From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jul 9 13:14: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4744737B6A4 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:14:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e69KDoQ02477; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:13:50 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Adam Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: making the snoop device loadable. Message-ID: <20000709131350.S25571@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000709120705.Q25571@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from bsdx@looksharp.net on Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 03:35:28PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Adam [000709 12:36] wrote: > > Why did it exist from FreeBSD-WhoKnowsWhen until 1999? I'd like to use X > via startx and not xdm too. I dont recall FreeBSD allowing X to start > after securelevel is > 0 because it accesses /dev/mem. If it does now, > I'll shut up. I tried searching the mail archives for discussions about > why NO_LKM is bad but couldn't find anything. Could you help me find a > discussion on it or tell me why disabling kernel modules is *not* > security? Assuming I'd notice a reboot and would consequently whup some > butt if someone did. If I had root and wasn't such a nice guy (*grin*) you wouldn't know which way was up if I took the time to do so. Please properly secure your box. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message