Re: Re: chroot & mount --bind = security ?
From: Kirt S. Cathey (kirt_at_futamatagawa.net)
Date: 04/11/04
- Previous message: sipior_at_science.uva.nl: "Re: Re[2]: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Maybe in reply to: Sam Baskinger: "Re: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Next in thread: Thomas Knop: "Re: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: focus-linux@securityfocus.com Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 05:15:22 +0900
'Not recommended' as a matter of best practice and "not recommended" as a
matter of good administrative style and craft are two different things. The
later tends to be the more mature of the two.
Kirt S. Cathey
$B%+%;%$(B $B%+!<%H(B
CIA, CISA, CISM, CISSP, MCSP
Systems Security, Audit, and Data Munging
Sam Baskinger <sam@reefedge.com>
$B$O=q$-$^$7$?(B
> >I've never seen hard links being "not recommended" - perhaps except
> >when symlinks could do the job.
> >
> >
>
> Folks typically favor soft links over hard links because soft links
> don't introduce odd cases of ownership and permissions. There is also
> not the trouble of reference counting to reclaim the disk space. There
> are also problems with syncrhonization using the file and updating
> things without breaking others. There is also the problem of proting
> the notion of hardlinks over different network file systems.
>
> In short, there's no disasterous monster waiting to devour your system
> regarding hardlinks, but they cause their problems and in most cases
> soft links do the job.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Sam
>
> Sam
>
- Previous message: sipior_at_science.uva.nl: "Re: Re[2]: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Maybe in reply to: Sam Baskinger: "Re: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Next in thread: Thomas Knop: "Re: chroot & mount --bind = security ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
