From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 21:30:25 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6959216A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:30:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hydra.bec.de (www.ostsee-abc.de [62.206.222.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E92343D49 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:30:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from britannica.bec.de (storm.stura.uni-rostock.de [139.30.252.72]) by hydra.bec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE61535707 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:30:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E2F737CEF; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:28:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:28:10 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050329212810.GB3199@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <61910.81.84.174.37.1112123946.squirrel@mail.revolutionsp.com> <20050329213528.59dab2e2.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> <62208.81.84.174.37.1112130745.squirrel@mail.revolutionsp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <62208.81.84.174.37.1112130745.squirrel@mail.revolutionsp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: Re: A few thoughts.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:30:25 -0000 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:12:25PM -0600, H. S. wrote: > This could be compared to what was done in FreeBSD lately, I remember in > 4.7 (and probably later, up to 4.10 I think) a user could see the full > connection lists (even connections from other users), only later the > kern.ps_showallprocs/security.bsd.see_other_uids took effect for these > matters too. It needs time to implement and actually process such checks. > > Have a look at mac(3), mac(4) and mac.conf(5), it's not systrace but you > > can achieve > > similar results. > > Systrace is much more complex than mac. That's a good one! It's actually quite the reverse, MAC is much more powerful than systrace, simply because it operates on a different level. You can do all this kind of checks with a MAC policy, if something does not have the necessary hooks, complain to Robert Watson :) Joerg