From owner-freebsd-security Tue Aug 17 17:16: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from granite.sentex.net (granite.sentex.ca [199.212.134.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E9B14E11 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:15:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from gravel (ospf-mdt.sentex.net [205.211.164.81]) by granite.sentex.net (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA01817; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990817202758.0513f630@granite.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtancsa@granite.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:28:47 -0400 To: Matthew Dillon From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: Any work around for this FreeBSD bug/DoS ? Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199908171736.KAA18291@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4.1.19990816203409.05989960@granite.sentex.ca> <4.1.19990816213403.05a3b540@granite.sentex.ca> <3.0.5.32.19990817131742.02a5f6c0@staff.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 01:36 PM 8/17/99 , Matthew Dillon wrote: > There have been proposals to extend the concept of per-user resources > (for example, maxproc is a per-user resource). This way you would be > able to set reasonable overall limits for the user that do not overly > restrict the per-process limits. However, nobody has attempted to > actually code the idea. It seems to me a fairly easy thing to do through > the use of the credential's cache (but I'm not volunteering). > > -Matt Do any of the existing UNIX variants out there have this level of granularity? ---Mike ********************************************************************** Mike Tancsa, Network Admin * mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications Corp, * http://www.sentex.net/mike Cambridge, Ontario * 01.519.651.3400 Canada * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message