|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel
Rashid N. Achilov (shelton
sentry.granch.ru)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:30:14 +0700 (NOVST)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
- Previous message: Brett Glass: "Securing a system that's been rooted remotely (Was: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel)"
- Next in thread: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
- Reply: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 04:14 PM 9/16/99 -0700, Liam Slusser wrote:
>
> >Right...but if the system was hacked what would stop the hacker from
> >building BPF in a kernel?
>
> securelevel=2 or securelevel=3.
>
> Or Tripwire.
What's different between securelevel=1, securelevel=2 and securelevel=3?
With Best Regards.
Rashid N. Achilov (RNA1-RIPE), Cert. ID: 28514, Granch Ltd. lead engineer
e-mail: achilovgranch.ru, tel (383-2) 24-2363
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomoFreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
- Previous message: Brett Glass: "Securing a system that's been rooted remotely (Was: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel)"
- Next in thread: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
- Reply: Brett Glass: "Re: Securing a system that's been rooted remotely"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Sep 17 1999 - 00:28:59 CDT