From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Jun 21  7:14:31 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 3AD2114C32; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:14:27 -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 AAA19019;
	Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:14:38 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199906211414.AAA19019@cheops.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: proposed secure-level 4 patch
To: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG (Eivind Eklund)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:14:38 +1000 (EST)
Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, dev.null@funbox.demon.co.uk,
	freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990621142104.X63035@bitbox.follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Jun 21, 99 02:21:04 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 Eivind Eklund, sie said:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 03:18:34PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> Why haven't I seen the magic words of 'Merge from OpenBSD' in a commit
> related to this yet? ;-)
> 
> (OpenBSD has support for this, and the patches didn't look scarily large)

Because nobody who tracks OpenBSD reads this list ? :)  By all means, if
that's what they do then import their code rather than create a new and
incompatible mechanism.

Darren


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