Jonathan Steinert wrote:
From a security standpoint I'd much rather have my program bail if it
can't give up root priviliges rather than warn me. If your perl doesn't
handle dropping root priviliges then don't ask spfd to do so.
I didn't, I asked it to set ownership and permissions on the unix
socket. So maybe -user should not have the different meanings when
running unix vs. inet socket? In other words, should -user and -group be
specific to the inet socket (dropping privilege), while something
like -upathuser and -upathgroup (and -upathperms?) be applicable when
using a unix socket?
I'm sorry to respond so strongly to this, but this is a privilege drop
situation; similarly I don't believe a process should warn if a chroot()
call fails, it should die() immediately.
Where is the chroot? setuid/setgid and chroot are two entirely different
things.
My changes to spfd were made so it would play nice with exim on freebsd.
Your changes increased security, but at the expense of compatibility...
because they didn't work on my system, and were irrelevant to exim,
which currently can only query to a unix socket, not an inet socket.
So let's add good security, but not by breaking compatibility!
--
=> Mark Foster <mark(_at_)foster(_dot_)cc> http://mark.foster.cc/
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