From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jul 11  2: 4:32 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F4814D3D
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au)
Received: (from avalon@localhost)
	by cheops.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA01620;
	Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:04:36 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199907110904.TAA01620@cheops.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Syslog alternatives?
To: robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:04:35 +1000 (EST)
Cc: proff@suburbia.net, imp@village.org, alla@sovlink.ru,
	avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990709124340.24202L-100000@fledge.watson.org> from "Robert Watson" at Jul 9, 99 12:45:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

In some mail from Robert Watson, sie said:
[...]
> I still lean towards a combination of existing securelevel code, and a
> protected process flag indicating that the process may not be intefered
> with by unauthorized userland code (i.e., no debugging, signaling, etc).

That can be used to solve a suite of different problems.  Interesting idea,
none the less.

Darren


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message