Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 20:52:50 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ping6 fixes Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105102044460.1933-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010510124858.D19855@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:37:40PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:20:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > > I think I now understand the purpose of seteuid() before seteuid(). > > > > Me too. Thanks, all. > > > /me still doesn't. > > As I said, this would only be meaningful if: > > 1) we follow POSIX.1-200x I'm stll not sure about this (haven't seen POSIX.any-200x...). > - and - > > 2) the process doesn't have "appropriate privilege" initially, > i.e., it's not setuid root (not the case here). It saves you from having to know much about the current ids. (Not a good reason, since you really should understand the current ids in set*id programs. And you really should check that set*id() succeeded...) Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0105102044460.1933-100000>