From owner-freebsd-security  Fri Jul 18 22:55:26 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA08873
          for security-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from enteract.com (enteract.com [206.54.252.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08867
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from tqbf@localhost) by enteract.com (8.8.5/8.7.6) id AAA00747; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:55:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Thomas H. Ptacek" <tqbf@enteract.com>
Message-Id: <199707190555.AAA00747@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: Security Model/Target for FreeBSD or 4.4?
To: dholland@eecs.harvard.edu (David Holland)
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:55:09 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: tqbf@enteract.com, grr@shandakor.tharsis.com, adam@homeport.org,
        robert@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org,
        tech@openbsd.org
Reply-To: tqbf@enteract.com
In-Reply-To: <199707182323.TAA05583@burgundy.eecs.harvard.edu> from "David Holland" at Jul 18, 97 07:23:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> out very carefully - it's very easy to end up with huge additional
> complexity with no increment in security.

You're right. In many environments, there may not be a significant gain in
security; however, in some environments, there may be something to be
gained, and, in this case, the added complexity is minimal.

I look forward to Mr. de Raadt sharing his concept for arbitrary
restrictions on privileged port access without kernel modifications.

----------------
Thomas Ptacek at EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicago, IL [tqbf@enteract.com]
----------------
"If you're so special, why aren't you dead?"