From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jun 20 22: 8:31 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1322A14D7A; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au)
Received: (from avalon@localhost)
	by cheops.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA15117;
	Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:08:01 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199906210508.PAA15117@cheops.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: proposed secure-level 4 patch
To: imp@harmony.village.org (Warner Losh)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:08:01 +1000 (EST)
Cc: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU,
	freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199906210458.WAA95598@harmony.village.org> from "Warner Losh" at Jun 20, 99 10:58:44 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

FWIW, Solaris2's TCP allows you to defined the top and bottom of this
range, so if you made it 1-1 or similar, anyone could bind to anything.

Maybe freebsd should do something similar ??  Sort of like the reverse
of defining the top and bottom of the anonymous-port range.

In some mail from Warner Losh, sie said:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> In message <19990620223757.K63035@bitbox.follo.net> Eivind Eklund writes:
> : I won't go so far as to say that the introduction of securelevel 4 is
> : a regression (it is nice functionality when you want to truly secure a
> : box), but it would be much better if it came after having made
> : "securelevel" a set of orthogonal switches.
> 
> I would go that far, or at least say that it isn't a desirable
> progression.  A more general, and useful, feature would be to have
> some sysctls that become readonly at secure level 2 or greater.  I
> could also be talked into making this a separate sysctl which once set
> cannot be unset.
> 
> This would allow me to turn off binding of ports, turning on secure
> ports, turning other features on/off with a finer toothed comb.  I do
> not think that the proposed secure level 4 would materially improve
> security and strikes me as a kludge.  I do agree that there needs to
> be a secure way to keep it off once off, but secure level 4 isn't it.
> 
> Speaking on the implementation issues, it would be sufficient to add a
> bit in the type field for the SYSCTL_PROC function.  This bit would be
> checked before allowing the sysctl to be written.  That stikes me as a
> much more useful way to do this.
> 
> This issue was beaten to death in the NetBSD lists recently.  I
> believe it was der Mouse that proposed this in (I think)
> netbsd-security.
> 
> After secure level 2 the desired security features becomes more
> orthogonal. 
> 
> Warner
> FreeBSD security officer.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: noconv
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
> 
> iQCVAwUBN23Ggdxynu/2qPVhAQHZUwP6AmRkKONv7MXgPH079gC4BEXY58o8D/0K
> K3COjWPMOtReNF7jh88QZVncqldQrif0UGgz2CC2O/sqTJw8l2Bcnv+9rcwqEevV
> e9+LkptKSR6ea9cluwtvja6X40Zqzs1FqPljDyabzT2wZXmlqv8FQlTrus/IJ12Z
> GAzO+FZ8rTY=
> =3uCm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message