Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #269199 > unrolled thread

[OT] Systemd fun fun fun

Started by	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
First post	2016-10-02 00:14 -0300
Last post	2016-10-04 17:20 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 26 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

  [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-10-02 00:14 -0300
    Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 23:03 -0500
      Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-10-02 08:00 -0300
        Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 11:31 -0500
      Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-10-02 11:58 +0000
        Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 11:28 -0500
          Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 00:30 +0800
            Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-10-02 14:20 -0300
          Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-10-02 14:19 -0300
            Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 22:51 -0500
              Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-10-03 10:59 -0300
                Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 10:23 -0500
          Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-10-02 21:34 +0000
          Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-10-03 01:05 +0000
    Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Pepe the Frog <b7r7tn@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 21:22 -0700
      Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 22:44 +0800
    Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 19:58 +0800
    Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-10-02 15:52 +0200
      Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-10-02 16:41 +0200
        Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 22:43 +0800
          Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-10-02 18:17 +0200
            Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 00:24 +0800
      Re: [OT] Systemd fun fun fun Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-10-02 20:10 +0200
        Re: Systemd fun fun fun Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-04 16:40 +0000
          Re: Systemd fun fun fun Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-10-04 19:06 +0200
            Re: Systemd fun fun fun Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-04 17:20 +0000

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#269199 — [OT] Systemd fun fun fun

From	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
Date	2016-10-02 00:14 -0300
Subject	[OT] Systemd fun fun fun
Message-ID	<smu0vb12h4lhpc6k5oeplpapu6lbbof74b@4ax.com>

http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26

	Anyone for a tweet ?
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#269200

From	Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-10-01 23:03 -0500
Message-ID	<UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#269199

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:

> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
> 
> 	Anyone for a tweet ?
> 	[]'s

You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
loosing any sleep over it.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269217

From	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
Date	2016-10-02 08:00 -0300
Message-ID	<o3q1vb5hfi3432lptesgcjevocunc0sree@4ax.com>
In reply to	#269200

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 23:03:55 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>
>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>> 
>> 	Anyone for a tweet ?
>> 	[]'s
>
>You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>loosing any sleep over it.

	Unless it's run by a script on a webpage by USER browsing.
	But then everyone blocks scripts, right ?
	So, just another non-issue.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269286

From	Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-10-02 11:31 -0500
Message-ID	<-sCdnYIPtsfCq2zKnZ2dnUU7-SUAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#269217

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 08:00:37 -0300, Shadow wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 23:03:55 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>> 
>>> 	Anyone for a tweet ?
>>> 	[]'s
>>
>>You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>>loosing any sleep over it.
> 
> 	Unless it's run by a script on a webpage by USER browsing.
> 	But then everyone blocks scripts, right ?
> 	So, just another non-issue.
> 	[]'s

I can't speak for everyone like you, but, I can say that anyone
that uses Linux is smart enough to know to turn off scripting.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269240

From	Diesel <me@privacy.net>
Date	2016-10-02 11:58 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA69552FBE6C66F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#269200

Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-
WmdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:03:55 GMT in 
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
> 
>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>> 
>>      Anyone for a tweet ?
>>      []'s
> 
> You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
> loosing any sleep over it.
> 

I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...

The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:
is what I viewed. which seems to mean, surfing and allowing a nasty 
script will do the job. Unless you know different?

I don't have systemd (afaik) on my linux machines and I don't intend to 
use any flavor of linux that has it. I'm sure we'll find out about 
other trivial as all hell to exploit bugs concerning it in the future.  
It was and still is a bad idea to have gone the systemd route, imo.

Seems to be along the lines of 'Hey, this works well enough, let's 
break it!' school of thought. I'm not in.

-- 
People you encounter every day are fighting battles you know nothing 
about. Be kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269284

From	Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-10-02 11:28 -0500
Message-ID	<-sCdnYMPtscBqGzKnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#269240

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:58:07 +0000, Diesel wrote:

> Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-
> WmdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:03:55 GMT in 
> alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>> 
>>>      Anyone for a tweet ?
>>>      []'s
>> 
>> You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>> loosing any sleep over it.
>> 
> 
> I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...

If scripting is turned off that is the only way.

> The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:
> is what I viewed. which seems to mean, surfing and allowing a nasty 
> script will do the job. Unless you know different?

If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
vulnerable.  But, if you are hit all that is required is a
power-down and restart.  Linux is not Windows so it will
recover.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269285

From	"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-03 00:30 +0800
Message-ID	<nsrcne$fd2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#269284

On 3/10/16 00:28, Wildman wrote:
>
> If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
> vulnerable.  But, if you are hit all that is required is a
> power-down and restart.  Linux is not Windows so it will
> recover.

In the old days when Linux was not that popular, everyone wrote their 
own init scrips. I seldom hear problems about them, because you need to 
be root to modify those scripts.

