From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr  3 05:17:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA21742
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 05:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA21733
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 05:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199704031317.FAA21733@freefall.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA028673124; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:12:04 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: securelevel & IP filter
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:12:04 +1000 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


I'm aware of the kernel recognising securelevel having a value of -1, 0, 1
or 2 and above but are there any plans for implementing something more than
this ?

It has been suggested that IP Filter disallow changes to filter rules if
securelevel is set to some level...(I think 3 was the suggestion).  

However, before doing this, I want to poll people on whether they think
three is appropriate, or should 10 be used (say) as a synonym for
"firewall security level".

Thoughts ?

Darren