Re: Security by hiding processes
From: quentyn@fotango.comDate: 07/23/02
- Previous message: Remco B. Brink: "Security by hiding processes"
- In reply to: Remco B. Brink: "Security by hiding processes"
- Next in thread: Kyle O'Donnell: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Next in thread: Brian Hatch: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Reply: Kyle O'Donnell: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:48:45 +0100 From: quentyn@fotango.com To: "Remco B. Brink" <remco@rc6.org>
"Remco B. Brink" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> during a lively discussion in some Norwegian newsgroups the issue was
> raised of increasing security on a Linux server by not allowing users
> to view process listings.
>
> Suggestions like restricting access to /proc were named, but there
> were few suggestions on how to properly implement this.
>
have you looked at the openwall patches for linux
http://www.openwall.com/linux/
proc security is right in there
if I was to run a shell server for the public ( shudder ) I would put
this straight on
I have found the openwall patches to do exactly what they say on the tin
Q
-- ##################### Quentyn Taylor Sysadmin - Fotango ##################### Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
- Previous message: Remco B. Brink: "Security by hiding processes"
- In reply to: Remco B. Brink: "Security by hiding processes"
- Next in thread: Kyle O'Donnell: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Next in thread: Brian Hatch: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Reply: Kyle O'Donnell: "Re: Security by hiding processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]