669 reputation
216
bio website
location
age 30
visits member for 1 year, 11 months
seen Aug 12 at 9:40

Lucky those who have knowledge to help and assist others :)


Dec
19
comment How does AppArmor deal with non-profiled Programs?
@jrg: (1) Nice list (few packages covered though..:( (2) The irony is that LXC says this: "sorry not safe yet". Kind of defering the purpose of using a "linux container" in the first place, when its rather likely to be not safe. At present I cannot manage to get Ubunut safe neither via LXC nor AppArmor.
Dec
19
comment How does AppArmor deal with non-profiled Programs?
@jrg: There is no kind of "fallback profile" / "defaul rule" for the unprofiled program?
Dec
19
comment Is apparmor actually working well enough?
@stonedsquirrel: maybe I am guilty of what you say. The original question is: "is Is apparmor actually working well enough?" and that is mainly how I meant it. You are most likely 100% right that nobody explicitly claimed that the system is safe (i.e. by AppArmor). My point was to highlight this and asking if I am write. If you, like most downvoters are happy to not perceive the issues of the question, this is your very right. It won't improve anything so :(
Dec
19
answered How does AppArmor deal with non-profiled Programs?
Dec
19
comment How does AppArmor deal with non-profiled Programs?
A famous example for a potentially vulnerable software without active profile is the firefox browser.
Dec
19
asked How does AppArmor deal with non-profiled Programs?
Dec
19
awarded  Commentator
Dec
19
comment Is apparmor actually working well enough?
@fossfreedom: I greatly appreciate your response, as at least this is more a position than those simply downvoting
Dec
19
comment Is apparmor actually working well enough?
@fossfreedom: The point is taken. Let alone the structure the question can benefit from imporvement. But the core topic is valid and it distresses me to see how easily the valid concern is discarded for the sake of form. :(
Dec
19
comment Is apparmor actually working well enough?
wonderful! As soon as security concerns are brought forward, the inconvinient truth is silenced by downvoting. That's the way to address the issue. The downvoters can not give an answer neither comment? Maybe even somebody caring enough to downvote can elaborate on this here chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6785/safety-security-of-ubuntu
Dec
19
revised Is apparmor actually working well enough?
added some links to sources
Dec
19
asked Is apparmor actually working well enough?
Nov
25
revised How to recover files after changing partition filesystem?
Added some more information
Nov
25
revised Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
enabled a direct link
Nov
25
answered How to recover files after changing partition filesystem?
Nov
25
comment Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
Sounds like a nice approach and maybe at zero-costs when ImageMagick is already installed on the system. I do not have it yet and so using the option you suggest still is far from light-weight in my case here. The lightest so far is still the scrot which in my setup only brought 3 more packages with it. But maybe the solution is the most light-weight for users already having ImageMagick.. thank you
Nov
25
suggested suggested edit on Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
Nov
25
comment Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
I was aware of the gnome-screenshot --interactive mode but I could not manage it to do what I wanted. I am still suspicious about that gnome-screenshot's animation might interfere with all in the end, since the window I wanted to capture seems to be hiding once loosing its focus....
Nov
25
comment Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
I am quite impressed by you going through all the work... and doing some testing about that. I am not sure how top will yield the informaiton about the timing of of the animation and the taking of the screenshot. It is open source... if I was not so lazy... well maybe I could go in the source and maybe there the answer would wait ... no testing necessary... Still I like the attitude.. than you very much for that.
Nov
25
comment Quicker alternative to gnome-screenshot? (no animation!, quick!, no frills)
Shutter might be great. Still I think it goes in the wrong direction. It is feature-rich and not reduced to its purpose. Seeing the bulk of side-packageds it required I decided not to try it. I think for the simple desired funcitonality "take a screenshot"... 40+ packages (with ssl and imagemagick....) its like shooting little birds with canons.. Still thank you for the idea with shutter