[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110907101928.GB17974@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:19:28 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: /tmp fs type
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:49:45PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> Maybe, but often fs type for /tmp is chosen not from security
> considerations, but performance or robustness.
Wouldn't tmpfs be the best choice under those considerations as well?
OK, I imagine someone might opt to have on-disk /tmp if it needs to be
larger than the machine's virtual memory size.
> How does the hardlink hardening protect against hardlinking into /home?
By not letting a user create hard links to files that they don't have
write permissions for.
> I mean Owl 3.0 system installer with the default kernel. We don't plan
> to backport kernel hardening stuff to 3.0, do we?
We might.
> As to /home, Owl 4.0 would benefit too.
Why/how?
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
