From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Mar 25 23:31:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA22847
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA22832
          for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id XAA10931; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:33:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703260733.XAA10931@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: tqbf@enteract.com
cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Privileged ports... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:07:51 CST."
             <19970326060751.3783.qmail@smtp.enteract.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:33:21 -0800
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>As part of a gradual effort to rid my kernel of suser() calls, I whipped
>up a quick patch to in_pcb.c that configurably removes the superuser
>restriction on binding privileged ports. 
>
>This has the effect of removing the requirement for programs like rlogin
>and rsh to run with superuser privs, thus eliminating a few more SUID
>programs. In place of suser(), I've inserted two new sysctl OIDs under

   ...and creating a gaping security whole at the same time. I sure hope
you're not doing this on any shell account machines and you completely
trust any users that you have.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project