Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:11:57 -0500
From:      Lowell Gilbert <Lowell@Be-Well.Ilk.Org>
To:        "James B. Byrne via freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Cc:        byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca
Subject:   Re: daily security run output (setuid)
Message-ID:  <44bmt9jbtu.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
In-Reply-To: <0a9bbc9664cdeacc27dacadbd575ea1d.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> (James B. Byrne via freebsd-questions's message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:42:42 -0500")
References:  <0a9bbc9664cdeacc27dacadbd575ea1d.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
"James B. Byrne via freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
writes:

> Following a recent update we began to see this report:
>
> Checking setuid files and devices:
[...]
> This was a legitimate update as far as I can see. I can see that the
> mtime value has changed but why does the update not account for this
> with the security system?

Because having "the security system" trust that the the port update was
initiated by an appropriately authorized user would make it too easy to
hide a security breach.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44bmt9jbtu.fsf>