Re: Why can't OpenBSD's securelevels be saved?! - BSD

This is a discussion on Re: Why can't OpenBSD's securelevels be saved?! - BSD ; On Feb 20, 3:29 pm, Anonymous wrote: > Why can't we save OpenBSD's securelevels? I have great affinity > for the concept of securelevels on OpenBSD. I believe they should > continue to be a core feature in OpenBSD. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Why can't OpenBSD's securelevels be saved?!

  1. Re: Why can't OpenBSD's securelevels be saved?!

    On Feb 20, 3:29 pm, Anonymous wrote:

    > Why can't we save OpenBSD's securelevels? I have great affinity
    > for the concept of securelevels on OpenBSD. I believe they should
    > continue to be a core feature in OpenBSD.
    >
    > The weaknesses within OpenBSD's securelevels and the possibility that
    > Theo may remove them entirely from OpenBSD , suddenly , and at a time of his
    > choosing , has disturbed me greatly.


    tedu wrote:

    >securelevel isn't going anywhere.





    It appears as though securelevel is (or securelevels are?) in
    an untenable position. Just how long can kernel-level code that is
    considered to be "useless" by a security-conscious OS project's leader ,
    and that will not be maintained , remain within the kernel?



    I have no doubt that , unless he can be persuaded to do otherwise , Theo
    will , while everyones' backs are turned , and in the dark of night ,
    pull the helpless securelevels out into the cold snow and bash them to
    death with a very large rock.



    An ignoble end for what was a protecting force within OpenBSD
    for so many long years. A tragedy.



    Puffy will grieve.


    In sadness , and while wearing only the blackest of clothing ,
    An Odd User. :_(




    ;-) Don't let it happen.



  2. Re: Why can't OpenBSD's securelevels be saved?!

    On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:00:53 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

    > It appears as though securelevel is (or securelevels are?) in
    > an untenable position. Just how long can kernel-level code that is
    > considered to be "useless" by a security-conscious OS project's leader ,
    > and that will not be maintained , remain within the kernel?


    Wrong place to post your continuing concern. misc@ or security@ or
    deraadt@ are more applicable places than Usenet.

    --
    Replying directly will get you locally blacklisted.
    Change the address; use my first name in front of the @ if you want to
    communicate privately.


+ Reply to Thread