From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Apr 17 03:48:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA26403 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:48:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (mmdf@salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA26379 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:48:48 GMT (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from boole.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 17 Apr 98 11:48:24 +0100 (BST) To: dima@best.net cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel permissions In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:19:21 PDT." <199804170519.WAA12540@burka.rdy.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:48:24 +0100 From: David Malone Message-ID: <9804171148.aa15869@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > therefore, are the one in the position to justify the change, and it > > does not seem to me like you have done so. > > Again. There's a difference between "potential problem" and "security hole". > This is not a security hole, but a potential problem (theoretically > possible even). If this doesn't break anything, why in the hell > shouldn't we have it? > "Don't fix that ain't broke" is not an answer. Reading the problem cannot cause any security problem (except possibly the "reading comercial drivers" one, which isn't generic security). It could make another security hole more explotiable. Chmod'ing the kernel sounds far too like security through obscurity to me. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message