From owner-freebsd-security Wed Feb 3 02:33:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA08205 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:33:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mailbox2.ucsd.edu (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA08199 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:33:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjdawes@physics.ucsd.edu) Received: from physics.ucsd.edu (leucadia.ucsd.edu [132.239.69.130]) by mailbox2.ucsd.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id CAA26926 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:33:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by physics.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21641; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:31:36 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 02:31:36 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard J. Dawes" X-Sender: rjdawes@leucadia Reply-To: Richard Dawes To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcpdump In-Reply-To: <199902030850.TAA25314@cheops.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >From "LINT": "The `bpfilter' pseudo-device enables the Berkely Packet Filter. Be aware of the LEGAL and administrative consequences of enabling this option." [emphasis mine] That there isn't word one about security implications notwithstanding, I am forced to wonder if there were not some more legalistic reason behind the decision to leave `bpfilter' unenabled in GENERIC. Interestingly, neither bpf.c nor bpf(4) is any more enlightening, on either point. ======================================== Richard J. Dawes rdawes@ucsd.edu ======================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message