From owner-freebsd-security  Wed May 17 13:50:57 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [209.98.143.44])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA6037BCD0
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nectar@nectar.com)
Received: from bone.nectar.com (bone.nectar.com [10.0.1.105])
	by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BB6AF9B10; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:50:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by bone.nectar.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 67BFC1DAB; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:50:49 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:50:49 -0500
From: "Jacques A . Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>
To: Dan Harnett <danh@wzrd.com>
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Jail: Problems? Proper Usage? Status? Practicality?
Message-ID: <20000517155049.B48295@bone.nectar.com>
Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A . Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>,
	Dan Harnett <danh@wzrd.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
References: <20000517110758.C6884@bone.nectar.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000517123129.20229D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20000517152621.A48218@bone.nectar.com> <20000517164519.A79630@mail.wzrd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20000517164519.A79630@mail.wzrd.com>; from danh@wzrd.com on Wed, May 17, 2000 at 04:45:19PM -0400
X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 04:45:19PM -0400, Dan Harnett wrote:
> Isn't there a downside to that as well?  Unless the files are read-only, if 
> one jail should get compromised any common shared files could actually lead to
> holes in the remaining jails.  An example being a modified sshd or telnetd.

The assumption is that the files _are_ read-only, or even better, schg.
-- 
Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org


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