From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Feb  4 07:20:20 1999
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29005
          for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:20:20 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA28980
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:20:10 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.11 #1)
	id 108QY0-000EeY-00; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:18:28 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <axl@iafrica.com>
To: James Wyatt <jwyatt@RWSystems.net>
cc: Chris Larsen <vader@vader.dk>, security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Enabling bpf device in kernel (was: Re: tcpdump) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Feb 1999 08:44:58 CST."
             <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902040837160.14557-100000@kasie.rwsystems.net> 
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:18:28 +0200
Message-ID: <56329.918141508@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org



On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 08:44:58 CST, James Wyatt wrote:

> While I understand your point, it smacks of elitism. Many of the admins
> clue-level started at the lame-level hacking on their own machine.

I hope that's not what _everyone_ saw in my mail. :-)

What I was getting at is that bpf-less kernels gain something specific
which I believe is of very little benefit to the only people who might
not turn bpf off themselves.

Ciao,
Sheldon.

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