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.