, slow computers suck). I'm sure Herbert Xu knows
how to apply it. For those who don't:
apt-get source kernel-source-2.4.22
cd kernel-source-2.4.22-2.4.22
bzcat kernel-source-2.4.22+pax.diff.bz2 | patch -p1
Now that can't be too hard, can it?
Groetjes,
Peter Busser
--
The Adamanti
test to see for yourself.
So far I have heard a lot of talk and a number of opinions on why PaX is bad.
But no proof. I can reasonably proof any of the above. But I have seen no such
proof from those who propose exec-shield so far, only opinions and cheap talk.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone ha
Hi!
> [NB: When reponsding using the web archives, please get the References
> and In-Reply-To: correctly. You may also consider setting MFT:]
I can't post from the lists.debian.org site.
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003, Peter Busser wrote:
> >> PaX would take much mor
ould be my hero if you succeeded in
improving on PaX. But in all honesty, exec-shield does not do that I'm afraid.
In fact, there is simply no technical reason whatsoever for exec-shield to
exist at all. None.
Groetjes,
Peter Busser
--
The Adamantix Project
Taking high-security Linux out o
. You so far gave the impression of a reasonable and balanced
> > person but this is as low as it gets. Shame on you.
Do you have the detailed specification of exec-shield somewhere? That would
make it easier to evaluate the completeness of the test suite. Feel free to
submit tests yourself, I&
ddebian.org.
IMHO it was a big win for the project to be renamed from Trusted Debian to
Adamantix.
> In fact the domain should probably be de-registered to avoid confusion.
If anyone appears to be confused here, it seems to be you (again).
Groetjes,
Peter Busser
er started to write a plan for putting Adamantix stuff in Debian. Then
we can discuss it and determine what needs to be done by whom. And then start
working on it.
Groetjes,
Peter Busser
7 matches
Mail list logo
