[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SECURITY PROBLEM: autofs [all versions]



On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> You're reasoning seems almost plausible, but still flawed.  Again, if
> that is the intent, then instead of failing at all, it should print a
> warning that says, "You have disabled foo.  If this package is upgraded,
> it will be reenabled." because it is not an error.  It was disabled
> intentionally and intentionally not removed so programs like tripwire

If you remove it, it will get replaced the next time you upgrade. The
correct way to handle is to hack the init.d script not to run it. Pretty
much any other way is wrong. And what's the difference between failing
noisly and printing a warning if you aren't going to read the screen/
boot-up logs anyway?

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
"A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and 
a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never
see her again." - Sluggy Freelance



Reply to: