From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Dec 15 14:49: 8 2000 From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 15 14:49:05 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from libero.sunshine.ale (ppp-185-114.33-151.iol.it [151.33.114.185]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E1537B400 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by libero.sunshine.ale (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5F6835EA1; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:47:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:47:51 +0100 From: Alessandro de Manzano To: Peter Brezny Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sandbox clarification. Message-ID: <20001215234751.A305@libero.sunshine.ale> Reply-To: Alessandro de Manzano References: <003001c066f5$6b4860a0$46010a0a@sysadmininc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003001c066f5$6b4860a0$46010a0a@sysadmininc.com>; from peter@sysadmin-inc.com on Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:16:20PM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE Sender: aledema@iol.it Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Sorry for the confusion, I'll use the more clear terminology (unpriviliged > user, jail, chroot) rather than the lame sandbox descriptor in the future. thanks for your clarification! :-) > if you are running named under an unpriviliged user, is it still a good idea > (worth the extra time and headache) to set it up to run in a chrooted > environment? I guess yes, also if could be a bit "difficult" the first time. If that daemon fails and starts crunching your machine, at least does not eat it all :-) -- bye! Ale demanzano@iol.it To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message