Question about securelevel

[roberto at redix.it]

> On 11 févr. 2004, at 14:30, Jim Zajkowski wrote:
>
>>> Could this configuration be considered secure, according to you?
>>
>> There's no way to determine that without some consideration of the
>> threats you are facing.  Security considerations against simple
>> attacks (e.g., kiddies) are a lot different than considerations
>> against industrial espionage, against discovery by the secret police,
>> and against very smart government spies.
>>
>> What are you protecting?  From whom?  At what cost?
>
>
> the cost is, to me, the more relevant point because every aspects of a
> security policy has a cost or can be seen as a cost.
> Security is :
> 	time that you spend to setup = cost
> 	time that you spend for maintenance = cost
> 	increased complexity on the workflow (user teaching, admin training,
> more delay) = cost
> 	less time for disaster recovery = negative cost
> 	protecting valuable data/info = negative cost
>
> When you sum all this, you should get a negative total cost, if not
> then your security policy is probably overkill.
>
> I guess if I would want a perfect secure system I would start with a
> bootable CD as main filesystem, with, why not, union filesystems at
> some mount point for more flexibility.
>
>
> patpro
> --
> je cherche un poste d'admin-sys Mac/UNIX
> (ou une jeune et jolie femme riche)
> http://patpro.net/cv.php
>

Yes I agree with you: a secure system should be read-only fs, but to
overcome the drawbacks of a CDROM, I can use a standard hardisk with a
read-only file system while securelevel==3. The writable file system
should be available in single user mode only on console.

Regards
Roberto

 _______________________________________________
 freebsd-security at freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to
 "freebsd-security-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"