| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
| Date: | 2014-03-02 17:23:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20140302172322.GP12995@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org) wrote:
> It's not that rare in my experience - certainly there are far more single user installations, but Terminal Server configurations are common for deploying apps "Citrix-style" or VDI. The one and only Windows server maintained by the EDB infrastructure team is a terminal server for example.
Sure- but do you have a full build environment there for building PG?
That's really what I'm referring to as being relatively rare. I'm very
familiar with terminal servers, but those are almost always used for
getting access to IE or other corporate dependencies, or for coming in
from remote, or running Windows-only applications. We've got a terminal
server at my current job, and I ran a whole slew of them at my last job
and in neither case did we have development tools installed.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-02 18:27:18 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-03-02 15:30:17 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |