similar to: [Bug 764] fully remove product and version information

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2011 Bug #: 2011 Summary: sandbox selection needs some kind of fallback mechanism Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.0p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2

Building on the work in ff0a614bd724f6c4c6a5014a9955dc1bc028f336, this moves the capability code down into the run-init library, so that run-init can use it as well, via the new "-d" flag. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees at outflux.net> --- usr/kinit/Kbuild | 3 +-- usr/kinit/capabilities.h | 10 ++++++++++ usr/kinit/kinit.c | 6 +++---

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764 Summary: fully remove product and version information Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.7.1p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: sshd AssignedTo: openssh-bugs at mindrot.org ReportedBy:

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX CC|

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764 ilf <ilf at zeromail.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|3.7.1p1 |-current CC| |ilf at zeromail.org --- Comment #20 from ilf <ilf at

I sent this last night but it never showed up in the thread list so I'm trying again. Please pardon me if it duplicates. So I've been banging my head against the rack on this one and am now turning to the group for help. I'm in the process of bringing five Asterisk servers (all originally built from source code by myself) from various versions (1.6.2.x,11.6-cert13, and 13.1-cert2) up

Is there a way to run dovecot locally as a user, like uw-imap lets you do? I want to use dovecot with fetchmail over ssh... I couldn't find anything in the archives on this. -- Kees Cook @outflux.net

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible >> array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses >> bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS