Date: 18 Nov 1998 14:02:09 -0600 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, wam@sa.fedex.com (William McVey), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Would this make FreeBSD more secure? Message-ID: <86hfvwixby.fsf@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199811172058.VAA02065@ocean.campus.luth.se> References: <199811172058.VAA02065@ocean.campus.luth.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Umm... I have seen no one in this discussion mention this, so I'll > say it, after repeating what someone DID say "Small well audited > setuid programs are not a problem". Now... Here's my suggestion, > my_xlock.c: [snip] > Seems simple enough to me, and could be used from scripts and > everything. Another point is that this could be easily augmented to handle other authentication methods. For example, OTPs, hand scanners, physical keys, etc could all be handled by this one utility instead of having to write it into each and every program that needs a password. (Something keeps popping into my head talking about Kerberos, but I don't know why.) Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86hfvwixby.fsf>