https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276821
GEF is a Python GDB extension that I'd like to use to add tests to
monitor and detect GOT poisoning attacks, such as the one used in the
liblzma attack. For example, this proof-of-concept test for openssh:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:18 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I tested the tip of the 5.1 branch upstream and that still had the
> issue. I didn't test 5.2.
Here's a build with OCaml 5.2.0rc1:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/OCaml5.2/build/7416844/
As you can see, the build times
AdamI believe in the KISS principle. Do a simplification change that does it
for the great number of new Fedora users who are coming from other
desktop/laptop/business systems. Linux is gaining #users.
Let us make their migration to Fedora for end-user people as simple as possible
for this fun
"/run/fail2ban(/.*)?" is usually how it is done, so I was wondering if
restorecon didn't like current form for some reason. However, as you
mentioned in the other email, it works on a fresh system, so this is not
the problem.
On 5/4/24 14:58, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2024 at 4:49 PM
I don't think the problem is the "fc" file, but the fact that the file
in /run/fail2ban didn't get relabeled when the users updated, or the
selinux subpackage didn't get updated at all. That explains why it works
on a fresh system.
The specificity of "/run/fail2ban(/.*)?" is better and safer,
I'm trying to reproduce the problem on the Fedora rawhide test machine but
it's running without error!
$ sudo systemctl status fail2ban.service
● fail2ban.service - Fail2Ban Service
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/fail2ban.service; disabled;
preset: disabled)
Drop-In: /usr/lib/sys
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240504.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240505.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 34
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 13.60 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
