Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:02:45 +0100 (CET) From: roberto@redix.it To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about securelevel Message-ID: <1287.192.168.0.77.1076511765.squirrel@mail.redix.it> In-Reply-To: <79D6F861-5C96-11D8-A225-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net> References: <1171.192.168.0.77.1076505166.squirrel@mail.redix.it> <79D6F861-5C96-11D8-A225-000A95DA58FE@jimz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Feb 11, 2004, at 8:12 AM, roberto@redix.it wrote: > >> Could this configuration be considered secure, according to you? > > There's no way to determine that without some consideration of the > threats you are facing. Security considerations against simple attacks > (e.g., kiddies) are a lot different than considerations against > industrial espionage, against discovery by the secret police, and > against very smart government spies. > > What are you protecting? From whom? At what cost? > > --Jim > You are right: I agree with you that security consideration can be different depending on what to protect, from whom etc. And even a sigle machine implementing a packet-filter is only a little part of a firewall architecture. But my discussion is trying to address the weakness I red about securelevel into the mailing list archive. Could securelevel+readonly file system result in a more secure O.S.? Regards Roberto _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1287.192.168.0.77.1076511765.squirrel>