From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jan 8 7: 3:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from calliope.cs.brandeis.edu (calliope.cs.brandeis.edu [129.64.3.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07C037B400; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:02:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (meshko@localhost) by calliope.cs.brandeis.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03614; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:01:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:01:54 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Kruk To: Darren Henderson Cc: Artem Koutchine , , Subject: Re: Antisniffer measures (digest of posts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > So, as I see we two possible solutions and one probable soultion: > > You missed one. If these machines are on your lan/wan then the users are > somehow beholding to you. While not a technical solution, you should not > over look a strong, easily understandable, clearly exposed, widely and > repeatedly disseminated security policy paired with swift and decisive > administrative consequences for breaching that policy. agree. Make it the policy that the first one caught doing something illegal pays for the switches. That should do it. ;) But another 'social' aspect to it no one mentioned so far is that most probably people would hack system at their work only if they are not satisfied with the administrators. Try to be nice to people, do not assume they all want to screw up the system and give them some privliges -- that will make hacking unnecessary for them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message