From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Sep 6 10:43:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dt011n65.san.rr.com (dt010nb9.san.rr.com [204.210.12.185]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC5F14E3B for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (master [10.0.0.2]) by dt011n65.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA95309; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <37D3FD16.F976D8A8@gorean.org> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:42:46 -0700 From: Doug Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-0904 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Knowles Cc: Pascal Hofstee , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softupdates in latest build? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Please don't cross post to -questions and -stable. If your issue is pertinent to -stable you should post it there. Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 2:22 PM +0200 1999/9/6, Pascal Hofstee wrote: > > > As has been stated several times before and can also be read in the > > UPDATING file (at least on 4.0-CURRENT) > > I read the /usr/src/UPDATING file, and noted a number of things > had changed. Once I got make world finally done (after about three > hours), I rebooted and started work on configuring my new kernel. You should always make the new kernel before rebooting. Changes between kernel and userland can cause you big problems. > I ran into some problems with a number of things that had changed > in the format of kernel configs, but the biggest thing I've run > across so far is the fact that Berkeley Packet Filtering (bpf) is now > enabled by default, as opposed to disabled by default. > > This opens a *huge* security risk Someone else already mentioned that if you expect to track -stable you need to read the list. This has been discussed to death already, and the only risk it opens up is for those whose machines have already had a root compromise. The feeling is that if you're already that far down the road, the person can enable bpf if they really want it. > Are we really sure that the FreeBSD Inc. has > sufficiently increased it's liability insurance to cover the > potentially multi-million dollar lawsuits that might result from this > change? I hope that this is a joke, but just in case it isn't, the copyright _clearly_ states that the software is provided AS IS. You assume _all_ responsibility for its use, misuse, abuse, reuse, and any other kind of use you can think of. Hope this helps, Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message