Re: daemons running as nobody
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: daemons running as nobody
- From: Shaul Karl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:07:28 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] E14jfhl-0005zW-00@rakefet>
- In-reply-to: Message from Ethan Benson <email@example.com> of "Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:50:58 -0900." <20010331145058.L909@plato.local.lan>
- References: <20010401003440.A28243@ocsi.debian.net> <20010401014420.98D3.GAUTIER@email.enst.fr> <20010331145058.L909@plato.local.lan>
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 01:45:46AM +0200, Fabrice Gautier wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:34:40 +0200
> > Lenart Janos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > I thought *not* any daemon should run as nobody,
> > Why (do you think that) ?
> > Why not (should daemons run as nobody) ?
> i think running daemons as nobody is ok if done in moderation, and
> only on more or less unimportant daemons. the thing with nobody is it
> should not own ANY file on the filesystem. so if the daemon needs to
> write files it should not run as nobody. =20
> the bigger flam^H^H^H^Hdebate is whether daemons should share uids at
> all. =20
> Ethan Benson
How should important daemons run? Why? Why nobody should not own ANY file on the filesystem? What does nobody intended for?
Shaul Karl <email@example.com>