/container to have a
smaller foot print in the average case?
Regards,
Jason
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jason Newton wrote:
> How about changing how this mechanism works from a range of the lowest
> N ports and instead have it as a user specifiable set? Towards more
> proper secur
e set
container? How about a hash table? 2^16-1 uchar bool vector?
In terms of setting/initializing - sysctl?
-Jason
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jason Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:39 PM, One Thousand Gnomes
> wrote:
>>> Perhaps lets consider this in another w
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:39 PM, One Thousand Gnomes
wrote:
>> Perhaps lets consider this in another way if it is strongly held that
>> this is worth while in the default configuration: can it default off
>> in the context of selinux / other security frameworks (preferably
>> based on their detect
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:25 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
wrote:
>> Is there disagreement on my views or points?
>
> Yes 8)
>
> You don't really want someone racing you to set up a fake ssh service on
> your system to steal all the passwords do you ?
>
> Alan
Hasn't been a problem yet, for me. I us
I've noted through years difficulties in getting programs in java or
python to work in Linux correctly when binding to a "privileged port",
requiring various forms of hoop jumping (use of capabilities, iptables
redirection, authbind, and the classic newbie mistake of running the
program as root) a
5 matches
Mail list logo
