| 1 |
On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:49:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Simon Strandman <simon.strandman@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I installed modular X on my server running hardened. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
X on a server? If it's just for the libs that's ok, but running the X |
| 7 |
server itself is risky on a server as it's huge and suid so flaws can |
| 8 |
easily gain root access. One such was discovered just the other week |
| 9 |
(http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1526). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> It was quite |
| 12 |
> annoying to have to switch back and forth betwen the vanilla gcc and |
| 13 |
> the hardened. I couldn't leave it on compiling over the night but had |
| 14 |
> to monitor it all the time. Is this really necessary? Why can't the |
| 15 |
> modular X eclass just append the appropriate CFLAGS/LDFLAGS that |
| 16 |
> disables bind now or whatever it is thar breaks X instead? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It could, if we had the time to get it working. It should work |
| 19 |
passing '-nonow' to all invocations of gcc that do linking of relevant |
| 20 |
bits, but for some reason when people have tried that it hasn't worked - |
| 21 |
see bug #110506. We (hardened) haven't had the time to investigate |
| 22 |
further, and we don't want to complicate the stabilisation effort of |
| 23 |
modular X (which is a big enough job as it is) so we've left it as it |
| 24 |
is for the moment. We'll probably start looking at it again once it |
| 25 |
becomes stable (also upstream have a pending task to resolve the issue |
| 26 |
properly, but don't hold your breath). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
P.S. there's a hardened mailing list that is relevant. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives