From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jul 27 5: 8: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (wandering-wizard.cybercity.dk [212.242.43.150]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B40A37B738 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00220; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:30:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: John Polstra Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How much security should ldconfig enforce? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:36:13 PDT." Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:30:58 +0200 Message-ID: <218.964683058@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp 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? Following on the "tools, not policy" the 3rd option has support. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message