From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Jul  7 18:02:44 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA19301
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 18:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homeport.org (lighthouse.homeport.org [205.136.65.198])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA19293
          for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 18:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (adam@localhost) by homeport.org (8.8.5/8.6.9) id UAA20028; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 20:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Message-Id: <199707080058.UAA20028@homeport.org>
Subject: Re: Security Model/Target for FreeBSD or 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <199707072246.PAA25097@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> from Jim Shankland at "Jul 7, 97 03:46:57 pm"
To: jas@flyingfox.com (Jim Shankland)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 20:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: robert@cyrus.watson.org, security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL27 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Jim Shankland wrote:

| Of course, we already have a permissions system.  Why not:
| 
| -rw-rw----   1 root   smtp    Feb 18 09:33 /protocols/inet/tcp/25
| 
| Or is that just too weird?

That seems like a great idea, modulo the amount of work needed to
implement it. (do you want to extend that so that
/protocols/inet/tcp/10.2.23.45:25 allows you to control permissions on
a per IP address basis?  That might be too baroque for not enough
gain..)

-- 
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of
officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.