From owner-freebsd-security Thu Aug 5 17:41:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from xylan.com (postal.xylan.com [208.8.0.248]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E839D15520 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:41:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from mailhub.xylan.com by xylan.com (8.8.7/SMI-SVR4 (xylan-mgw 2.2 [OUT])) id RAA28269; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omni.xylan.com by mailhub.xylan.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4 (mailhub 2.1 [HUB])) id RAA16451; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:32:51 -0700 Received: from softweyr.com (dyn5.utah.xylan.com) by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan engr [SPOOL])) id AA12779; Thu, 5 Aug 99 17:36:28 PDT Message-Id: <37AA2E0B.ECDE4153@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:36:27 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: alk@pobox.com Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: group bits References: <14249.52685.50332.808817@avalon.east> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Anthony Kimball wrote: > > I'd like to obtain a consensus guideline on an an issue which is > treated inconsistently in FreeBSD's user space: Is it true, as I > believe, that group rwx bits are the principal correct and appropriate > mechanism to allow a specific group of users to control aspects of > system administration which are protected from control by the body of > users at large? sudo? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://softweyr.com/ wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message