On 10/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are totally wrong. A bot with 1000 user accounts has no
> > greater chance to kill another worksheet process, etc.
> > with high probability than a bot with 1 user account.
> > I don't understand what you're thinking.
>
> If there
> You are totally wrong. A bot with 1000 user accounts has no
> greater chance to kill another worksheet process, etc.
> with high probability than a bot with 1 user account.
> I don't understand what you're thinking.
If there are 1000 user accounts, and a bot has 1000 web accounts, then either
On 10/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the sage server should just have some specific number of limited
> > permission sagexxx accounts, e.g., 1000 of them, and then as new users
> > are created map them to one of those accounts. There will be a hard
> > limit on th
> I think the sage server should just have some specific number of limited
> permission sagexxx accounts, e.g., 1000 of them, and then as new users
> are created map them to one of those accounts. There will be a hard
> limit on the total number of users, of course. I'm basically
> envisioning
On 10/28/07, TrixB4Kidz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity are you listing options like the above since
> > you "want somebody to implement them", or are you listing them because
> > you want to implement one of them, and you want feedback before you
> > choose the one that you w
> Just out of curiosity are you listing options like the above since
> you "want somebody to implement them", or are you listing them because
> you want to implement one of them, and you want feedback before you
> choose the one that you want to implement?
I'd be willing to implement this functio
On 10/27/07, TrixB4Kidz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excellent. Prohibiting socket access will be easier to implement than
> building the compromise I proposed.
OK. So who wants to explain exactly how to do this using iptables?
> > > > 2. Disallow killing processes by any sageXX account. This
> I think the public free Sage notebook should be configured so that
> the sageXX accounts cannot open sockets to the outside world. Period.
> If I knew how to configure this in < 30 minutes, I would have done it already.
>
> Once we nail down a reasonably secure public sage notebook configurati
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 17:03 -0500, William Stein wrote:
> I think the public free Sage notebook should be configured so that
> the sageXX accounts cannot open sockets to the outside world. Period.
> If I knew how to configure this in < 30 minutes, I would have done it already.
I think that thi
On 10/27/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 8:13 pm, TrixB4Kidz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My point: there really is no reason to root a Sage box because it
> > already provides for many other opportunities. While rooting the box
> > may allow you to get around the ulimit or
On Oct 27, 8:13 pm, TrixB4Kidz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Brian,
> Here are a few fun things that anyone can do with a public Sage
> Notebook:
>
> 1. Use the Sage server as remote file storage. Take your pick between
> ftp, cvs, subversion, or even brew your own protocol.
>
> 2. Host yo
11 matches
Mail list logo
