Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds
Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:07:06 +0100 (BST)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: video4linux problem (was problem compiling 2.1.109/112)"
- Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: 2.1.114 fails build on i386"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: ©K@ÄØÿ¿8þÿ¿Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Jon Lewis: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
> mean that we shouldn't put the stack hack into mainline at some point.
> It just means we have to be careful how we market it, and make sure
> developers still worry about stack overruns.
One good thing it does is leave your log file full of messages about the
attempts. Its very visible when you get attacked
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: video4linux problem (was problem compiling 2.1.109/112)"
- Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: 2.1.114 fails build on i386"
- In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: ©K@ÄØÿ¿8þÿ¿Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Jon Lewis: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"