From owner-freebsd-security Fri Mar 26 3: 3:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B630F14E2F for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:03:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.8/8.8.4) with SMTP id NAA07073; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:03:27 +0200 (EET) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:03:27 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Matthew Dillon Cc: James Wyatt , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kerberos vs SSH In-Reply-To: <199903251836.KAA00989@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > : > :On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > : [ ... ] > :> are still vulnerable. You can get into the account just fine without > :> exposing a password, but once in the account if you need to type a > :> password of any sort in to do something else, *that* password is > :> vulnerable to interception. > : > :especially sudo and su... - Jy@ > > We used sudo for a little while 3 years ago, but I decided that it was > too big a security risk and wiped it. sudo is one of the stupidest > programs I've ever seen. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > The other problem of using sudo is that some of the protection it seems to offer is just that, seeming. Just too many things allow the user to exec a shell or other uncontrollable things. And if you are virtually giving the person having sudo capabilities full root, why not just give them root? Or not give them root, managing the resources differently (even if with setuid/and or setgid programs) and avoid sudo? Sander To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message