When Not to Use chroot

Hyena writes "Linux guru Alan Cox is quoted as saying 'chroot is not and never has been a security tool' in a KernelTrap article summarizing a lengthy thread on the Linux Kernel mailing list. The discussion began with a patch attempting to 'fix a security hole' in the Unix chroot command, trying to improve the ability of chroot to contain a process. When it was pointed out that people have been using chroot as a security tool for years, another kernel hacker retorted, 'incompetent people implementing security solutions are a real problem.' A quick search on the terms 'chroot+security' quickly reveals that many people have long thought (wrongly) that chroot's purpose was for improving security."

Comments

Re:Not for security use?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Just because he set himself up for it doesn't mean you have to bite. I thought my response was rather mild. His post had at least three cases of "false I know better than anyone else-itis" and not only did I succinctly and correctly explain the situation - as did many of the other responses, some less accurately than others, he only got one word-play jab back.

But when he comes along with the self-righteous indignation, obscenities, and nerd-macho strutting about "confidence" -- that's not just setting himself up, that's begging for it. Then to really make an ass of himself, he decides to put me on his "foes" list. As if that means anything beyond a public declaration of a playground tantrum -- "I HATE you Billy! Wah!"

Be gracious to people, even when they're wrong and you're right (or try to, at least)... it makes the world a better place. Sure right and wrong is part of it, but its more about turnabout being fair play. The kid dishes it out, but he's a got a real thin skin.