From owner-freebsd-security Mon Nov 18 09:11:04 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA28101 for security-outgoing; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:11:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from fps.biblos.unal.edu.co ([168.176.37.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA28078 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:10:49 -0800 (PST) From: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co Received: from localhost by fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA37368; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:15:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:15:30 -0500 (EST) To: Marc Slemko Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BoS: Exploit for sendmail smtpd bug (ver. 8.7-8.8.2). In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I run it under inetd, as tcp_wrappers needs it there. BTW if some is writing from an "UNKNOWN" host I can`t hear you !! Pedro. On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Marc Slemko wrote: > What does sendmail need to do WRT binding to ports that a webserver > doesn't? Programs such as webservers work quite well with a parent > process running as root that binds to the port and forks childs running as > some non-root uid to handle requests. Why couldn't (this part) of > sendmail's problems be fixed the same way? > > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > What we REALLY need, is a way for root, to hand out certain priviledges. > > > > Imagine this: > > > > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.uidforport.25=`id -ur smtp` > > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.uidforport.20=`id -ur ftp` > > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.uidforport.21=`id -ur ftp` > > sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.uidforport.119=`id -ur nntp` > > > > This means that users with UID smtp can bind to socket 25 (aka smtp), > > and so on. Now sendmail NEVER needs to be root. > > > > How's that for security ? > >