On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:10 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 09:53 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:52:21AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > > > When put differently it sounds a bad idea to me. Perhaps Transgaming could > > > lookg into why their software is making memory layout and exec assumptions > > > (assuming they haven't already of course) ? If it is tripping a real bug it > > > would be useful to know > > > > Don't forget that it's not always possible to fix the broken app. > > In this case, Wine/Cedega are trying to run binary Windows apps > > that expect a certain layout. They may have their relocation record > > stripped, and on. > > I'm at a loss why we should use less secure defaults to accommodate the > proprietary Cedega running (likely) proprietary Windows applications. We shouldn't. If the change needs to be made, Cedega should _offer_ to change it for the user at install time. There are *many* good reasons to run proprietary apps - generally when people want to actually use their computers, which is why most of us own one, and there aren't capable Free versions of everything. But sacrificing security for everyone when it can be modified only for the users that need it is silly. > > Nils > -- > Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 > PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 > -- Sean Middleditch <elanthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
