Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:02:49 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> Cc: Christian Kratzer <ck@cksoft.de>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: login.conf & FreeBSD 4.4 Message-ID: <20011002130249.B704@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20011002043927.A95391@sheol.localdomain>; from hawkeyd@visi.com on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:39:27AM -0500 References: <200110020907.f9297d695258@sheol.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110020929530.7417-100000@localhost.cksoft.de> <20011002043927.A95391@sheol.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:39:27AM -0500, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > On Oct 02, at 09:33 AM, Christian Kratzer wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, D J Hawkey Jr wrote: > > > > > In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110020953290.6866-100000_localhost.cksoft.de@ns.sol.net>, > > > ck@cksoft.de writes: > > > > > > > > If you are talking about cgi scripts run by apache you might want to > > > > patch suexec to do this. There is nothgin in apache that would normally > > > > set the requested privilidges. > > > > > > > > we added following to apache-x-x-x/src/support/suexec.c to actually > > > > enforce setting of resource limits. There is nothing in apache that would > > > > normally set these up for you. > > > > > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > > Reading between the lines, are you saying that any app "not from FreeBSD" > > > running on FreeBSD isn't likely to be accounted for because they pro'lly > > > don't set up limiting resources (by way of the C function you hacked in)? > > > > > > Badly phrased, I know, but you get my drift? > > > > it's not as bad as you may think. > > > > Any user logging in through the "usual" channels like sshd,telnetd,console,etc... > > should get the limits automatically setup for them. > > Running X apps remotely falls into the above group, I assume? > > > We only need to patch applications like apache which start child processes > > and use seteuid() to change their effective uid etc... and are not aware of > > the freebsd specific possibilities. > > This make sense [to me], but Peter seems to disagree. Can either of you > address the other's position? I think Christian's right, and I'm sorry for the confusion which my hasty reply brought :) Of course the context needs only be set once, when changing uid's. G'luck, Peter -- What would this sentence be like if it weren't self-referential? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011002130249.B704>