-> > well, shouldn't be this considered ad ld.so bug? -> -> maybe, if it is i doubt its anywhere near trivial to fix (but im not sure -> of that). (don't bother with chmod -x someone already tried that on -> -devel awhile back, be prepared to have sash already running to fix your -> broken system)
of course i don't wannt to -x ld.so -> > of course I know about shell scripts. But i think the main difference is -> > shell scripts shouldn't make harm as binaries can. -> -> perl is about as powerful as any C program, good luck removing perl. not as powerful. And i can restrict it much easier then binaries. -> IMO trying to prevent people from running binaries is a generally -> losing battle. its better to protect things more fundementally, use -> quotas and resource limits, restrict suid binaries, use nosuid,nodev -> on most filesystems etc. of course, but if anyone can download any binary and execute it, the security is much worse then if not. the thing I asked for is - to change dpkg to put scripts in directory that won't be removed after each installation. Is that so bad? -- Matus "fantomas" Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/ I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.
