From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Nov 19 00:26:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA22809
          for security-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.177])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA22804;
          Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.tfs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA00452; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:23:50 +0100 (MET)
To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: BoS: Exploit for sendmail smtpd bug (ver. 8.7-8.8.2). 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:22:54 MST."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95.961118081010.4525A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> 
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:23:49 +0100
Message-ID: <450.848334229@critter.tfs.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <Pine.BSF.3.95.961118081010.4525A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca>, Marc Sle
mko writes:
>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? 

Sure, but I'd rather once and for all get rid of the root bit :-)

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.