Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:32:18 +1000 From: James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg> To: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>, jdn@qiv.com (Jay D. Nelson) Cc: adam@homeport.org, robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org, vince@mail.MCESTATE.COM, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: security hole in FreeBSD Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970730223202.0070ef8c@student.anu.edu.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:06 PM 7/29/97 -0400, Adam Shostack wrote: > Let me be clear; I don't have anything against UUCP users, but >most people don't need it turned on. Since its parts of it are >setuid, (and thus potential security holes) I think its a reasonable >to suggest that it ship either not setuid or as an install option. I have not heard of any request for the use UUCP from my users nor is my UUCP binaries been used in the last few years...I think the time when lease line is expensive, when university work with 9,600bps (wow) connection and when UUCP rules the earth is over...we have to let it go and look forward. *8) I have nothing against UUCP of cos but it is always nice if we can reduce the base distribution size by letting some of the less often used stuff away. *cheers* -James Seng
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970730223202.0070ef8c>