Exec-Shield and SELinux
Exec-Shield and SELinux
Posted Apr 19, 2007 21:01 UTC (Thu) by arjan (subscriber, #36785)In reply to: Exec-Shield and SELinux by PaXTeam
Parent article: A security analysis of two years of RHEL 4
I did not make such a statement. I said that I'd like to see how many of these type there were. YOU draw the conclusion about that I then think there are many of these, and then claim that that needs careful analysis on MY part before I can say that. Guess what... I was asking effectively if such analysis had been done and if there were numbers.
I think you're acting a bit too paranoid here...
Posted Apr 19, 2007 21:17 UTC (Thu)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link] (2 responses)
PS: no need for ad hominem.
Posted Apr 19, 2007 23:01 UTC (Thu)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
Posted Apr 20, 2007 1:37 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
After re-reading all Arjan's comments, I think Arjan believes these two technologies _could_ provide protection against those critial issues, not necessarily that they _would_. No?
sure you did: first you clarified that 'effectively impossible to exploit' meant 'not exploitable in practice' then you said that the majority of these bugs could be in that category. now you tell me why you would make a post with two of those technologies in the subject if you didn't believe they would provide this level of protection...Exec-Shield and SELinux
colorful language does not an ad-hominem make.Exec-Shield and SELinux
> now you tell me why you would make a post with two of those technologies in the subject if you didn't believe they would provide this level of protection...Exec-Shield and SELinux