From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jul 27 0:45:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02F437BA8F for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:45:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e6R7jBP13151; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:45:11 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Polstra Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce? Message-ID: <20000727004510.S17222@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from jdp@polstra.com on Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:36:13PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * John Polstra [000726 19:36] wrote: > > 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 think this sounds the best, it protects our users but also allows them the flexibility they may need. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message