From owner-freebsd-security Tue Feb 2 20:43:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA14569 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:43:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA14563; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:43:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA10032; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:44:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Robert Watson cc: "Jonathan M. Bresler" , woodford@cc181716-a.hwrd1.md.home.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcpdump In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Feb 1999 23:35:47 EST." Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 20:44:19 -0800 Message-ID: <10028.918017059@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Well, Garrett is quite against it but I will note that it's the DHCP people complaining to me that they were getting FreeBSD tech support calls where they didn't get any for NetBSD that got me thinking about it again. Since the guy doing DHCP support is also Ted Lemon, he probably just tells them to load NetBSD and stop dinking with a toy operating system. :-) Actually, I'm sure that Ted doesn't say this, but it'd still be a shame if we ended up losing this functionality issue on security arguments when and if it later became clear that no real security was being imparted (the old "leave the window open and the door locked" fallacy). - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message