From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 16 17:27:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7C316A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:27:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out010.verizon.net (out010pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0921F43D53 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:27:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([68.161.84.3]) by out010.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040616172736.RRRT15848.out010.verizon.net@[192.168.1.3]>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:27:36 -0500 Message-ID: <40D08300.20004@mac.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:27:28 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: prebrov@yandex.ru References: <40CFFAF8.00000C.10717@colgate.yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <40CFFAF8.00000C.10717@colgate.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out010.verizon.net from [68.161.84.3] at Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:27:35 -0500 cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NTPD and SecureLevel X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:27:47 -0000 Pavel M. Rebrov wrote: > I've installed and configured ntpd daemon and was wondering if it going to > work with SecureLevel higher than 1. SecureLevel 2 forbids changing the system > date and, therefore, ntpdate and rdate won't work. You will want to "step" the system time at boot before the securelevel is set. Afterwards, ntpd will use another mechanism to "slew" the system time (the adjtime() call) which ought to still be permitted by the securelevel. -- -Chuck