From owner-freebsd-security  Fri Aug  6  4:52: 6 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A986014ED9
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri,  6 Aug 1999 04:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 11CiXI-0006sP-00
	for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:51:44 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: alk@pobox.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: group bits 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:34:05 EST."
             <14249.52685.50332.808817@avalon.east> 
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:51:23 +0200
Message-ID: <26425.933940283@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


[ Hijacked from freebsd-security ]

On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:34:05 EST, Anthony Kimball wrote:

> 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?

Principle, yes. Correct, very often. Appropriate, depends.

You can go _very_ far with correct permissions and ownerships.

> My specific motivation is that everytime I cvsup, I have to patch
> sendmail and ppp to suppress their group-writable-config
> errors/warnings.

*bing*

That's your problem. If you're making changes to your source tree, use
CVS.

Oh, and this doesn't belong in freebsd-security. :-)

Ciao,
Sheldon.


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