From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 4 19:55:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA29767 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (joelh@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA29747 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:55:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) id WAA20216; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:54:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:54:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199706050254.WAA20216@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: tom@sdf.com CC: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Tom Samplonius on Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: tty_snoop: why check uid? From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Why does the snp device check to make sure that the user invoking it >> is root, instead of letting the admin set the permissions on the >> device to whatever he feels appropriate? > Because if the tty snoop is not root, he/she soon will be. It is better >not to fool yourself, and give the root password to all snoop users. I do. And I wanted to get around having to use 'su' for this operation. -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped