From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jul 9 19:59:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC9B37B400 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freeze.org (freeze.org [63.106.140.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFED643E5E for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:59:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jfreeze@freeze.org) Received: from freeze.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freeze.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6A2wn0R015838 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:58:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jfreeze@freeze.org) Received: (from jfreeze@localhost) by freeze.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6A2wmC8015837 for questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:58:48 -0400 From: Jim Freeze To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: bpf psuedo device Message-ID: <20020709225848.A15823@freeze.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Unless I am mistaken, I just noticed that the GENERIC kernel with 4.6 has the bpf psuedo device active by default. Given the potential security problems, why is this not commented out? Has the base install sufficiently protected this from being a security risk? Or, is it a dependency for something in the base install? Since I am not running a DHCP server, I am comtemplating rebuilding my kernel with it off. Does that sound like a good thing to do? Thanks Just Curious -- Jim Freeze If only I had something clever to say for my comment... ~ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message