From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb 11 07:41:03 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AA04616A4CF; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8D71A43D1F; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:41:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from cperciva@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (cperciva@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	i1BFf3bv086153;	Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:41:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from cperciva@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from cperciva@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1BFf3FI086149;
	Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:41:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from cperciva)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:41:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <200402111541.i1BFf3FI086149@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: pavalos@theshell.com, cperciva@FreeBSD.org,
	freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/32072: setuid w/o immutable flag
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:41:03 -0000

Synopsis: setuid w/o immutable flag

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: cperciva
State-Changed-When: Wed Feb 11 07:37:00 PST 2004
State-Changed-Why: 
This is not a useful security mechanism against an attacker
who already has root access.  Feel free to read the archives
and/or post to freebsd-security for a more in-depth discussion
about the (lack of) merits of securelevel.


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=32072