From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jul 19 03:27:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA17141
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [195.1.171.130])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA17135
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
Received: (qmail 15408 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Jul 1997 10:27:47 +0000 (GMT)
To: andreas@klemm.gtn.com
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sendmail complains about being unable to write his pid file
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:08:26 +0200"
References: <19970719120826.19772@gtn.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:27:46 +0200
Message-ID: <15406.869308066@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > I'm always nervous about directories owned by bin, on the assumption
> > that bin might be easier to break than root, and could then be used
> > as a stepstone to breaking root.
> 
> I don't believe this, because bin isn't a password protected login.
> Look here:
> bin:*:3:7:Binaries Commands and Source,,,:/:/nonexistent

That's fine - until somebody decides to run NFS. Then all bets are off.

> I think it's a BSDism. bin is the UID and GID for Binaries, Commands
> and source as shown by the entry in /etc/passwd ...

Yes, but the question stands - why is it setup this way? What is gained
by having binaries (and important directories) owned by bin instead of
root?

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no