From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 23 22:32:13 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA01033 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA01027 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1) id E0vRY6j-0004Ps-00; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:32:01 -0700 To: Mikael Karpberg Subject: Re: non-root users binding to ports < 1024 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:07:57 +0100." <199611240307.EAA06738@ocean.campus.luth.se> References: <199611240307.EAA06738@ocean.campus.luth.se> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:32:01 -0700 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199611240307.EAA06738@ocean.campus.luth.se> Mikael Karpberg writes: : I might be wrong, but doesn't rlogin for example bind to a port < 1024 : on OUTGOING connections, to make itself trustworthy? It's setuid root, : and could be just setuid bindlow or some other normal user, that would just : have one extra permission: To bind to all ports < 1024, special sensitive : ports excluded. I'm user more programs then rlogin could use that user also. True. My solution would be poorly suited for doing that. It would eliminate the need for other programs to bind to the ports to listen for inbound connections. Reducing the number is still a win :-). : As I see it, any unneccesary priviliges to setuid programs is just asking : for trouble. Agreed. Warner