.
So you're editing a file in /tmp and you're worried about the DEADJOE
file lying around after a reboot? What about the file itself?
> b) several editing sessions in parallel.
Well yeah, the file
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 12:55:00PM -0700, Mike Fisk wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
> packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
> have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
> yourself or do a f
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:26:13AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > >
> > > what's wrong with the current practice of putting deadjoe in the current
> > > directory?
> >
> > cwd == /tmp
>
> Belive it or not, it is actually possible t
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:26:13AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> >
> > what's wrong with the current practice of putting deadjoe in the current
> > directory?
>
> cwd == /tmp
Belive it or not, it is actually possible to write files to /tmp
securely. It's pretty silly to contem
There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
yourself or do a full dist-upgrade every so often. As often as packages
get updated i
> the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
> this, try the following:
>
> cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
>
> on my system i get a instant kernel panic (2.2.17 from ftp.kernel.org).
Should not happen - can you post a panic message?
Michael
There doesn't seem to be an automatic way to get all of the unstable
packages necessary to address reported security problems. You either
have to watch the security mailing lists and upgrade individual packages
yourself or do a full dist-upgrade every so often. As often as packages
get updated
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 06:04:01AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
>
> the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
> this, try the following:
>
> cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
>
> on my system i get a instant ker
> the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
> this, try the following:
>
> cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
>
> on my system i get a instant kernel panic (2.2.17 from ftp.kernel.org).
Should not happen - can you post a panic message?
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
This doesn't appear to affect systems running the 2.4.0test series
kernels. I'm running 2.4.0-test10 and all it did was fill my screen with
random colors .. I could just ctrl-c it and clear the screen. Doesn't
seem like there is anything broken by doing chmod 600 /dev/fb*, but all
I'm running is
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 06:04:01AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
>
> the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
> this, try the following:
>
> cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
>
> on my system i get a instant ke
does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
this, try the following:
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
on my system i get a instant kernel panic (2.2.17 from ftp.kernel.org).
since the framebuffer devices are world
This doesn't appear to affect systems running the 2.4.0test series
kernels. I'm running 2.4.0-test10 and all it did was fill my screen with
random colors .. I could just ctrl-c it and clear the screen. Doesn't
seem like there is anything broken by doing chmod 600 /dev/fb*, but all
I'm running is
does anyone know why debian has /dev/fb* with 622 permissions?
the reason i ask is there is a pretty nasty security problem with
this, try the following:
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/fb0
on my system i get a instant kernel panic (2.2.17 from ftp.kernel.org).
since the framebuffer devices are world
Hi!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Clifford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Personally, a chroot jail is the only thing I trust when I need to setup
>an isolated or restricted environment. Its difficult to break out of a
>chroot jail even when you are root, but it can be done. So ensure they
>
Hi!
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Clifford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Personally, a chroot jail is the only thing I trust when I need to setup
>an isolated or restricted environment. Its difficult to break out of a
>chroot jail even when you are root, but it can be done. So ensure they
21 matches
Mail list logo
