Jarrett Lu wrote:
> Glenn Faden wrote:
>
>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> will young wrote:
>>>
As long as an administrator must take an action in the g-z to
turn on ip instances this should not impact the current
evaluation. With the current behavior I don't think IP instanc
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 05:16:32PM -0500, Will Young wrote:
>Yes, my point was that we can not create a TOE with this
> configuration, which means most current trusted solaris customers would
> not be interested in it. Customer's can certainly create a useful
> configuration which takes adv
will young wrote:
> The trouble we encounter is that we need service infrastructures to
> operate and perform services for the zones, but function at a different
> label than them. Currently, this is done by having the global zone at
> the admin_high/admin_low label for our DOI but that do
Nicolas Williams wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 05:16:32PM -0500, Will Young wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, my point was that we can not create a TOE with this
>>configuration, which means most current trusted solaris customers would
>>not be interested in it. Customer's can certainly create a useful
Przemol,
> Why sunrpc is left running ? I have read
Many rpc clients will bind to the first address available, not
necessarily the localhost (127.0.0.1 or ::1). We decided not to change
all the clients (nor would that have been possible), but to have rpcbind
bind to all addresses and deny any con
Hello,
I have just installed S 10 11/06. While installing, I have checked
the "no" option at the installer screen which disabled most unneeded services.
It was written that only ssh should be visible as a network service.
But after initial reboot I found also sunrpc running:
bash-3.00# netstat -a|
Glenn Faden wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>> will young wrote:
>>
>>> As long as an administrator must take an action in the g-z to
>>> turn on ip instances this should not impact the current evaluation.
>>> With the current behavior I don't think IP instances could be used
>>> in the
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> will young wrote:
>> As long as an administrator must take an action in the g-z to
>> turn on ip instances this should not impact the current evaluation.
>> With the current behavior I don't think IP instances could be used in
>> the target of evaluation (TOE) and a
jarrett lu wrote:
> will young wrote:
>
>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>
>>> Given what Will pointed out in his last message I think it is
>>> probably a good idea to ensure that ip instances can not be enabled
>>> when we have TX zones present on the system. There is already a
>>> similar enforce
will young wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> Given what Will pointed out in his last message I think it is probably
>> a good idea to ensure that ip instances can not be enabled when we
>> have TX zones present on the system. There is already a similar
>> enforced restriction with lx BrandZ zo
10 matches
Mail list logo