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269290

From	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
Date	2016-10-02 14:20 -0300
Message-ID	<2dg2vb53hitaj7f9gc9aeb3sgh2otgufm5@4ax.com>
In reply to	#269285

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 00:30:53 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/10/16 00:28, Wildman wrote:
>>
>> If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
>> vulnerable.  But, if you are hit all that is required is a
>> power-down and restart.  Linux is not Windows so it will
>> recover.
>
>In the old days when Linux was not that popular, everyone wrote their 
>own init scrips. I seldom hear problems about them, because you need to 
>be root to modify those scripts.

	Pay attention. He's talking about userland browser scripts.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269289

From	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
Date	2016-10-02 14:19 -0300
Message-ID	<j0g2vb59a2l5qdlmuvuih4pnk6g5hud98k@4ax.com>
In reply to	#269284

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:28:12 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:58:07 +0000, Diesel wrote:
>
>> Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-
>> WmdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:03:55 GMT in 
>> alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>>> 
>>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>>> 
>>>>      Anyone for a tweet ?
>>>>      []'s
>>> 
>>> You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>>> loosing any sleep over it.
>>> 
>> 
>> I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...
>
>If scripting is turned off that is the only way.
>
>> The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:
>> is what I viewed. which seems to mean, surfing and allowing a nasty 
>> script will do the job. Unless you know different?
>
>If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
>vulnerable.  

	Downloading audacity from Github

https://github.com/audacity

	"Oops. Sorry, you don't have scripting enabled ... you silly
noob".
	Click here to upgrade your broken, nasty, hardened browser to
Google Chrome.
	I luv it ....
	[]'s
	
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269308

From	Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-10-02 22:51 -0500
Message-ID	<GIWdnQ8zSfEySGzKnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#269289

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 14:19:21 -0300, Shadow wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:28:12 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:58:07 +0000, Diesel wrote:
>>
>>> Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-
>>> WmdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:03:55 GMT in 
>>> alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>>>> 
>>>>>      Anyone for a tweet ?
>>>>>      []'s
>>>> 
>>>> You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>>>> loosing any sleep over it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...
>>
>>If scripting is turned off that is the only way.
>>
>>> The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:
>>> is what I viewed. which seems to mean, surfing and allowing a nasty 
>>> script will do the job. Unless you know different?
>>
>>If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
>>vulnerable.  
> 
> 	Downloading audacity from Github
> 
> https://github.com/audacity
> 
> 	"Oops. Sorry, you don't have scripting enabled ... you silly
> noob".
> 	Click here to upgrade your broken, nasty, hardened browser to
> Google Chrome.
> 	I luv it ....
> 	[]'s

Have you never heard of repositories and packages managers?
Browser and/or scripting is not required.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
Re: Windows security:
"There's no point in obsessing over something that doesn't exist."
  -Cybe R. Wizard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269322

From	Shadow <Sh@dow.br>
Date	2016-10-03 10:59 -0300
Message-ID	<1lo4vbpbo22pp8h792pqskl5c8g4cihsse@4ax.com>
In reply to	#269308

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:51:11 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> 	Downloading audacity from Github
>> 
>> https://github.com/audacity
>> 
>> 	"Oops. Sorry, you don't have scripting enabled ... you silly
>> noob".
>> 	Click here to upgrade your broken, nasty, hardened browser to
>> Google Chrome.
>> 	I luv it ....
>> 	[]'s
>
>Have you never heard of repositories and packages managers?

	No, of course not. As Github said, I'm a "silly noob".

>Browser and/or scripting is not required.

	And now for the news "You need to turn scripting on to see the
news, you silly noob".
	I'll go for a ride on my bike ... good exercise.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269332

From	Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-10-03 10:23 -0500
Message-ID	<BKWdnT1t4Lx26m_KnZ2dnUU7-X-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#269322

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 10:59:01 -0300, Shadow wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:51:11 -0500, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>> 	Downloading audacity from Github
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/audacity
>>> 
>>> 	"Oops. Sorry, you don't have scripting enabled ... you silly
>>> noob".
>>> 	Click here to upgrade your broken, nasty, hardened browser to
>>> Google Chrome.
>>> 	I luv it ....
>>> 	[]'s
>>
>>Have you never heard of repositories and packages managers?
> 
> 	No, of course not. As Github said, I'm a "silly noob".

That's too bad.

>>Browser and/or scripting is not required.
> 
> 	And now for the news "You need to turn scripting on to see the
> news, you silly noob".

My TV doesn't need scripting.

> 	I'll go for a ride on my bike ... good exercise.

Good idea.  Be safe.

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
"How few there are who have courage enough to own
their faults, or resolution enough to mend them."
  -Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269300

From	Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid>
Date	2016-10-02 21:34 +0000
Message-ID	<nsrugu$vf2$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#269284

Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> wrote in 
<news:-sCdnYMPtscBqGzKnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>> I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...
> 
> If scripting is turned off that is the only way.
> 
>> The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:
>> is what I viewed. which seems to mean, surfing and allowing a nasty 
>> script will do the job. Unless you know different?
> 
> If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
> vulnerable.  But, if you are hit all that is required is a
> power-down and restart.  Linux is not Windows so it will
> recover.

