Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:47:50 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: /tmp fs type On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 14:19 +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > 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. Yes. Or it is not known how much disk space it will take in the future, so a precise allocation is not possible and an allocation with a margin is too expensive. > > 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. -ow for 2.4 didn't have such protection, did it? At least I'm not aware of it. -- Vasiliy
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.