From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Mar 26 17:22:23 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA19794
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19786
          for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:22:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA16791; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703270123.RAA16791@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: tqbf@enteract.com
cc: adrian@obiwan.aceonline.com.au, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Privileged ports... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:43:52 CST."
             <199703261843.MAA27813@enteract.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:23:08 -0800
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>    None that I can think of if I understand you correctly. The thing you
>> want to prevent is regular users being able to bind to a privileged port.
>
>Mr. Greenman, I know I'm being repetative here, but I'd like to re-assert
>that the patch I posted does not allow regular users to bind to a
>privileged port, nor have I ever suggested that regular users be granted
>the ability to bind to a privileged port.

   Yes, I re-read your message and I see that now. Sorry about the confusion.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project