From owner-freebsd-security Fri Mar 12 7:30:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ints.ru (ints.ru [194.67.173.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DDD1537F for ; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:30:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ilmar@ws-ilmar.ints.ru) Received: from ws-ilmar.ints.ru (ws-ilmar.ints.ru [194.67.173.16]) by ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA22738; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:28:51 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ws-ilmar.ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA38669; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:29:35 +0300 (MSK) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:29:34 +0300 (MSK) From: "Ilmar S. Habibulin" To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: disapointing security architecture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Robert Watson wrote: > it. I may get a chance to look at it again more seriously in the near > future. It also raises the issue as to whether it wouldn't be better to > reengineer the setuid programs so they aren't setuid :-). You mean capabilities and ACLs? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message