From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:09:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:08:53 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:30223 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:08:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Writes to mounted devices containing file-systems. To: root@chaos.analogic.com Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:07:50 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux kernel) In-Reply-To: from "Richard B. Johnson" at Aug 10, 2001 08:43:58 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Aug 10 08:05:18 quark sendmail[66]: rejecting connections on daemon MTA: load average: 16 > Aug 10 08:05:18 quark sendmail[66]: rejecting connections on daemon MSA: load average: 16 > Aug 10 08:05:33 quark sendmail[66]: rejecting connections on daemon MTA: load average: 13 > Aug 10 08:05:33 quark sendmail[66]: rejecting connections on daemon MSA: load average: 13 > Aug 10 08:05:48 quark sendmail[66]: accepting connections again for daemon MTA Thats your mailer laughing at someones pitiful attempt to knock it over. Sendmail does load protection. Anyone with effectively equivalent or better bandwidth can always DoS a system. Ask yahoo. > In this company, they hired a "CIO" who thinks that no computers > should have any local storage or boot capability. They must all > boot from some secure (M$) file-server. They will not be allowed > to have local disks and, horrors -- of course no floppy drives or > CD-ROMS. Good policy (well maybe not the choice of fileserver OS) in many environments. How do you think McDonalds unix based tills run 8) - no floppy believe me. > He doesn't care that we are in the business of making software-driven > machines so we require access to the guts of computers and their > operating systems. Smart people migrate, company or division goes out of business, another large company eventually buys small company that the people who left formed repeat cycle. > So, if it is at all possible to help improve its security without > hurting its performance very much, it's really a matter of life-or- > death for Linux. Otherwise "they" will get us. I think not. Look at the fate of companies whose bosses adopted X.400 because TCP/IP was "some crazy hacker thing" "not industry strength" "had no telco support" "couldnt provide the needed QoS" ... Alan