From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jun 20 22:18:52 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 26D75151FE
	for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:18:47 -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 PAA15232;
	Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:18:35 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199906210518.PAA15232@cheops.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: proposed secure-level 4 patch
To: dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:18:34 +1000 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <376D27ED.0180@funbox.demon.co.uk> from "dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk" at Jun 20, 99 06:42:05 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

In some mail from dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk, sie said:
> 
> 
> Eivind wrote:
> 
> > I think using securelevel 4 for this is a bad idea.  I believe the
> > right thing to do with securelevels is to start splitting them into a
> > set of different sysctls, where each individual feature can be turned
> > off.  It is convenient to have a set of sysctls you can use to "turn
> > off everything" (like securelevel does today).
> 
> Agreed!  Another way of doing that might be to use a bit vector to
> specify the securelevel.  It would be closer in syntax to the current
> method, and would give the desired flexibility and control over
> the individual capabilitiies.
> 
> Thoughts about a bit vector, anyone?

This is more like a capabilities hook such as being worked on for the POSIX
security changes.

How about a bit vector defining which ports can and can't be bound from
non-root below 1024 ?

a 256 byte array doesn't sound too bad does it ?


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