From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 26 20:23:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from janus.syracuse.net (janus.syracuse.net [205.232.47.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A41014CF7; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:23:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by janus.syracuse.net (8.9.2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA37317; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:22:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: janus.syracuse.net: green owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:22:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian F. Feldman" X-Sender: green@janus.syracuse.net To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Joe Greco , hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero In-Reply-To: <199907270316.UAA49808@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people to have an unsophisticated setup, > :just because a sophisticated one is available. It would be useful to have > :a per-firewall-rule counter, decrement it on each match if logging and > :set, and be able to reset to something higher. > : > : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ > > There may be some confusion here. I am advocating that we *allow* the > zeroing of counters at secure level 3. Which is what I am advocating against. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message