From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri May 5 2:10: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB8537BB55 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 02:10:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id CAA00585; Fri, 5 May 2000 02:10:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 02:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005050910.CAA00585@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Nick Hibma Subject: Re: bin/18373: pkg_delete shouldn't insist on root Reply-To: Nick Hibma Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/18373; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nick Hibma To: Ben Smithurst Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/18373: pkg_delete shouldn't insist on root Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:00:40 +0100 (BST) > It is? Perhaps I'm being dumb, but what's to stop a user compiling > their own version of pkg_delete and removing the getuid check? If libmm > has files deletable by a normal user, I don't even see what difference > it makes if they use pkg_delete or rm. Perhaps you could explain? Is > there something special about libmm or were you just picking a random > port? (I don't even see a libmm port, so it must be part of another > port, but anyway...) the port is called mm. I thought that pkg_delete was setuid root. (and didn't check ... :-( Nick -- n_hibma@webweaving.org n_hibma@freebsd.org USB project http://www.etla.net/~n_hibma/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message