[CentOS] ejabberd 2.0.2 vs SELinux vs CentOS 5
dsteward at internode.on.net
Sun Oct 5 00:04:59 UTC 2008
On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 13:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Damian S <dsteward at internode.on.net> wrote:
> > Also, I'm thinking I might run into more problems with SELinux silently
> > interfering with ejabberd later on, so maybe I should disable SELinux
> > and be done with it.
> Well look at the problem.. your program is trying to execute code in
> the memory area of the stack versus the application. That is usually
> what exploit code does. So the first question I would ask is why is it
> acting like exploit code? Now certain languages do act like that
> because their concept of a stack is 'machine independant' (I think
> thats the correct term).. an example is Lisp which expects that you
> are running your code on a LISP machine which has a different memory
> manager than most modern day hardware. On the other hand, some uses a
> side effect to accomplish something because the programmer was being
> clever.. which usually bites someone later.
Yes. This is erlang, so I've no doubt it does tricky things.
Ok so, I'll pester the process-one guys to either change this behaviour
or write an selinux policy for ejabberd.
More information about the CentOS