From owner-freebsd-arch  Wed Jul 26 22:55: 4 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DD037C064
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07246;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:54:52 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA15587;
	Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:54:51 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:54:51 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200007270554.XAA15587@nomad.yogotech.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce?
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000726193613.jdp@polstra.com>
References: <XFMail.000726193613.jdp@polstra.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 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.
> 
> What do you folks think about this?

I vote #3.  It gives us a more secure 'default', but allows people with
special configurations to tweak it for their particular 'less secure'
environments.


Nate


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message