Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:27:36 -0800 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: opentrax@email.com Cc: nuno.teixeira@pt-quorum.com, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: chflags bug? Message-ID: <20001219012741.25FC13E09@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from opentrax@email.com of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:29:09 PST." <200012182129.NAA14693@spammie.svbug.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death in core, arch > and stable. But this 'kernel_securelevel' has got to be > amoung the screwyist ideas to date. Do you have a better one? If so, I'm sure many people would like to hear about it. I agree that securelevel is imperfect to say the least, but knowledge of what it can and cannot do may help you stop an attacker (albeit, a not-so-bright one, but most attackers fall in this category) from completely trashing your system. The only apparent downside is that it may provide a false sense of security to those who don't know what it is, but that's more a result of lack of documentation or user education than a fault of the implementation. > Note: Flames to me will hit /dev/null From the magnitude of the thread on OpenBSD's mailing lists about ssh being evil (yes, the one you started), I'd say you are quite incapable of piping flames (which this message is not) to /dev/null. No pun/offense/whatever intended. I'm just expressing my opinion. Regards Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001219012741.25FC13E09>