From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jun 17 11:28:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from gatekeeper.iserver.com (gatekeeper.iserver.com [192.41.0.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5392B14BD0 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:28:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hart@iserver.com) Received: by gatekeeper.iserver.com; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:28:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from unknown(192.168.1.109) by gatekeeper.iserver.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma003272; Thu, 17 Jun 99 12:28:16 -0600 Received: (hart@localhost) by anchovy.orem.iserver.com (8.9.2) id MAA00907; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:27:44 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:27:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Paul Hart X-Sender: hart@anchovy.orem.iserver.com To: Richard Childers Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: some nice advice.... In-Reply-To: <3768F2C2.B8C340BB@hamquist.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Richard Childers wrote: > I have speculated about building a system with a vast amount of RAM, > setting the sticky bit on selected executables to make them > memory-resident, I might be wrong, but with the advent of sophisticated virtual memory systems, aren't sticky bits on executables essentially ignored these days? I thought that good VM systems made sticky bits on executables basically useless now. Paul Hart -- Paul Robert Hart ><8> ><8> ><8> Verio Web Hosting, Inc. hart@iserver.com ><8> ><8> ><8> http://www.iserver.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message