Subject: Re: Sysctls vs. securelevel (was Re: Volunteers to test some kernel
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/15/1999 14:43:41
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Bill Studenmund wrote:
: > Or, there could be a `securelevel' with exactly two states (0 and 1), where
: > `0' indicates two-way security switch sysctls, and `1' indicates one-way
: > settings.
: I think a tri-state secure level is fine (0, 1, 2), but I DO like the idea
: of one-way sysctls's.
Well, if the security functionality is based on sysctls, what does a
tri-state securelevel do? ;)
-- Todd Vierling (email@example.com)