Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:30:47 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Kruk <meshko@cs.brandeis.edu> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-00:77.procfs Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012182129010.25502-100000@icarus.cs.brandeis.edu> In-Reply-To: <20001218181216.A2629@citusc.usc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >There have been other vulnerabilities in procfs in the past. There may > > >be others discovered in the future..it's what you might call "risky > > >code". > > > > Apart from not mounting it, does mounting it readonly make any difference ? > > proc /proc procfs r 0 0 > > instead of > > proc /proc procfs rw 0 0 > > Probably not. > > > What does one loose these days on 4.x not mounting it by default ? > > Not sure either. I've been running with my procfs unmounted ever since you mentioned problems with it (btw I think you should have done it right after it surfaced, but maybe I'm missing something). Everything seems to work just fine (including ps and who to the extent I'm using them). The only problem I've had so far is that Star Office core dumps. I wonder what are real disadvantages of not having procfs... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0012182129010.25502-100000>