From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 24 10:24:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA05624
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.aros.net (mailhub.aros.net [207.173.16.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05596
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fluffy.aros.net (fluffy.aros.net [207.173.16.2]) by mailhub.aros.net (8.8.5/Unknown) with ESMTP id LAA08383; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:23:53 -0700 (MST)
Received: from fluffy.aros.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fluffy.aros.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27302; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:23:52 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199702241823.LAA27302@fluffy.aros.net>
To: Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: disallow setuid root shells? 
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:23:51 -0700
From: Dave Andersen <angio@aros.net>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

--------
[CC: list trimmed]

>   IMHO adding "anti-setuid" code into shell will help, but that help won't
> worth the effort of typing "setuid(getuid());" and recompiling the shell
> -- it only makes one more step required to get the same result unless the
> system is stripped down until becoming completely useless (but stripped
> down until becoming completely useless system isn't vulnerable to most of
> known security bugs anyway).

   I disagree.  It's a small thing, and very easy to get around, but
it would help reduce the number of breakins by people who don't 
understand what they're doing aside from running this program-thingy
that someone gave them.

   I freely admit that most of these people will be using widely 
published exploit code, and that almost any vigilant sysadmin won't
be vulnerable to them -- but not everybody is anal about keeping their
computer up to date and secure.  Forgive me for sounding political,
but if even one or two computers are prevented from having a root
compromise by this, it seems worthwhile - especially since nobody
can think of anything it would actually hurt.

   -Dave