On 17 Dec 2002, Jean-Eric Cuendet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >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. > > > That *could* be a security treat.
Freudian slip of the day. :-) > 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 distcc refuses to run as root. "I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that." :-) The Linux Standards Base suggests but doesn't require a "nobody:nobody" user. http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB/usernames.html They also say > The 'daemon' UID/GID was used as an unprivileged UID/GID for daemons > to execute under in order to limit their access to the > system. Generally daemons should now run under individual UID/GIDs in > order to further partition daemons from one another. I've never heard of a unix machine that didn't have a nobody user. But if I thought my script might have to run on one, I would use uid 65535 (== -1 mod 2^16), the canonical value for nobody. Make sure the gid gets set as well. -- Martin _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe/change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
