From owner-freebsd-security Fri Jul 9 13: 3:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A729314FC7 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:03:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id WAA57984; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 22:03:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Warner Losh Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Gustavo V G C Rios , security@FreeBSD.ORG, bos-owner-br@sekure.org Subject: Re: suid/guid References: <3784D440.1075EFB3@tdnet.com.br> <199907091622.KAA20280@harmony.village.org> <199907091658.KAA20551@harmony.village.org> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 09 Jul 1999 22:03:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: Warner Losh's message of "Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:58:08 -0600" Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Warner Losh 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