From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jul 27 5:50:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E85337B52C for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DDF195F4; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:50:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA09003; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:50:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:50:27 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: John Polstra Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce? Message-ID: <20000727075027.C8974@hamlet.nectar.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from jdp@polstra.com on Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:36:13PM -0700 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:36:13PM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > 3. It could default to strictly secure but accept a command-line > option to relax the constraints. And an rc.conf knob could be added > to control whether or not it was strict at boot time. I like this option, but the knob should be compile-time, IMHO. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message