From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 7 6:13:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from axis.tdd.lt (axis.tdd.lt [213.197.128.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCAD37B416 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (midom@localhost) by axis.tdd.lt (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g07EDa051529; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:13:36 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from midom@delfi.lt) X-Authentication-Warning: axis.tdd.lt: midom owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:13:35 +0200 (EET) From: Domas Mituzas X-X-Sender: To: Joe Abley Cc: Subject: Re: Chrooted bind out of the box In-Reply-To: <20020107090632.P95067@buffoon.automagic.org> Message-ID: <20020107160902.J43640-100000@axis.tdd.lt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi there, > ... and I would sooner run named in a chroot jail in a standard > way than introduce FreeBSDisms that aren't going to be easily > administered by people more familiar with other platforms. with all great respect I would accept jail() syscall instead (or in addition to) chroot() for named. No need to use jail(8). Of course, it will be FreeBSDism, but an advanced one. Of course, options for named.conf should be added too. Of course, IP imprisonment should be considered. Regards, Domas Mituzas DELFI Internet, UAB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message