On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:16:28 PST, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Ugh, I should have brought this up before the code freeze but...
Before feature freeze, in fact. Fight the madness. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body o
> Ugh, I should have brought this up before the code freeze but...
I think that pretty much says it all, and reflects my own opinion
on the matter.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 03:16:28PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Ugh, I should have brought this up before the code freeze but...
>
> Maybe we could make 4.0 the transition point for adding locking
> structures to FILE and DIR structures instead of the hackish
> way it's done now (maintaining
> > > Is there anyway to reverse 32upgrade package after it has been installed
> > > on a 2.2.8-STABLE system. This is on a production box and rebuilding is
> > > not an option I have time to explore.
> >
> > If it's a production system you will have had backups from immediately
> > before yo
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999, Mark Newton was heard blurting out:
>
> > If it's a production system you will have had backups from immediately
> > before your upgrade, and reversing the upgrade will be a simple matter
> > of restoring your backups
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999, Mark Newton was heard blurting out:
> Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson wrote:
>
> > Is there anyway to reverse 32upgrade package after it has been installed
> > on a 2.2.8-STABLE system. This is on a production box and rebuilding is
> > not an option I have time to explore.
>
Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson wrote:
> Is there anyway to reverse 32upgrade package after it has been installed
> on a 2.2.8-STABLE system. This is on a production box and rebuilding is
> not an option I have time to explore.
If it's a production system you will have had backups from immediatel
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Anders Andersson wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Nik Clayton -
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:20:16 +0100
> From: Nik Clayton
> To: Anders Andersson
> Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ndc(8)
> Message-ID: <19990826212016.d86...@catkin.nothing-going-on.or
> > 'stats Causes named to dump its statistics to /etc/namedb/named.stats'
> >
> > This also applies for /var/tmp/named_dump.db, that one goes also in
> > /etc/namedb.
>
> Guys, before we fix the manpage on this, could someone please follow
> this up with -hackers? I was under the impression
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Anders Andersson wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:20:16 +0100
> From: Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Anders Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ndc(8)
> Message-I
In message
Julian Elischer writes:
: quickest fix would be to make the core-dump routines not follow symlinks.
An even quicker fix would be to disable coredumps in periodic, since
no reboot would be required. :-)
As has been noted in -security, the kernel fix has been committed.
Warner
To Un
In message <19990826184654.a...@ecad.org> crypt0genic writes:
: This was just posted to BUGTRAQ, are the FreeBSD developers aware of this yet?
Yes. We are and have been working to correct the problem. In fact,
there is a kernel patch that has been committed. A quick and dirty
workaround has bee
> > 'stats Causes named to dump its statistics to /etc/namedb/named.stats'
> >
> > This also applies for /var/tmp/named_dump.db, that one goes also in
> > /etc/namedb.
>
> Guys, before we fix the manpage on this, could someone please follow
> this up with -hackers? I was under the impressio
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian
Elischer writes:
: quickest fix would be to make the core-dump routines not follow symlinks.
An even quicker fix would be to disable coredumps in periodic, since
no reboot would be required. :-)
As has been noted in -security, the kernel fix has been commit
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> crypt0genic writes:
: This was just posted to BUGTRAQ, are the FreeBSD developers aware of this yet?
Yes. We are and have been working to correct the problem. In fact,
there is a kernel patch that has been committed. A quick and dirty
workaround has been posted t
works as advertised for me...
quickest fix would be to make the core-dump routines not follow symlinks.
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, crypt0genic wrote:
>
> This was just posted to BUGTRAQ, are the FreeBSD developers aware of this yet?
>
> -Emil
>
> --
> Reverse engineering, the most fun and usuall
works as advertised for me...
quickest fix would be to make the core-dump routines not follow symlinks.
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, crypt0genic wrote:
>
> This was just posted to BUGTRAQ, are the FreeBSD developers aware of this yet?
>
> -Emil
>
> --
> Reverse engineering, the most fun and usual
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 01:22:49PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
< talking about the recent paper on using KLDs to replace FreeBSD syscalls >
> I would suggest that a version of this document be incorporated into our
> docs.
I've already e-mailed the people concerned to ask. I'll let you know w
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 01:22:49PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
< talking about the recent paper on using KLDs to replace FreeBSD syscalls >
> I would suggest that a version of this document be incorporated into our
> docs.
I've already e-mailed the people concerned to ask. I'll let you know
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mark Newton wrote:
> > >
> > > Karl Pielorz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on
> > > FreeBSD...
> > > > Some might say a little too 'simple'
I would suggest that a version of this document be incorporated into our
docs.
It's not like it says anythign new, but it's a really good introduction
to KLD modules and maybe it's be better to have those documents around to
remind people how easy it is to hack a system once root is broken.
julia
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
>
> Mark Newton wrote:
> >
> > Karl Pielorz wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on
> > FreeBSD...
> > > Some might say a little too 'simple'?
> >
> > Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it suppo
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mark Newton wrote:
> > >
> > > Karl Pielorz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
> > > > Some might say a little too 'simple'?
> >
I would suggest that a version of this document be incorporated into our
docs.
It's not like it says anythign new, but it's a really good introduction
to KLD modules and maybe it's be better to have those documents around to
remind people how easy it is to hack a system once root is broken.
juli
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
>
> Mark Newton wrote:
> >
> > Karl Pielorz wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
> > > Some might say a little too 'simple'?
> >
> > Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it supports
Mark Newton wrote:
>
> Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
> > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on
> FreeBSD...
> > Some might say a little too 'simple'?
>
> Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it supports loadable
> modules or not, if you've managed to win sufficie
Mark Newton wrote:
>
> Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
> > Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
> > Some might say a little too 'simple'?
>
> Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it supports loadable
> modules or not, if you've managed to win sufficient
Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
> Some might say a little too 'simple'?
Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it supports loadable
modules or not, if you've managed to win sufficient privileges through
some other means.
Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
Some might say a little too 'simple'?
-Kp
crypt0genic wrote:
>
> Have you all seen this?
>
> From: Anonymous
> To: bugt...@securityfocus.com
>
> Hi folks,
>
> THC released a new article dealing with FreeBSD 3.x
> Ker
Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
> Some might say a little too 'simple'?
Garbage. You can do this on any OS, whether it supports loadable
modules or not, if you've managed to win sufficient privileges through
some other means.
Yes, a nice, effective - and simply way of replacing syscall's on FreeBSD...
Some might say a little too 'simple'?
-Kp
crypt0genic wrote:
>
> Have you all seen this?
>
> From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> THC released a new article dealing with FreeB
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson was heard blurting out:
>
> Is there anyway to reverse 32upgrade package after it has been installed
> on a 2.2.8-STABLE system. This is on a production box and rebuilding is
> not an option I have time to explore.
>
>
Here is what I am getting
32 matches
Mail list logo
