From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 22 16:36:56 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38781106564A
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me)
Received: from feld.me (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAE68FC0A
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me;
	s=blargle; 
	h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:To:Content-Type;
	bh=r6OlrHvqjQVbi88+wY4cGFyG1ZJv1NtJ/GnlImsClWM=; 
	b=ZEo6ySH2wvnO3ldobCf/GItOn6vOCBPm2rsJoCnQKNQVKXuRICKnpIUPMqVv6+Wkxt2QrPnOZzg66iq0Ov5jEeEjE5VtY55A7nuc9TcEv0LXyrM1nptvKBEP4eiNfJyc;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org)
	by feld.me with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <feld@feld.me>) id 1Si6qt-000Haj-Bh
	for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:36:55 -0500
Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4)
	with esmtpa id 1340383014-94480-94479/5/45; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:36:54
	+0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
References: <201206221343.q5MDhmvS045187@fire.js.berklix.net>
	<20120622155928.GA9983@DataIX.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:36:53 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me>
Message-Id: <op.wgbcfrwf34t2sn@tech304>
In-Reply-To: <20120622155928.GA9983@DataIX.net>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (FreeBSD)
X-SA-Score: -1.5
Subject: Re: / owned by bin causes sshd to complain bad ownership
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:36:56 -0000

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:59:28 -0500, Jason Hellenthal  
<jhellenthal@dataix.net> wrote:

>
> Security principles are well laid out and have not changed in a long
> time. Vering away from those principles will cause a LOT of
> administrative overhead as most software out there can expect a sane
> environment if / is root:wheel

Well he claims that bin owned everything back in the day and I didn't  
touch a *nix system until long after the time he describes. I can't  
imagine the benefit or functionality of a system with bin owning  
everything.... if everything precious is owned by bin, and bin isn't a  
standard system user, someone would have to elevate to root to do anything  
nasty. In the current setup you'd have to elevate to root to do something  
nasty.

I see no benefit in binaries or libraries being owned by bin.