Hello,
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Peter Brezny wrote:
> I have a nomenclature ignorance when it comes to the term sandbox.
>
> When someone says, "named runs in a sandbox on my machine."
>
> Do they mean
>
> a) named runs under an unpriviliged user
> or
> b) named runs in a chrooted environment
>
On Friday, December 15, 2000, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> However, with the advent of chroot and the security gains that it provides,
> "sandbox" has been re-defined to mean b) in most cases.
chroot is not meant as a security mechanism, it was only meant
to change the meaning of "/", originally
> I have a nomenclature ignorance when it comes to the term sandbox.
>
> When someone says, "named runs in a sandbox on my machine."
>
> Do they mean
>
> a) named runs under an unpriviliged user
> or
> b) named runs in a chrooted environment
> or
> c) both
At one point in time, "sandbox" meant a)
I have a nomenclature ignorance when it comes to the term sandbox.
When someone says, "named runs in a sandbox on my machine."
Do they mean
a) named runs under an unpriviliged user
or
b) named runs in a chrooted environment
or
c) both
?
In the /etc/namedb/named.conf it says that freebsd runs
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:05:52PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > The problem with the "just let it be a router" approach is that I
> > want all traffic from B to go to A and C, not just that which is
> > actually intended for said net (yes all can be considered nets).
>
> the thing is, i do not s
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:54:33AM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> You probably need to use tcpmssd from the ports (net/tcpmssd) or use the
> recently added tcpmss option of PPP for you ADSL link.
no, that's not the cause of the problem and adding tcpmssd to the mix
doesn't solve the probl
Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>
d
>
> So anyway to answer your question quickly, this feature does not belong to
> ng_pppoe. PPP is a much better place for it, libalias would (for me) be even
> better.
I would have to agree with this..
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ [EMAIL PROTE
> > Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Now, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate (although that would make
me a
> > friend of Chucky, right?) but I'm wondering if user-ppp is the right
place
> > to make this change. Isn't the problem specific to PPPoE? If that's
the
> > cas
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
you write:
>
>No other changes have been made, and the updated patch is available at:
>http://www.silby.com/patches/ratelimit-enhancement-3.patch
Looks good to me.
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the bo
Clark Gaylord wrote:
>
> I am interested in creating a pathological lab network with the
> following forwarding rules:
> - three networks (A,B,C)
> - packets from A or C are forwarded to B
> - packets from B are forward to both A and C
>
> I was thinking of using BRIDGE+ipfw to create this by
Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>
> > > I'm happy to announce this problem has finally found its final solution
> in
> > > ppp version >= 11/28/2000: the new option "tcpmssfixup" (enabled by
> > > default!) corrects the outgoing TCP MSS and solves the problem for good.
> > > This functionality is strictl
11 matches
Mail list logo
