From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Dec 2 14:47:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11660 for bugs-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:47:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11649 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:47:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id XAA24648; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:47:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.5) id XAA15200; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:38:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19971202233808.28585@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:38:08 +0100 From: J Wunsch To: ITG staff Cc: bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern.securelevel auto from 0 to 1 ?bug/feature? Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch References: <199712021656.IAA25972@george.lbl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199712021656.IAA25972@george.lbl.gov>; from ITG staff on Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 08:56:11AM -0800 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As ITG staff wrote: > > No. If you had read my mail, you knew the answer (and even the `how'). > > That solution is for a householder duty v.s. a president duty. > Besides to startx first and then set securelevel to 1, I did not see I didn't say anything about `startx'. The only useful solution in this case is to use xdm. > there is another way to run X in secure mode. As you mentioned that the > user cannot exit the X, which is awkward. You're wrong, again. You can logout, you only need to be careful to not kill the Xserver when logging out. (Normally, when logging out xdm, it only resets the server, but doesn't kill it.) > Since level 1 is for multi-users mode, it should let user to access the > basic resource. If level-2 prohibits X to start, I would not be bothered, > but level-1 should not stop running X. As i mentioned before, i don't think the current state of the art is anything much _desirable_, but i don't see any solution that'll be ready within the current millenium, short of opening the wide security hole of ``allow access to any and all hardware even with raised securelevel''. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)