Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:10:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Alex Nash <nash@mcs.net> To: robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org Cc: regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel permissions Message-ID: <199804182310.SAA03638@nash.pr.mcs.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980418131307.15725F-100000@trojanhorse.pr.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Apr, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Philippe Regnauld wrote:
>
>> Suggestion: how difficult would it be to have ipfw(8) respect
>> the securelevel to, for example, refuse to flush / alter
>> the ipfw list ?
>>
>> i.e.: all mods have to be tested before the securelevel is raised,
>> and once it is, only rebooting into single user on the console
>> allows you to change the filters.
We've had this for about two years now.
> Having just browsed the kernel source a little, it looks like indeed this
> is currently implemented. The comment is a little obscure:
>
> /* only allow get calls if secure mode > 2 */
> if (securelevel > 2) {
> if (m) (void)m_free(m);
> return(EPERM);
>
> But what it actually means is, only allow non-get calls if securemode > 2.
Huh? It means what it says: only allow get calls if securelevel > 2.
Alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804182310.SAA03638>