From owner-freebsd-security Sun Jul 25 13:53:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from phoenix.welearn.com.au (phoenix.welearn.com.au [139.130.44.81]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB6114E24 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:53:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sue@phoenix.welearn.com.au) Received: (from sue@localhost) by phoenix.welearn.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20591 for security@freebsd.org; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 06:55:00 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from sue) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 06:54:57 +1000 From: Sue Blake To: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sandbox?? Message-ID: <19990726065455.N7324@welearn.com.au> Mail-Followup-To: security@freebsd.org References: <19990726040233.E7349@welearn.com.au> <19990725214712.F14954@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <19990725214712.F14954@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; from Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai on Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 09:47:12PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 09:47:12PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > [ Please direct all follow-ups to security@freebsd.org as the topic fits > that list. Reply-To set ] > > * Sue Blake (sue@welearn.com.au) [990725 20:29]: > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:58:01AM -0400, T. William Wells wrote: > > > In article <19990719212431.D300@welearn.com.au>, > > > Sue Blake wrote: > > > : Could someone tell me what is a sandbox, what does it do, how does it > > > : work, how do I use it, or where is it documented? > > > : named(8) and security(8) seem to assume one already knows. > > > > > > It's a generic term. It refers to a restricted environment in > > > which something is to be done. Exactly how a sandbox is > > > implemented depends on the specific application. > > > > If nobody understands how this sandbox thing works, we should change > > the named.conf that we supply. If somebody does, then they or someone > > who they teach (me if really necessary) needs to document it so that > > anyone seriously interested can figure it out on thier own (or at least > > accept the defaults with confidence), and then change at least the > > named.conf to point to that info. It sounds like a good idea, worth > > giving people the resources to use it. > > Basically one has to depict a sandbox like a, erhm, sandbox ;) > > It's a dug hole with raised low stone walls to keep kindergarten aged kids > within the sandbox to play with the sand, etc. But ironically, in this case (named) we want to keep the FreeBSD "kids" out of the sandbox until they are sure they know how to implement it :-) Either we need documentation (and/or pointers) for the background theory and a guide to its actual implementation for named in FreeBSD to encourage people to use it, or we need to disambiguate and discourage its use in named.conf while providing non-sandbox examples for secondaries in the new style config file that the "kids" can learn from without confusion. After some good feedback on sandboxes, it seems that the latter is the more appropriate, particularly in view of the concurrent scarcity of documentation for BIND 8. Thanks for the security explanation. A lot of people seem to be interested in this but too afraid to ask :-) There must be a good book that explains it all. Anyone know? It would almost be worth buying and studying another book in order to be eligible to ask questions on how to use the examples provided in the new named.conf :-) Better still, if it can be condensed into something digestible by newbies I might try writing a summary introduction with examples, recommending either for or against its use by learners. -- Regards, -*Sue*- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message