On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 09:23 16-3-2002 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > Second, these
> >warnings would be generated during normal operations, as a number of
> >applications attempt to load kernel modules when they need them, including
> >ppp. Generating spurious
At 09:23 16-3-2002 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Second, these
>warnings would be generated during normal operations, as a number of
>applications attempt to load kernel modules when they need them, including
>ppp. Generating spurious warnings as part of normal system activity isn't
>necessarily
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> I've noticed that currently, violations of securelevel are aborted, but not
> typically logged. It seems like in addition to aborting whichever calls are
> in progress, logging an error might be beneficial. I recognize that this
> goes along the same line
On 2002-03-12 22:26, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> What I meant is, the file permissions on /dev/ad0 stop ordinary users from
> even reaching the point where the secure level denies the attempt.
>
> And so only root can actually trigger the secure level violation log
> message. So it cannot be
At 16:07 12-3-2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>On 2002-03-12 08:29, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > At 02:36 12-3-2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > >Rate limiting is still needed:
> > >
> > >while true ;do
> > >echo "" > /dev/ad0
> > >echo "" > /
On 2002-03-12 08:29, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 02:36 12-3-2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >Rate limiting is still needed:
> >
> >while true ;do
> >echo "" > /dev/ad0
> >echo "" > /dev/ad1
> >done
> >
> >This would cause syslogd to go nu
At 02:36 12-3-2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>On 2002-03-11 22:00, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >
> > >I think this would be useful, but I would be concerned about the rate at
> > >which these messages could come when someone is actively attacking a
> > >system.
> > >Perhaps such messages c
On 2002-03-11 22:00, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>
> >I think this would be useful, but I would be concerned about the rate at
> >which these messages could come when someone is actively attacking a
> >system.
> >Perhaps such messages could go through a rate limiter mechanism similar to
> >that
>I think this would be useful, but I would be concerned about the rate at
>which these messages could come when someone is actively attacking a system.
>Perhaps such messages could go through a rate limiter mechanism similar to
>that now used by the network interfaces.
syslogd already has a "las
Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> I've noticed that currently, violations of securelevel are
> aborted, but not
> typically logged. It seems like in addition to aborting whichever
> calls are
> in progress, logging an error might be beneficial. I recognize that this
> goes along the same lines as logging file p
I've noticed that currently, violations of securelevel are aborted, but not
typically logged. It seems like in addition to aborting whichever calls are
in progress, logging an error might be beneficial. I recognize that this
goes along the same lines as logging file permission errors, but if a fil
11 matches
Mail list logo
