That *could* be a security treat.The only problem with using `nobody' for distcc is that some sites may similarly use `nobody' for the uid under which other daemons run. Thus, distcc, Amanda, Squid and others could all notionally read/write each others' files.
But running under nobody is *better* than under root, in all condition!
User nobody shouldn't have files.
But a solution could be:
- If distcc user *already* exists, use it in xinetd script
- If distcc user is not available, use nobody
- If nobody user is not available, use root
No?
-jec
_______________________________________________
distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/
To unsubscribe/change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
