On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:28:08 + "Poul-Henning Kamp"
wrote:
>
> For the FreeBSD SVN tree, this could almost be as simple as posting
> an email, maybe once a week, with the exact revision checked out
> and the PGP signed output of:
>
> svn co ... && find ... -print | sort | xargs cat | s
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:46:19 - "Poul-Henning Kamp"
wrote:
>
> In message <20150309202308.64dfbb...@mail.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah writes:
> >On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:52:04 - "Poul-Henning Kamp"
> wrote:
>
> >Hopefully E
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:52:04 - "Poul-Henning Kamp"
wrote:
>
> In message , Dmitry Moro
> zo
> vsky writes:
> >Dear colleagues,
> >
> >any thoughts we're vulnerable to this?
>
> It's a hardware problem, *everybody* are vulnerable.
I guess manufacturer memory testing hasn't kept up t
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:48:50 MDT Brett Glass wrote:
>
> I will do that. BTW, I do not use freebsd-update(8) to update the kernel. But
> I do need it to update the kernel sources (so I can rebuild the kernel myself)
If you are tracking just the kernel sources, you can use svn
to track the releng/
On Wed, 11 May 2011 05:28:16 - Janne Snabb wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > Dumb question: the jail command can refuse to run unless the
> > parent of a jail root is 0700. Would that work? No kernel hack
> > required.
>
> I do not think t
On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:24:28 +0200 =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=
wrote:
> I vote no as well, but for a different reason: there are many other
> things the jailed root can do to the root directory, including flags,
> extended attributes, etc. (some of which are fs-dependent), and it would
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:06:48 +0100 =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=
wrote:
> [redirected from -hackers to -security]
>
> Jakub Lach writes:
> > http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129236621626462&w=3D2
>
> http://maycontaintracesofbolts.blogspot.com/2010/12/openbsd-ipsec-backdoor-=
> a
