From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug 14 14:47:16 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA28035
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA28030
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id QAA12769; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:30:51 -0500
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Message-Id: <199608142130.QAA12769@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Subject: Re: Nightmare.
To: kpneal@interpath.com (Kevin P. Neal)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:30:50 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, ulf@lamb.net, jkh@time.cdrom.com,
        hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960814212017.0074c684@interpath.com> from "Kevin P. Neal" at Aug 14, 96 05:20:17 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >I tend to agree, but wonder if it would not make more sense to tackle this
> >from a different angle.
> >
> >Consider all the programs that could clobber a mounted file system.  Would
> >it make more sense if we somehow protected a mounted disk device from
> >being clobbered?
> 
> Isn't this one of the things that secure_level > 0 protects you from?
> 
> In fact, yes it is. (reference: page 263, 4.4BSD daemon book).
> 
> >OTOH, this is a can of worms, no matter how you do it.

Maybe I don't need to point this out, but...

The thread started with some beginners who made a sad mistake.  It seems to
me that in order to set securelevel > 0, you need to know what you are
doing.  How do you protect the newbies who are not used to UNIX/FreeBSD
and who therefore would not have any idea to set securelevel > 0..

We don't default to a securelevel > 0.

... JG