, 2005-03-16
It's a sad day when an ancient fork bomb attack can still take down most of the latest Linux distributions.
Expand all |
Post comment
silly article
2005-03-17
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
silly article
2005-03-18
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
Karyl Stein (1 replies)
Karyl Stein (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
Jason V. Miller (Author) (3 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (3 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
mrsad (1 replies)
mrsad (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-18
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
simple fork bomb?
2005-03-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
simple fork bomb?
2005-03-17
Jason V. Miller (Author) (3 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (3 replies)
simple fork bomb?
2005-03-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
simple fork bomb?
2005-03-17
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (1 replies)
Intended use dictates the limits
2005-03-17
Erik Keller (1 replies)
Erik Keller (1 replies)
Intended use dictates the limits
2005-03-17
Jason V. Miller (Author) (4 replies)
Jason V. Miller (Author) (4 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-17
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-18
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-18
Gentoo User (1 replies)
Gentoo User (1 replies)
Linux Kernel Security, Again
2005-03-18
Another Gentoo User (2 replies)
Another Gentoo User (2 replies)
Debian IS vulnerable!
2005-03-18
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Linux only? perhaps across the board problem? Conflict of interest?
2005-03-18
glotfeltys@gmail.com (1 replies)
glotfeltys@gmail.com (1 replies)
Jason's opinion is too biased
2005-03-18
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Take the first step author.
2005-03-18
EG (2 replies)
EG (2 replies)

All the different distros are trying to be hammered onto the desktop as an alternative to Windows. If this is the case then perhaps when they specify the option to install a desktop they should create this "sane" limit.
The point is they're tyring to push it out to the average user desktop as an alternative to an OS that is already established, and has a stranglehold, because of it's limitations. Try to see how many instances of IE you can open on an XP box. It stops you before you can crash it. If they are going to give you the option to create the dumbed-downb version for the average desktop user then perhaps they need to investigate a method of limiting max proc.
As far as servers go, I firmly believe it's the admin's responsibility to ensure his box stays online. You're never going to work out every single bug, and not to mention there are far worse bugs out there than this, but you can and should be able to lock this down and make it safe.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/308/31154#31154