'succesful' nsupdate of remote server not persistent across nameserver restart?
matt at conundrum.com
Wed Apr 27 13:30:21 UTC 2016
On 27 April 2016 at 03:07, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote:
> Matthew Pounsett <matt at conundrum.com> wrote:
> > Privsep doesn't actually fix the same problem chroot does. As I
> > understand it, privsep reduces the attack surface for remote execution
> > exploits by shuffling off privileged operations to a separate process,
> > if that process isn't chrooted and it has a remote code execution flaw
> > your entire system is opened up to attack.
> Actually it is normal for privsep processes to chroot themselves, usually
> to /var/empty - e.g.
Right, so "no chroot necessary" (which is what I was responding to) isn't
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bind-users