From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 15 10:56:46 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA24289
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA24278
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id DAA18137; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:52:05 +1000
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:52:05 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199610151752.DAA18137@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com
Subject: Re: /sbin/init permission
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, j@uriah.heep.sax.de
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> >> -r-sr-x---  1 uucp  uucp       90112 Oct  2 04:09 /usr/libexec/uucp/uuxqt
>> >
>> >Seems to make sense.
>> 
>> It makes no sense for it to be unreadable, and its nonreadability and
>> nonexecutability by `other' breaks the usability of an nfs-mounted /usr
>> (for the rare case that root wants to run this directly).  (If it were
>> only readable, then root could copy it and run the copy.)
>
>PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS EXECUTABLE BY 'other'.  It is very possible to 
>bring a system to its knees if there is even a moderate amount of UUCP 
>work by doing
>
>while true; do
>	/usr/libexec/uucp/uuxqt&
>done

Is this much different from any other fork bomb?

>You probably do not want to run uuxqt if you have a NFS mounted /usr because
>you probably have a NFS mounted /var and Taylor himself says not to run
>UUCP on a NFS mounted partition due to locking problems.  

Well, I have an nfs-mounted /usr, a ufs /var, and don't normally run uucp :-).

Bruce