From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 27 10:15:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181E4152C5; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA15513; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:15:12 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25892; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:15:11 -0600 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:15:11 -0600 Message-Id: <199907271715.LAA25892@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julian Elischer Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Matthew Dillon , Joe Greco , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I like the ability at secure level 3 to only reset the counters forward.. > It fits in with such things as the "append only" flag. Then we'd have to implement per-rule counters that default to IPFW_VERBOSE_LIMIT but that could be changed to anything. That's a very different setup than what we currently have. (Another thing I just thought of is that this could cause DoS attacks on the system if a user compromised root and then set the limit to a very high number.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message