From owner-freebsd-security Tue Nov 17 02:09:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA18677 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:09:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA18672 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:09:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15537; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:07:47 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA19609; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:07:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19981117110746.23373@follo.net> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:07:46 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Nate Williams , Warner Losh Cc: Andre Albsmeier , Matthew Dillon , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Would this make FreeBSD more secure? References: <19981116072937.E969@internal> <19981115192224.A29686@internal> <19981115161548.A23869@internal> <199811151758.JAA15108@apollo.backplane.com> <199811152210.PAA01604@harmony.village.org> <199811160658.XAA01912 < <19981116125909.A28486@internal> <199811161849.LAA05146@harmony.village.org> <199811161940.MAA19331@mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199811161940.MAA19331@mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Mon, Nov 16, 1998 at 12:40:12PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Nov 16, 1998 at 12:40:12PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: > The other issue is since they will no longer be setuid(), someone can > crash them and get the passwd file from them to crack later or we'd have > to change all of the 'don't dump core' code to look for setgid(passwd) > stuff. All of a sudden this 'simple fix' gets to be obnoxious and isn't > buying us a whole lot. setgid() programs don't dump core, I think. If they do, that is a security hole, and should be fixed. Non-problem. General suggestion (and this is not aimed just at Nate): Please think twice before trying to shoot down somebody elses suggestion. By shooting down changes, we end up being very conservative - and if people get their suggestions for good changes shot down, they are less likely to try again later. Example: This tendency almost cost us our NAT code before - everybody (by the authors impression) was shouting "you can't do that!" before he'd written the code. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message