From owner-freebsd-security Wed Aug 16 12:57:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A84F37BEC9 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:57:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drwho@xnet.com) Received: from typhoon.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id OAA19847 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:57:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 5500) id A2A5738670; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:57:49 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:57:49 -0500 From: Michael Maxwell To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hilighting dangerous ports Message-ID: <20000816145749.A18387@typhoon.xnet.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from kris@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:02:16AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:02:16AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > What does everyone think of the attached patch to bsd.port.mk, which > hilights potentially insecure files installed by a port at install-time? > [...] I have to say, I really like this. I find myself checking over all ports installations, looking for *exactly* the same things, but I'm doing it manually, and hoping I don't miss anything important. Consider this a vote in favor. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message