From owner-freebsd-security Thu Nov 11 15:31:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA7514F4D for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:31:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20772; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:31:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:31:08 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199911112331.PAA20772@kithrup.com> To: security@freebsd.org Reply-To: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why not sandbox BIND? In-Reply-To: References: <4.2.0.58.19991111160840.042469d0@localhost> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article you write: >BIND 8.x allows one to chroot() it very easily. One of the principal bind developers has taken the existing linux capabilities implementation and run bind under it. He's very happy -- it runs as root, and yet pretty much can't do anything. As that feature is useful for _other_ things (think sendmail), I think that's the direction to go in, really. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message