On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 21:23 -0700, Tyler Larson wrote: > Fork bombs have always been of little concern to admins. They do > relatively little damage and are completely traceable. The perpetrator > does little more than land himself in a lot of hot water. In most cases, > the threat of disciplinary action is enough protection--it's not an > attack that can be launched anonymously. They are definitely not of little concern. A fork bomb on the DNS server launched through some other bug would cause some interesting harm. > In the extremely rare case where fork bomb protection is a big enough > concern to warrant reducing the process limits, the administrator can > impose whatever ulimit he wants. However, this is the exception rather > than the rule. Yes. But I don't envisage an user of fedora with 16k processes, do you? I agree that the limit is insanely high. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
