Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:44:25 +0100 From: Martin Welk <mw@theatre.sax.de> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD minimal install... Message-ID: <20000225224425.B66576@theatre.lan> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002251041010.98826-100000@ntstn.sasknow.com>; from ryan@sasknow.com on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:56:47AM -0600 References: <38B6850B.AAE49A00@avantgo.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002251041010.98826-100000@ntstn.sasknow.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:56:47AM -0600, Ryan Thompson wrote:
> 2) Disabling or not installing certain important parts of the base system,
> like (as you suggested) gcc, IMO, is NOT a good idea. If I go to fix or
> troubleshoot a broken FreeBSD system, I want to know what I'm working
> with. Imagine the flooding to freebsd-questions:
One pain I see is that the complete buildworld/installworld upgrade
procedure would have to be changed totally. I could imagine some scenario
where ``the world'' would update only commands that are already installed,
but in the mentioned example, you cannot do buildworld without gcc, and
even many more tools. Who wants to take care of all those dependencies?
For disabling things for userland for security, I could imagine some sort
of script (perhaps something that has to do with mtree) that has to be
configured individually for a system and disables programs - for example,
by removing all r/w/x flags from files (UUCP, telnetd and more) or makes
them executable only by a special user or group (like make, gcc, install
and more developer's tools). This could be ran after an installworld to
make updating easy. Perhaps one could enhance the security report for file
system changes, but I guess that will need some paranoia because there are
files that change every moment in a while, like log files. Okay, you can
still have a list of ``trusted'' files and check if they look like an
executable when they shouldn't (again, log files, as one example).
> Perhaps if your idea was implemented with extensive documentation, on a
> command-by-command basis, with copious warning messages for each
> explaining WHAT the prospective SysAdmin is giving up, it might stave off
> some of the above problems. However, doing so would add a lot of text
I guess this is some advanced configuration that shouldn't have to do much
with sysinstall. You still need some experienced systems administrator for
having real security - for the ordinary user it will IMO only give some
pseudo-security because they do not really know what they do.
> bloat to the already-stretched sysinstall. I really don't want to have to
> use THREE install floppies :-) Of course, it could be placed in an
Hey, this will bring FreeBSD install closer to Windows NT installation!
Just kidding... :-)
> external text file, but that relies on the user actually reading it before
> installing. I don't want to suggest that people don't always read... But,
> well, people don't always read :-)
"Hey, I've got an error message, can you look at it?"
"What's the message?"
"Err..." (Looking at the monitor and starting to read...)
Regards,
Martin
--
,,Oh, there's a lot of opportunities, if you're knowing to take them,
you know, there's a lot of opportunities, if there aren't
you can make them, make or break them!'' (Tennant/Lowe)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000225224425.B66576>