Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:03:29 +0200 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security problem with FreeBSD 2.2.1 default installation Message-ID: <19970603220329.48559@keltia.freenix.fr> In-Reply-To: <199706031731.LAA02257@elara.frii.com>; from gnat@frii.com on Tue, Jun 03, 1997 at 11:31:31AM -0600 References: <Pine.HPP.3.96.970603103342.16150G-100000@sunfire.cs.iastate.edu> <199706031651.SAA24768@wicx20.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <199706031731.LAA02257@elara.frii.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to gnat@frii.com: > I have a question: because 2.2 and 2.1 seem to have /dev/fd/n where n > is a file descriptor number, does this mean that FreeBSD doesn't need > a suidperl because setuid scripts are now safe in the kernel? Support for setuid scripts is still disabled in the kernel even though we could have it securely... We just need someone to implement it correctly. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: There are no limits -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 3.0-CURRENT #17: Sat May 31 18:55:45 CEST 1997
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970603220329.48559>