Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Jun 1999 05:41:23 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Barrett Richardson <barrett@phoenix.aye.net>
To:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Cc:        Unknow User <kernel@tdnet.com.br>, security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: some nice advice....
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.01.9906160538310.18250-100000@phoenix.aye.net>
In-Reply-To: <xzp7lp4efif.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On 16 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:

> Unknow User <kernel@tdnet.com.br> 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.
>

It can be some risk. If a machine with bpf enabled gets compromised
the attacker can use it as a network sniffer.

 
> 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
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.01.9906160538310.18250-100000>