From owner-freebsd-ipfw Wed May 16 1:46:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48ECF37B422 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 01:46:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 24051 invoked by uid 1000); 16 May 2001 08:45:38 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:45:38 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: Bill Fumerola Cc: Ruslan Ermilov , Luigi Rizzo , ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw rules and securelevel Message-ID: <20010516114538.A23970@ringworld.oblivion.bg> References: <10320318256.20010514212856@morning.ru> <19322552168.20010514220610@morning.ru> <20010514170927.A849@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <5523460344.20010514222118@morning.ru> <20010514180201.C453@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010514180928.A52742@sunbay.com> <20010515140943.A41014@sunbay.com> <20010515142118.G11592@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010515184329.O37979@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010515184329.O37979@elvis.mu.org>; from billf@mu.org on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:43:29PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:43:29PM -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:21:18PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > > Here is a slightly reworked version of the above patch. It prohibits > > > all MIB modifications under net.inet.ip.fw node except a few ones: > > > debug, verbose, and verbose_limit that shouldn't affect security. > > > Please review. > > > > I wonder if verbose and verbose_limit shouldn't also be prohibited. > > Arguably, if someone has obtained superuser privileges on your securelevel > > 3 box, they don't need to try any more exploits or something. > > Still, I personally would maybe feel a bit more warm and fuzzy if I knew > > that no one could disable ipfw logging, even if the system is already > > compromised. > > When Ruslan asked me earlier regarding verbose, I told him not to prohibit it. > > Why? In time of attack or crisis, kicking up the debugging on your firewall > is important. The only local problems I could see this causing is someone > kicking up the limit to a really high number and flooding. > > We already allow people to resetlog at that securelevel so the associated > sysctls should stick with that security model. Ah. All good points. OK, I agree that the rest need not be protected. G'luck, Peter -- I am the thought you are now thinking. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message