[arch-security] systemd
Hi, Perhaps someone could be insterested in those: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/21/1343258 You're welcome,
Why are these relevant on the arch-security list? Are either of these exploitable, even in theory? On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Xan wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps someone could be insterested in those: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/21/1343258
You're welcome,
-- Scott Lawrence
Am 21.12.2014 um 18:57 schrieb Scott Lawrence:
Why are these relevant on the arch-security list? Are either of these exploitable, even in theory?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Xan wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps someone could be insterested in those: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/21/1343258
You're welcome,
i tend to think arch-security is about security concerning exploits, (remote) attacs etc, not about 'running security' or system stability, wich might be described as safety. according to this xan's post does not belong here, but i might be mistaken. by the way: scott, please refrain from top-posting on all mailinglists on arch, there is a strict bottom-post-policy. thankyou
Mmm... thanks. I didn't know that. Sorry.
Xan
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:21:46 +0100
"G. Schlisio"
Am 21.12.2014 um 18:57 schrieb Scott Lawrence:
Why are these relevant on the arch-security list? Are either of these exploitable, even in theory?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Xan wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps someone could be insterested in those: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/12/21/1343258
You're welcome,
i tend to think arch-security is about security concerning exploits, (remote) attacs etc, not about 'running security' or system stability, wich might be described as safety. according to this xan's post does not belong here, but i might be mistaken.
by the way: scott, please refrain from top-posting on all mailinglists on arch, there is a strict bottom-post-policy.
thankyou
participants (3)
-
G. Schlisio
-
Scott Lawrence
-
Xan