From owner-freebsd-security Wed Jun 16 1: 6:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E681531A for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:06:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA77466; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:06:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Unknow User Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: some nice advice.... References: <37671FA7.E3D87FB4@tdnet.com.br.> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 16 Jun 1999 10:06:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: Unknow User's message of "Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:11 -0300" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Unknow User writes: > Do i really need to have bfp, i don't enjoy such device in my kernel, > but there some security tools that don't run without it. Should i build > a kernel with bfp enabled or give up using the tool! Why don't you want BPF in your kernel? It is extremely useful, and has a minimal impact on performance when it's not in use. As long as you make sure the permissions on the device node are right (so regular users can't gain access to BPF), it's not even a security risk. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message