From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 8 18:21:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA29285 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA29270 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id DAA16693; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 03:20:53 +0200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id DAA13083; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 03:20:51 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.7.5/8.6.9) id WAA02263; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 22:38:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199608082038.WAA02263@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: Q:Meanings of kern.securelevel values To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 22:38:23 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199608081619.JAA20847@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> from Jason Thorpe at "Aug 8, 96 09:19:22 am" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Jason Thorpe wrote: (insecure and disklabels) > Anyhow, there's an example of another thing that the INSECURE option is > convenient for under NetBSD. It's not clear to me that it would apply to > FreeBSD at all, but you asked, so... :-) This one was already clear to me. I think it's even mentioned in the man page. Anyway, it's probably irrelevant for a ``backend server'' where you usually don't label floppies etc., nor run an X11 server. (FreeBSD doesn't have the aperture driver backdoor either, so you can't run an Xserver on a machine with a raised securelevel.) But it looks that secure mode seems realistic for server machines. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)