Scripts? You must be referring to some kind of sys-dumb-d script or shell 
script.

As for Javascript, a lot of sites offer reduced functionality or break outright 
if not enabled.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269306

From	Diesel <me@privacy.net>
Date	2016-10-03 01:05 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsA695D881E9086F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#269284

Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:-sCdnYMPtscBqGzKnZ2dnUU7-
SWdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 16:28:12 GMT in 
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:58:07 +0000, Diesel wrote:
> 
>> Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> news:UYGdnQHxoaq2Gm3KnZ2dnUU7-
>> WmdnZ2d@giganews.com Sun, 02 Oct 2016 04:03:55 GMT in 
>> alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:14:42 -0300, Shadow wrote:
>>> 
>>>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>>> 
>>>>      Anyone for a tweet ?
>>>>      []'s
>>> 
>>> You must have physical access to the computer.  I won't be
>>> loosing any sleep over it.
>>> 
>> 
>> I didn't see any such requirement in the url Shadow shared...
> 
> If scripting is turned off that is the only way.

I don't disagree.

> If you are stupid enough to allow scripts then yes you are
> vulnerable.  But, if you are hit all that is required is a
> power-down and restart.  Linux is not Windows so it will
> recover.

Well, no offense, but, I'm not an average end user who needs to be 
told how to practice safer hex. I'm also not stupid enough to assume 
that because someone uses linux, they're smart enough not to run 
scripts, either. 

I'm well aware of the fact you can force a hard reset/shutdown and 
clear the issue usually without hurting anything. I'm also well aware 
of the fact that Windows most of the time can be hard reset/shutdown 
and you won't lose anything in the process. It all comes down the 
file and cache states anyhow. If everything was written to disk and 
nothing was still in memory not committed yet, you'll probably be 
okay.

Basically surviving a hard reset/shutdown isn't unique to Linux.

I installed linux for several non tech savvy family members...They 
don't know the difference between Windows or Linux and don't even 
know what scripts are. I administrate those machines to keep them 
safer. If I relied on them to do it, I might as well have loaded 
Windows and allowed them to use admin accounts for day to day use.

-- 
People you encounter every day are fighting battles you know nothing 
about. Be kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269207

From	Pepe the Frog <b7r7tn@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-01 21:22 -0700
Message-ID	<7ed9ea10-7d34-4485-9c4a-c615abcd2a6a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#269199

On Saturday, 1 October 2016 20:16:01 UTC-7, Shadow  wrote:
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
> 
> 	Anyone for a tweet ?
> 	[]'s
> -- 
> Don't be evil - Google 2004
> We have a new policy  - Google 2012

Please tweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269257

From	"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-02 22:44 +0800
Message-ID	<nsr6f6$p8j$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#269207

On 2/10/16 12:22, Pepe the Frog wrote:
>
> Please tweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

You don't need Linux! You can spam with your own fingers!

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269238

From	"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-02 19:58 +0800
Message-ID	<nsqso0$q7h$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#269199

On 2/10/16 11:14, Shadow wrote:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
> Anyone for a tweet ?

No. Is systemd really that dangerous?

SysV init scripts are definitely simpler.

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269250

From	Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid>
Date	2016-10-02 15:52 +0200
Message-ID	<h142vbpdk7v52kh7lvmh7htm5fubi52pi4@net.com>
In reply to	#269199

(x-posted: alt.comp.freeware,alt.os.linux.debian,alt.os.linux)

Shadow <Sh@dow.br> in alt.comp.freeware:

> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
> 
> 	Anyone for a tweet ?

Follow up to: alt.os.linux.debian,alt.os.linux

Yrrah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269254

From	"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
Date	2016-10-02 16:41 +0200
Message-ID	<e5ckl9FecfuU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#269250

On 10/02/2016 03:52 PM, Yrrah wrote:

> Shadow <Sh@dow.br> in alt.comp.freeware:
> 
>> http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/29/26
>>
>> 	Anyone for a tweet ?

It's kind of expected when you have an application which assumes
everything went well when it failed to get a result.

At least I sleep better knowing my more important systems do not use
systemd.

-- 

 //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#269256

From	"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-02 22:43 +0800
Message-ID	<nsr6dn$p8j$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#269254

On 2/10/16 22:41, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
> At least I sleep better knowing my more important systems do not use
> systemd.

Well, a messy but compulsory systemd can create jobs. :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

[OT] Systemd fun fun fun

Contents

#269199 — [OT] Systemd fun fun fun

#269200

#269217

#269286

#269240

#269284

#269285

#269290

#269289

#269308

#269322

#269332

#269300

#269306

#269207

#269257

#269238

#269250

#269254

#269256