On 7 Jun 1997, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> I saw an announcement of apache-1.2. That WWW server includes SuExec,
> which does what you want AFAIK (gonna try it myself next week)
Wall, in that case, please make sure its turned on by default. I wanna
just install apache, and bEwM! My users ca
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yes yes yes *Please* include this in the main distribution!!!
>
>On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
>> I've packaged `cgiwrap`, which makes it so ordinary users can safely
>> run CGI scripts. The scripts run SUID/SGID
Yes yes yes *Please* include this in the main distribution!!!
On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> I've packaged `cgiwrap`, which makes it so ordinary users can safely
> run CGI scripts. The scripts run SUID/SGID the user who owns the
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
> >
> > Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
>
> Can too. Read the law.
>
> The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what they
> put in it.
Although they _can_ restrict you f
I've packaged `cgiwrap`, which makes it so ordinary users can safely
run CGI scripts. The scripts run SUID/SGID the user who owns the
script, and thus have full access to that persons files, and no
permissions on things that user normally doesn't have.
I am reading the policy manual right now;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I shouldn't have said 'dropping'. I don't think they are throwing any of
> the old code out. But they are switching to Java as the primary language
> which they are pushing. All of the NextStep API's will be 100% accessib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 30 May 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 27.05.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > There are ways to avoid this. For example, modify dpkg not to include
> > > any line with "con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 05.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can understand Debian making policy that none of the core system will
> depend on such packages, but I don't see any advantage to simply disallowing
> such copyrights from the main distribution.
With respect to copyrig
Greets,
I've finally managed to key in my '92 security paper on Shadow. You can
find it at
http://www.tab.com/~jfh/shadow-paper.html
As I get some time to go over how things have changed in the last 5
years I intend to update it.
My next Shadow-related project is cleaning up the docume
"Colin R. Telmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> Also, netplan only reads and writes to
>
> LIB/netplan.dir the directory that netplan puts files into, and the only
> directory that netplan will read from (see Network
> Security).
>
> where LIB under the v
12 matches
Mail list logo
