Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:22:02 -0600 From: William McVey <wam@sa.fedex.com> To: Bill Woodford <woodford@cc181716-a.hwrd1.md.home.com> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Would this make FreeBSD more secure? Message-ID: <199811172222.QAA12303@s07.sa.fedex.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Woodford wrote: >I think this is a good idea. The change in perms didnt seem to affect >anything else in a bad way, and it got rid of a setuid. Andre, thanks >for posting it! Did this work for you? Can you actually "break" your xlock? It didn't work for me when I did it originally because getpwnam, which is what xlock apparently calls, only returns the shadow'ed encrypted password entry if geteuid() returns 0 (at least this is how FreeBSD 2.2.5 is does it (my 3.0 machine is suffering from hardware problems right now). I posted a proposed "fix" for this, which no-one has really commented on. -- William 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?199811172222.QAA12303>