From owner-freebsd-security Mon Oct 4 23:52:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from jason.argos.org (a1-3a123.neo.rr.com [24.93.180.123]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1746A15200 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 23:52:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@argos.org) Received: from localhost (mike@localhost) by jason.argos.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA30901; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:52:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:52:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Nowlin To: Hank Leininger Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Fwd: Truth about ssh 1.2.27 vulnerabiltiy] In-Reply-To: <199910041226.IAA14566@mailer.progressive-comp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > owned by root or the UID/EUID of the process. This is what Solar > Designer's patches for Linux have done for some time now. It seems to > break little (nothing, except POSIX? ;) and is quite effective. SolarD's Not sure if your comment SAID that it breaks POSIX or not, but in this day and age of trying to come up with a standard that people can both believe in and rely on, "breaking POSIX" isn't something that should be taken too lightly. Although there's a lot of quirks and overall dumbness in POSIX, the rules were meant for a reason. I don't claim to be a POSIX expert, but if this did break one of the guidelines, it would be a shame to have to come back in three or four years and say "Linux and FreeBSD? Well, they're sort of POSIX-compliant, but they screwed it up by....." Maybe there's some other (better) way to solve this problem? --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message