Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:03:45 -0500
From:      "Otter" <otterr@telocity.com>
To:        "'Kris Kennaway'" <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, "'Alex Charalabidis'" <alex@wnm.net>
Cc:        "'Thakingfish'" <thakingfish@hal3000.cx>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: dnetc in FBSD
Message-ID:  <000c01c083a2$34dd8fd0$1401a8c0@zoso>
In-Reply-To: <20010121024645.A63940@citusc17.usc.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I remember seeing the user 'nobody' used after upgrading it last time.
I changed my startup script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d to 'su -m <user>'
instead of su'ing to nobody. I also changed the permissions so that my
<user> had access to it. Is this an acceptable workaround? If so, it
might a simple change of the installation script. Maybe add a question
in the install where it asks "What user do you want to run this as?"
-Otter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 5:47 AM
To: Alex Charalabidis
Cc: Thakingfish; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: dnetc in FBSD


On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 04:36:00AM -0600, Alex Charalabidis wrote:

> Oops, misread it. So it was the horse, not the cow. :) We'll be
expecting
> an advisory whenever they fix it. Moo.
>
> Sure, it's a problem for everyone who runs so much stuff as nobody
that
> they might as well run it as root. I think I'll just assign it its
own
> user. Not that I care more than anyone else to litter the world with
> separate users for every trivial task, but is it worth doing by
default
> for this particular package?

The nobody user shouldn't confer any special privileges. Currently the
apache ports break that rule since ownership of the webserver is
certainly a privilege. But I don't know that the ability to submit RC5
blocks is a sufficient privilege that it should get its own user. On
the other hand, if dnetc proves to be an ongoing source of problems
(being a binary-only client makes it more difficult to check, and
apparently no-one has ever poked at it before, because it was really
obvious) then firewalling it away from the other remaining
applications which still inappropriately use nobody would be of
benefit.

I think the real issue here is fixing the other stuff which uses
nobody, though.

Kris

--
NOTE: To fetch an updated copy of my GPG key which has not expired,
finger kris@FreeBSD.org



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000c01c083a2$34dd8fd0$1401a8c0>