Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:00:53 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Woodford <woodford@cc181716-a.hwrd1.md.home.com> To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Would this make FreeBSD more secure? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.981118105813.4768A-100000@cc181716-a.hwrd1.md.home.com> In-Reply-To: <199811172222.QAA12303@s07.sa.fedex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, William McVey wrote:
| Bill Woodford wrote:
| >I think this is a good idea. The change in perms didnt seem to affect
| >anything else in a bad way, and it got rid of a setuid. Andre, thanks
| >for posting it!
|
| Did this work for you? Can you actually "break" your xlock? It
| didn't work for me when I did it originally because getpwnam, which
Ah geez. Sorry guys. I thought it was working, but I had an older version of
xlock in my path. When I ran the proper xlock with the permissions, I couldnt
break the xlock.
| is what xlock apparently calls, only returns the shadow'ed encrypted
| password entry if geteuid() returns 0 (at least this is how FreeBSD
| 2.2.5 is does it (my 3.0 machine is suffering from hardware problems
| right now). I posted a proposed "fix" for this, which no-one has
| really commented on.
Post it again, please :) I missed it.
--
Bill Woodford * woodford@cc181716-a.hwrd1.md.home.com * ICQ:14076169
Volunteer Coordinator, Otakon 99: Convention of Otaku Generation
"Windows Multitasking: Messing up several things at once."
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?Pine.NEB.3.96.981118105813.4768A-100000>