From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jun 19 4:52:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from megaweapon.zigg.com (megaweapon.zigg.com [206.114.60.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C0714C84 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 04:52:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Received: from localhost (matt@localhost) by megaweapon.zigg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21392; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:52:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from matt@zigg.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:52:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Behrens To: Frank Tobin Cc: FreeBSD-security Mailing List Subject: Re: proposed secure-level 4 patch 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 On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Frank Tobin wrote: : Okay, a good friend of mine Kris Wehner has written a patch to implement : the proposed securelevel of 4, which would disallow the opening of : secure ports (<1024) while in the securelevel of 4. The patch is against : 3.2-STABLE kernel, as of within 12 hours. I'd like to hear more comments : before I send it as a send-pr. The patch is attached. As much as I love seeing contributions, and think this could be a good thing, I believe the proper place to try new functionality like this is against the -current branch. Of course, you are always free to maintain your own patches against -stable, but I and many others wouldn't want this (or any other change similar to it) to officially poke its head into the -stable tree until it had been well-tested in -current and then could be MFC'd. Matt Behrens Owner/Administrator, zigg.com Chief Engineer, Nameless IRC Network To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message