Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable
From: Schanulleke <schalulleke () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:40:02 +0200
Chris Umphress wrote:
That assumes a proper umask. The kernel source should not depend on the end user's umask being setup properly.Is it the kernel developers' fault if your umask is extremely lax for a normal user? If it is lax, security of the kernel source isn't your only problem.... Security in general is.
So what you say is. If there is a fault in a system that you could mitigate by certain behaviour, then it is your own responcibility to take that behaviour and the fault should not be fix. So if a car is designed with a steering wheel that punctures your chest if you get in a crash and you are not wearing a seatbelt, that is not a disgn flaw because you should wear a seatbelt? Ever heard of defense in depth???? Schanulleke _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Re: tar alternative, (continued)
- Re: Re: tar alternative darren kirby (Sep 09)
- Re: Re: tar alternative Tim (Sep 09)
- Re: tar alternative Aaron Gray (Sep 15)
- Re: tar alternative Tim (Sep 20)
- Re: tar alternative Jon Hart (Sep 20)
- Re: tar alternative Tonnerre Lombard (Sep 20)
- Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable Joe Feise (Sep 11)
- Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable coderpunk (Sep 12)
- Re: Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable Chris Umphress (Sep 12)
- Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable Schanulleke (Sep 15)
- Re: Linux kernel source archive vulnerable Troy Cregger (Sep 22)