From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jan 25 8:44:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from nisser.com (c0039.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.0.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C2C37B400 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:44:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nisser.com (roelof [10.0.0.2]) by nisser.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA17813 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:44:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from roelof@nisser.com) Message-ID: <3A7057D6.4A84CBE3@nisser.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:44:06 +0100 From: Roelof Osinga Organization: Nisser - Nr. 1 in Veiligheid X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: CFS (security/cfs) question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The security/cfs comes, of course, with the original tarball. Therein resides a file named README.install, amongst others. Here we can read: 4) Create the cfs bootstrap mount point: # mkdir /null # chmod 0 /null 5) Add this line to /etc/exports: /null localhost ... 6) mkdir /crypt (or whatever you want to call the cfs mount point). Since the 'make install' doesn't it follows I should. I also checked http://www.freebsddiary.org/encrypted-fs.html where is said to put '/var/tmp localhost' in /etc/exports. I don't think that's as good since, say, vi uses it in times of need (vi.recover). Still, it makes me curious. Is there something to be said *against* the /null with mode 0 tactic? A google search didn't deliver, nor could I find much in the mailarchives. Thus I'm asking here . Roelof -- Home is where the (@) http://eboa.com/ is. Nisser home -- http://nl.nisser.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message