Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 20:22 +0100 schrieb Nils Toedtmann:
> Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 19:35 +0100 schrieb Blaisorblade:
> > First: could you put the resulting procedure into the UML Wiki?
> [chroot stuff]
>
> I'll do so as soon as i have time, hopefully this weekend. If it does
> not occur
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 19:35 +0100 schrieb Blaisorblade:
> First: could you put the resulting procedure into the UML Wiki?
[chroot stuff]
I'll do so as soon as i have time, hopefully this weekend. If it does
not occur til wednesday, remind me (my memory is aweful).
/nils.
--
no sig
-
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 12:52, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:30:55PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
First: could you put the resulting procedure into the
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 12:52, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:30:55PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > > > Out
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 23:24, Jason Lunz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Try using the UML tree downloaded from my homepage (the -bs7 patchset
> > against 2.6.9) and it should solve the thousands of shells problem (it's
> > normal they are started, the problem is that don't die with SIGKILL,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Try using the UML tree downloaded from my homepage (the -bs7 patchset against
> 2.6.9) and it should solve the thousands of shells problem (it's normal they
> are started, the problem is that don't die with SIGKILL, on those host kernel
> versions).
Is there any way ye
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:30:55PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > > Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without th
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without the
> > > host-fs kernel option) safe enough as a sandbox to let untrust
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:35, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> Am I correct that hostfs is not intrinsically unsafe? But if your host
> keys or other sensitive data are mode 644 so the UML special user can read
> them, the hacker can steal them, just as could any other
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without the
> > > host-fs kernel option) safe enough as a sandbox to let untrust
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Adrian Phillips wrote:
> > "Jim" == Jim Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jim> If a very sharp hacker "gets root" on the UML guest, he can...
> Jim> chroot jail, he can import statically linked tools (using
> Jim> ports that have to be open for the guest'
> "Jim" == Jim Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> If a very sharp hacker "gets root" on the UML guest, he can
Jim> overwrite the kernel any way he pleases, executing arbitrary
Jim> code as the UML special user. If he finds himself in a
Jim> chroot jail, he can import stat
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without the
> > host-fs
> > kernel option) safe enough as a sandbox to let untrusted users in, or are
> > additional measures in order
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without the host-fs
> kernel option) safe enough as a sandbox to let untrusted users in, or are
> additional measures in order to really secure it (or more paranoia ;-) ?
> Ie. how difficult is it to ga
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:00, Maarten wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 15:41, you wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 March 2005 13:17, Maarten wrote:
> >
> > In fact I guess that the miss of modules was another, indipendent problem
> > (I boot most of my kernels after forgetting to install modules...
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 15:41, you wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 March 2005 13:17, Maarten wrote:
> In fact I guess that the miss of modules was another, indipendent problem
> (I boot most of my kernels after forgetting to install modules... I make
> sure what I really need is compiled in).
Yes, it w
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 13:17, Maarten wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm building my first usermode linux system, using a howto from the Gentoo
> site. (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/uml.xml)
Also look at the main UML site and at http://uml.harlowhill.com/
> When I booted linux, it hung(*) because it could
Hi list,
I'm building my first usermode linux system, using a howto from the Gentoo
site. (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/uml.xml)
When I booted linux, it hung(*) because it couldn't find any modules, so I
went back and built and installed modules target, mounted the rootfs as
loopdevice and co
18 matches
Mail list logo
