Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:57:03 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> Cc: Adam <bsdx@looksharp.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: making the snoop device loadable. Message-ID: <20000709165702.V25571@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10007100149380.88568-100000@login-1.eunet.no>; from mbendiks@eunet.no on Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 01:54:06AM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007091524430.407-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10007100149380.88568-100000@login-1.eunet.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> [000709 16:54] wrote: > > Why did it exist from FreeBSD-WhoKnowsWhen until 1999? I'd like to use X > > As I recall, this had something to do with shrinking the kernel for > PicoBSD, amongst other things. > > > 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. > > Thing is; disabling kernel modules will avail you little, as an > illegitimate user can still use the memory devices to access physical > memory, and thus binary patch a live kernel. This is hard, but it can, and > has been done. Eivind mentioned one particular case with a person who > binary-patched the kernel of an old Unix to bypass the 14 character file > name length limitation without severing the uptime. I owe that person a beer. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000709165702.V25571>