>> >Who *cares*?  The point of the securelevel model is to ensure that rogue
>> >processes *running as root* can be prevented from doing lasting damage to
>> >the system.  If you can write arbitrary memory, the whole thing falls
>> >apart.
>
>Read the above paragraph again.
>
>Now read it again.
>
>Okay, one more time.
>
>Now let's reiterate what's being discussed here.
>
>Does the aperture driver offer more security than "options INSECURE"?
>
>The answer is a resounding "no".  In both cases, root is able to write to
>arbitrary memory, and thus, all bets are off.  Please note that *all* of
>the other guarantees offered by a securelevel > 0 depend on the fact that
>root cannot write to arbitrary memory.  (and that this is only a sufficient
>condition, *not* necessary one)

s/rogue//

okay, fine.  i'm going out to drink now.  fleh.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."