Subject: Securelevels revisited (was re: verified executable...)
To: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 10/29/2002 09:21:42
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, matthew green wrote:
# indeed. securelevel > 2 has never been defined before?
# > Q: So, how do you stop the list being updated later?
# > A: by using securelevel - the fingerprints can only be loaded at
# > securelevel == 0. The full effect of the verified exec is in
# > effect at securelevel > 2 (i.e. 3 onwards), at this point warnings
# > about invalid/missing fingerprints become fatal errors, before this
# > they were merely warnings.
# >i assume that is "securelevel <= 0" ?
# prolly, but the "securelevel > 2" bit gives me pause. why not just
# "securelevel > 1"?
I have a question; has any further discussion been going on about making
SECURELEVEL a bit mask rather than a linear value, or has this been dis-
missed as being so useless as to demerit further discussion?
NetBSD: Twice the Bits-Clean of other Leading OSes.