Re: [gentoo-hardened] Re: Giving a hand with docs

[Daniel Kuehn]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:40:10 +0800
Pavel Labushev <p.labushev@×××××.com> wrote:

> 27.06.2010 10:50, klondike пишет:
>
> > Updated that too, I also commented that a small edit of the patch could
> > also be valid to add the SIGSEGV signal to those controlled.
>
> OK, but this part brings some degree of uncertainty:
>
> "though if you do, your system would be prone to a DOS attack if any of
> your forking daemons has a memory bug."
>
> ... It sounds like if you have a single buggy daemon, it would make the
> _whole_ system be prone to a DoS attack, while it's just the daemon
> itself becomes at risk. Maybe change it to: "though if you do, and if
> any of your forking daemons has a memory bug, that daemon would be prone
> to a DOS attack ."?
>

Or say that the daemon would open the system up to an DoS attack utilizing that
daemon.
Because if one daemon is susceptible to an DoS, it does mean that the system is
susceptible to an DoS because that daemon resides on that system.

-- 
Kind regards
Daniel Kuehn