13 ms·
> the article itself takes a more nuanced approach Let's see what the article says: > Using chroot is no safer than not using a chroot. Not very nuanced in m
by xorcist 7y ago
> the article itself takes a more nuanced approach
Let's see what the article says:
> Using chroot is no safer than not using a chroot.
Not very nuanced in my opinion.
Few people argue we should replace chroot calls with SELinux these days. The article is interesting from a historical perspective but clearly needs a "(2013)" context.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- effie 7y agoThe article is inconsistent about chroot, but regarding SELinux, it has a point. SELinux looks like an old and solid mechanism to isolate processes from each other. Nowadays we have lxc to do that as well, but it does not make SELinux useless.
- vinay_ys 7y agoWhat's the argument that 2019 people would make? Replace chroot with ______?