From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Dec 11 22:15:21 1996
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA21869
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA21863
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by agora.rdrop.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #17)
	id m0vY4QK-0008uxC; Wed, 11 Dec 96 22:15 PST
Message-Id: <m0vY4QK-0008uxC@agora.rdrop.com>
From: batie@agora.rdrop.com (Alan Batie)
Subject: Re: Risk of having bpf0? (was URGENT: Packet sniffer found on my system)
To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Cc: pete@sms.fi, taob@io.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <E0vXx4u-0004Y6-00@rover.village.org> from "Warner Losh" at Dec 11, 96 03:24:36 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> : functionality, like dhcpd, you need to have them.
> 
> FWIW, rarpd also needs to have bpf enabled as well

neither of these need to run on the system with shell accounts, and one
could argue they're better off being on an isolated, secured, system.

-- 
Alan Batie                   ______      
batie@agora.rdrop.com        \    /      Assimilate this!
+1 503 452-0960               \  /       --Worf, First Contact
DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A 27        \/        40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9

It is my policy to avoid purchase of any products from companies which
use unrequested email advertisements or telephone solicitation.