From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 11 06:21:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22348 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:21:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA22316 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:21:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21440; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:21:18 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA08476; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:21:18 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:21:18 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Matthew Hunt Cc: phoenix@calldei.com, GReg Sutter , Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal: Ignore .nofinger for root Message-ID: <19990211152118.D96008@bitbox.follo.net> References: <19990209200259.A98301@wopr.caltech.edu> <19990210082606.B58482@holly.dyndns.org> <19990210074658.A10003@wopr.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <19990210074658.A10003@wopr.caltech.edu>; from Matthew Hunt on Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:46:58AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:46:58AM -0800, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 08:26:06AM -0600, Chris Costello wrote: > > > Yes. Why? > > Well, I thought the rationale was trivial: To provide accurate > information to the superuser. > > On further reflection, though, that the patch is poor design, > although the argument is more subtle than your argument of "why?" > or Greg Lehey's argument that using finger on a local system > is somehow perverse. > > I thought a good argument for the patch goes something like this: > The superuser has access to all of the information provided by > finger on a local system anyhow, so allowing ~/.nofinger only serves > to mislead him or make it less convenient for him to get to the > information he wants. > > However, that statement is true for all local users, not just the > superuser. Any user on the system who wanted to get around the > "protection" of ~/.nofinger could just build a new "finger" with > the hide() check removed. > > The conclusion, therefore, is that if a change were to be made, it > should be that finger(1) ignores ~/.nofinger for all local users. > The effects of such a change are more far-reaching than I feel > appropriate, so I withdraw the proposal. I consider this appropriate. I'll do this if people don't directly object; I've been fooled by this at least once, and it is inconvenient to have to use other means to get at the info. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message