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

Re: Set UID=0

On Jan 17, Pat Moffitt wrote:
> Some of the recent upgrades have the executables set UID=0 where they were
> not in the past.  This includes (but may not be limited to) the following:
> at
> smbmnt
> smbmount
> smbumount
> Do these really need to be set UID=0?  Is this a security concern?
I don't know about 'at' (I don't have it installed) however it seems useful 
for me to have those smb* packages UID=0.  It allows the lusers to mount 
remote samba shares without having to beg the sysadmin to do it for them or 
add them to a sudoers file.  I would imagine that the people who throw 
together the smbmount package know what they are doing and have considered 
the security implications and decided that there are none.

Personnaly I would leave them UID=0 as I find it invalable, however you may 
not want lusers to smbmount shares, if this is the case remove the package 
(if you also don't use it) or remove the UID=0 feature.


/ You have all eternity to be cautious in \
| when you're dead.                       |
|                                         |
\ -- Lois Platford                        /
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

Attachment: pgpFOFcD3EL5V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: