[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

rxvt doesn't need to be suid (fwd)

Carlos Carvalho writes:
> From @mongo.pixar.com:debian-user-request@Pixar.com Fri Nov 17 02:10:50 1995
> Old-Return-Path: <carlos@snfep1.if.usp.br>
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:10:51 -0200
> From: Carlos Carvalho <carlos@snfep1.if.usp.br>
> Message-Id: <199511161810.QAA03018@snfep1.if.usp.br>
> To: debian-user@Pixar.com
> Subject: rxvt doesn't need to be suid
> Resent-Message-ID: <"lDTOoB.A.Q8.S03qw"@mongo>
> Resent-From: debian-user@Pixar.com
> X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@Pixar.com> archive/latest/2746
> X-Loop: debian-user@Pixar.com
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@Pixar.com
> Package: rxvt
> Version: 2.10
> rxvt is now set suid root. This isn't necessary if it can write to
> utmp. The package should put utmp and rxvt in the same group and open
> write permission of utmp to the group.

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. What do other people think. Is
it really that bad for us to have setuid binaries, xterm is suid as well.


Dehydration - 34%, Recollection of previous evening - 2%, embarrassment
factor - 91%.  Advise repair schedule:- off line for 36 hours, re-boot
startup disk, and replace head - wow, what a night!
                -- Kryten in Red Dwarf `The Last Day'

Andrew Howell				               andrew@it.com.au 
Perth, Western Australia		      howellaa@cs.curtin.edu.au 

Reply to: