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 (tv@pobox.com)