From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Dec  9 13:44:32 1996
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA02549
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brimstone.gage.com (brimstone.gage.com [205.217.2.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA02544
          for <security@freebsd.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from mail@localhost)
          by brimstone.gage.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id PAA10919; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:43:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: from octopus.gage.com(158.60.57.50) by brimstone.gage.com via smap (V2.0beta)
	id xma010917; Mon, 9 Dec 96 15:43:30 -0600
Received: from squid.gage.com (squid [158.60.57.101]) by octopus.gage.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA21826; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:34:21 -0600 (CST)
Received: from schemer by squid.gage.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0S)
	id AA16236; Mon, 9 Dec 96 15:34:19 -0600
Message-Id: <9612092134.AA16236@squid.gage.com>
Received: by schemer.gage.com (NX5.67g/NX3.0X)
	id AA01345; Mon, 9 Dec 96 15:34:30 -0600
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.0 v146.2)
In-Reply-To: <199612092111.NAA17991@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca>
X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 1.3)
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.146.2)
From: Ben Black <black@squid.gage.com>
Date: Mon,  9 Dec 96 15:34:29 -0600
To: cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca
Subject: Re: Running sendmail non-suid 
Cc: bmk@pobox.com, security@freebsd.org
References: <199612092111.NAA17991@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>The general consensus has usually been that this approach is less secure  
>because it is easier to gain access to a user account than root.

this still makes no sense at all.  explain it, please.  why would a user  
account managed just like the root account be any easier to hack?



b3n