Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:40:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Fwd: Re: kern/22142: securelevel does not affect mount Message-ID: <200208231340.g7NDe3fa061627@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/22142; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org>
To: bug-followup@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Fwd: Re: kern/22142: securelevel does not affect mount
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:35:07 +0200
Attach to audit-trail.
----- Forwarded message from Lupe Christoph <lupe@lupe-christoph.de> -----
From: lupe@lupe-christoph.de (Lupe Christoph)
To: Jan Srzednicki <winfried@student.uci.agh.edu.pl>
Cc: Johan Karlsson <johan@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org,
freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/22142: securelevel does not affect mount
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:24:02 +0200
On Friday, 2002-08-23 at 09:43:15 +0200, Jan Srzednicki wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Johan Karlsson wrote:
> > Synopsis: securelevel does not affect mount
> > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-security
> > Responsible-Changed-By: johan
> > Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Aug 22 18:41:46 PDT 2002
> > Responsible-Changed-Why:
> > Lets get -security's opinion about this.
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=22142
> I'm afraid changin securelevel's behaviour would break some system schemes
> out there, which is rather unwanted thing for -STABLE. One thing we can do
> is to wait for MACs in -CURRENT. Maybe a better solution is to add another
> sysctl just form mount? Like kern.mount_disabled, which, when set to 1,
> cannot be reverted back.
It would break my system disk cloning scheme. Currently I mount the
cloning targets, rsync the live copy, and umount the clones. That way,
they will not need fsck'ing when I need them. NO big thing, though.
But on a different (Linux) machine, I write dumps to a Zip drive.
The medium is umounted and ejected when it's full, to be replaced
by the alternate medium.
So I agree a finer grained control is need. Preferably even tunable
per device, allowing the Zip drive to be mounted/umounted, but no other
device.
I haven't looked at -CURRENT at all. How fine grained are those MACs?
(Excuse me for not having the time right now to read up on them.)
Lupe Christoph
--
| lupe@lupe-christoph.de | http://www.lupe-christoph.de/ |
| Big Misunderstandings #6398: The Titanic was not supposed to be |
| unsinkable. The designer had a speech impediment. He said: "I have |
| thith great unthinkable conthept ..." |
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Johan Karlsson mailto:johan@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208231340.g7NDe3fa061627>