Shouldn't the sysctl node imply what it is securing?
kern.security.
net.security.
user.security.
etc.security.

On 2/3/06, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>
> > "security" node doesn't seem to fit to the way how the rest of tree is
> > currently organized.
> > do you want to create "performance" top level node, which collects
> > performance related knobs?  to me, "security" node seems something like=
 that.
>
> No, I think a "performance" node would be a bad idea. But security is
> special, because it's so important. That said, I'm not sure it really
> needs a separate node; I'd need to examine all the security-related
> settings in context to see.
>
> cjs
> --
> Curt Sampson            <cjs@cynic.net>             +81 90 7737 2974
>    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
>    by those who have not got it.    --George Bernard Shaw
>