| 1 |
John Richard Moser said: |
| 2 |
[snip] |
| 3 |
> It's no secret that -fstack-protector-all breaks some programs that |
| 4 |
> - -fstack-protector doesn't (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla). In case |
| 5 |
> of an 'autosspall' FEATURES flag and broken daemons, the 'apply-autossp |
| 6 |
> no-all' command could tell apply-autossp to use -fstack-protector and |
| 7 |
> NOT -fstack-protector-all. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if using libsafe |
| 11 |
(http://www.research.avayalabs.com/project/libsafe/) would tend to break |
| 12 |
programs? I was just musing on the idea that if you were using libsafe, |
| 13 |
you might be safe from some of the image exploits that are going around |
| 14 |
now. Not that I am suggesting to use libsafe instead of upgrading |
| 15 |
packages of course. Just in the unlikely event that there were an active |
| 16 |
exploit against linux going around, it would be nice to know I had some |
| 17 |
sort of extra protection. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I am already browsing from a junk user account just in case, as I would |
| 20 |
hate to lose my documents and oggs and stuff, but I doubt that would help |
| 21 |
much as I am sure any active exploit would likely trigger a local exploit |
| 22 |
to get root permission anyway. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives