Re: Mac OS X vulnerabilities
From: gabriel rosenkoetter (gr_at_eclipsed.net)
Date: 10/30/03
- Previous message: Luigi Auriemma: "Serious Sam is not so serious"
- Maybe in reply to: Thor Larholm: "Re: Mac OS X vulnerabilities"
- Next in thread: Adam Shostack: "Re: Mac OS X vulnerabilities"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:01:28 -0500 To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
[Moderator: I'd say don't bother approving this message, especially
since this argument misses the important point here. Only but I
can't figure out why you approved the one that I'm replying to,
which seems to be suggesting that people go ahead and do something
that I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that they shouldn't, so...]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:47:51PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:15 PM -0500 gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > find / -perm <something> -exec chmod <somethingelse> {} \;
> No, it's much closer to an 'mtree -U'. Do a 'man diskutil' for details.
And this makes it not be a race condition how, precisely?
I don't have a Mac OS X machine handy, or I would have read the
manual... but I am sitting in front of a NetBSD machine and have
used that operating system quite a bit, so I feel quite comfortable
saying: you should never, ever schedule an mtree -U as root either.
-- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Luigi Auriemma: "Serious Sam is not so serious"
- Maybe in reply to: Thor Larholm: "Re: Mac OS X vulnerabilities"
- Next in thread: Adam Shostack: "Re: Mac OS X vulnerabilities"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
