Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:28:57 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> Cc: Mark Newton <newton@communica.com.au>, Peter Childs <pjchilds@imforei.apana.org.au>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, miff@spam.frisbee.net.au Subject: Re: non-root users binding to ports < 1024 (was: Re: BoS: Exploit for sendmail smtpd bug (ver. 8.7-8.8.2).) Message-ID: <E0vRPdB-0003Vq-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:56:54 MST." <Pine.BSF.3.95.961122201253.28251D-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961122201253.28251D-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.95.961122201253.28251D-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> Marc Slemko writes: : This thread started in freebsd-security earlier in the week; it : evolved from a discussion of the reasons why sendmail runs as root. : The basic suggestion was to implement some system of allowing the : specification of what non-root users could bind to what ports below : 1024. I am moving it to -hackers since the response in -security : has been limited and it possibly involves issues related to a common : interface similar to sysctl. The other reason that sendmail needs to run as root is to fork of user shells on mail delivery. Has there been any thought as to how to solve that problem? It was ignored while this thread was going on in -security, and should not be ignored. I tried to make this point, but no body was listening to me there, or so it appeared. This is an absolute requirement for a mail system based on sendmail. While I think it is maybe useful to allow binding to port 1024 to non-root programs, it is also potentially dangerous and should only be entered into if you are sure that there are *NO* holes possible. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0vRPdB-0003Vq-00>