On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:57:32PM +0200, Joost Witteveen wrote: > Looking at the code, it seems as though chroot_safe simply uses the > normal chroot() call; I would think the binary running would not be > able to see the difference between `real' chroot and chroot_safe > (and should thus not be able to exploit bugs in chroot_safe). Thanx, that makes me feel much better about giving it a spin! > I think a better name would have been "chroot_simple", or "chroot_easy". No argument on that point. ;-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature