Date: 09 Jul 1999 22:03:35 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Gustavo V G C Rios <kernel@tdnet.com.br>, security@FreeBSD.ORG, bos-owner-br@sekure.org Subject: Re: suid/guid Message-ID: <xzpr9mhr3oo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Warner Losh's message of "Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:58:08 -0600" References: <xzpso6xrcen.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3784D440.1075EFB3@tdnet.com.br> <199907091622.KAA20280@harmony.village.org> <199907091658.KAA20551@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh <imp@village.org> writes: > Agreed. I'm also starting to think that a system-wide tunable that > would turn off almost all of the set[ug]id installation. Almost > nobody needs setuidperl, for example. If df is installed w/o setgid > operator, almost no functionality is lost. etc. Of course exatly > what would be lost would be documented. Comments? None on the general concept - but one on the specific example: who except root needs to know what df(1) can report when sgid operator? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpr9mhr3oo.fsf>