Gary,
While I understand your theory, reality is that laws only provide a framework
for punishment. If their existence in fact did not "allow" something, such as
murder, murder would therefore not happen. Murder does in fact happen, just
like trespass, yet is not "ok". If, as you say, people we
Although you raise a very good point. I have a severe problem
with this notion of a "whitehat" cracker.
For example:
If I left the keys in the door and someone unlocked my door,
walked in and then called me and said "hey, stupid, i'm in your
home -- I'm calling you from there, see!". I'd say "he
Actually your point of view basically states that its "ok" for anyone to
tresspass.
In the US, we have laws against such activity. People are *not* allowed to
break
the law, regardless of how stupid the victim is.
Law's were created to protect. Regardless of the type of crime or injustice.
Just
hi ya
for a simple 5 minute kernel patch...
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Harden/kernel.gwif.html
- apply openwall if you are using 2.2.x kernels
- ruh libsafe if you wanna try a prevent some buffer overflows
- if you wanna get into all the fun stuff... lots of other
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > making the disks readonly is not trivial ...
> > lots of work to make it readonly.. a fun project ...
>
> Not really. Nothing should write anywhere except /var and /tmp
> (did I miss any). Also, if you have users, then /home.
/etc is written
Gary,
While I understand your theory, reality is that laws only provide a framework for
punishment. If their existence in fact did not "allow" something, such as murder,
murder would therefore not happen. Murder does in fact happen, just like trespass, yet
is not "ok". If, as you say, people w
Although you raise a very good point. I have a severe problem
with this notion of a "whitehat" cracker.
For example:
If I left the keys in the door and someone unlocked my door,
walked in and then called me and said "hey, stupid, i'm in your
home -- I'm calling you from there, see!". I'd say "h
Actually your point of view basically states that its "ok" for anyone to
tresspass.
In the US, we have laws against such activity. People are *not* allowed to
break
the law, regardless of how stupid the victim is.
Law's were created to protect. Regardless of the type of crime or injustice.
Just
A major point concerning "laws" is that they prevent nothing. Laws against
murder have been around since the idea of "laws" was invented, yet murder still
happens. Sometimes in new and spectacular ways.
Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an
individual responsibil
> The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
> me besides the point. I'll never understand why
> people want to put labels on someone trying to do >
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care >
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks >
have -- to me, they're equally
> The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
> me besides the point. I'll never understand why
> people want to put labels on someone trying to do >
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care >
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks >
have -- to me, they're equally
hi ya
for a simple 5 minute kernel patch...
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Harden/kernel.gwif.html
- apply openwall if you are using 2.2.x kernels
- ruh libsafe if you wanna try a prevent some buffer overflows
- if you wanna get into all the fun stuff... lots of other
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > making the disks readonly is not trivial ...
> > lots of work to make it readonly.. a fun project ...
>
> Not really. Nothing should write anywhere except /var and /tmp
> (did I miss any). Also, if you have users, then /home.
/etc is writte
A major point concerning "laws" is that they prevent nothing. Laws against murder have
been around since the idea of "laws" was invented, yet murder still happens. Sometimes
in new and spectacular ways.
Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an individual
responsibi
> The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
> me besides the point. I'll never understand why
> people want to put labels on someone trying to do >
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care >
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks >
have -- to me, they're equall
> The descriptions of who and what a attacker are to
> me besides the point. I'll never understand why
> people want to put labels on someone trying to do >
something *bad* things to your box, I don't care >
what kind of intelligence or expertise these jerks >
have -- to me, they're equall
Selam sana bir site oneriyorum kesin bak! ,
OYUNLAR SADECE 2.750.000 TL!
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
iyi gunler,
Bu mesaj
htp://www.aslan.mekani.com üzerinden yollanmistir!
Uye olmak icin ;
http://astavilla.kolayweb.com/haber.htm
#
Selam sana bir site oneriyorum kesin bak! ,
OYUNLAR SADECE 2.750.000 TL!
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
http://www.alisveris.sehri.com
iyi gunler,
Bu mesaj
htp://www.aslan.mekani.com üzerinden yollanmistir!
Uye olmak icin ;
http://astavilla.kolayweb.com/haber.htm
#
It doesn't need to spawn a new shell to allow root access. It
can just load the a properly-linked shell into memory (not
calling execve), then jump to main.
Or it can not use a shell at all. Shells aren't special in any way.
True, shells aren't special. But if someone tries to smash the stack,
Hi,
> I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
> of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
>
> Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
> this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
i think the
Moin
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Martin
--
>> It doesn't need to spawn a new shell to allow root access. It
>> can just load the a properly-linked shell into memory (not
>> calling execve), then jump to main.
>>
>> Or it can not use a shell at all. Shells aren't special in any way.
>
> True, shells aren't special. But if someone tries to
Hi,
> I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
> of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
>
> Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
> this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
i think th
Moin
I noticed that xdm behaves different if I enter a non-existing username
of if I enter a wrong password. In the last case, there is a short pause.
Knowing that it is possible to find valid usernames. I do not think that
this pause is a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regards,
Martin
--
Hi,
Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
>
> I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100% security until
> there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking that occurs.
> Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
laws can´t do anything against
> On Monday, December 24, 2001, at 10:52 , Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > Someone said that St. Jude was what I was looking for, and I think
> > its pretty much *exactly* what I was pointing out.
>
> Can't, in general, stop an attack. All the attacker has to do is
> not do unusual calls which jude mo
Hi,
Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
>
> I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100% security until
> there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking that occurs.
> Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
laws can´t do anything against
> On Monday, December 24, 2001, at 10:52 , Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > Someone said that St. Jude was what I was looking for, and I think
> > its pretty much *exactly* what I was pointing out.
>
> Can't, in general, stop an attack. All the attacker has to do is
> not do unusual calls which jude m
28 matches
Mail list logo
