That's what I thought; just had to be sure.
Thanks all...
On 01/13/2014 09:38 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> immersive.ex...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> So it sounds like you're saying selinux is the only meaningful thing to try?
>> Or do people ever bother to place qem
immersive.ex...@gmail.com writes:
> Thanks!
>
> So it sounds like you're saying selinux is the only meaningful thing to try?
> Or do people ever bother to place qemu in chroot jails??
>
> I seem to have gotten the impression that people use qemu-static to do this,
> but it appears to be more for
"immersive.ex...@gmail.com" writes:
> Thanks!
>
> So it sounds like you're saying selinux is the only meaningful thing to try?
> Or do people ever bother to place qemu in chroot jails??
>
> I seem to have gotten the impression that people use qemu-static to do this,
> but it appears to be more fo
Thanks!
So it sounds like you're saying selinux is the only meaningful thing to try?
Or do people ever bother to place qemu in chroot jails??
I seem to have gotten the impression that people use qemu-static to do this,
but it appears to be more for offering secured access of a guest folder
to the
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:17:43PM -0500, immersive.ex...@gmail.com wrote:
> Would there be any security benefits, without suffering any considerable
> relative loss in performance, to (chroot) jailing qemu? Can it,
> practically speaking, be done?? Would that be a partial safeguard
> against virtu
Would there be any security benefits, without suffering any considerable
relative loss in performance, to (chroot) jailing qemu? Can it,
practically speaking, be done?? Would that be a partial safeguard
against virtual machine escapes? Or is it the case that if a virtual
machine escape takes place,
