Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      09 Jul 1999 22:03:35 +0200
From:      Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Gustavo V G C Rios <kernel@tdnet.com.br>, security@FreeBSD.ORG, bos-owner-br@sekure.org
Subject:   Re: suid/guid
Message-ID:  <xzpr9mhr3oo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: Warner Losh's message of "Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:58:08 -0600"
References:  <xzpso6xrcen.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>  <3784D440.1075EFB3@tdnet.com.br> <199907091622.KAA20280@harmony.village.org> <199907091658.KAA20551@harmony.village.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh <imp@village.org> writes:
> Agreed.  I'm also starting to think that a system-wide tunable that
> would turn off almost all of the set[ug]id installation.  Almost
> nobody needs setuidperl, for example.  If df is installed w/o setgid
> operator, almost no functionality is lost.  etc.  Of course exatly
> what would be lost would be documented.  Comments?

None on the general concept - but one on the specific example: who
except root needs to know what df(1) can report when sgid operator?

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no


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?xzpr9mhr3oo.fsf>