From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jul 9 13:20:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from turtle.looksharp.net (cc360882-a.strhg1.mi.home.com [24.2.221.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A43E37B6A4 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsdx@looksharp.net) Received: from localhost (bsdx@localhost) by turtle.looksharp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30483; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:20:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bsdx@looksharp.net) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:20:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: making the snoop device loadable. In-Reply-To: <20000709131350.S25571@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >* 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. What about X? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message