Todd C. Miller wrote: > In message <[email protected]> > so spake (Valdis.Kletnieks): > > >> Umm... my check of my 'sudo' manpage says that the '-u username' is >> optional, and I don't remember having to use '-u root', so it's supported >> doing it without having to type the target username for years... >> > > Sudo has always defaulted to running commands as root. > > >> Unless I'm misunderstanding your interpretation of the invention and how >> it compares to traditional sudo usage? >> > > It's very possible that I am not doing a good job of explaining my > interpretation. As I see it, the invention is about providing the > user with a list of privileged users with the appropriate rights > to perform the action in a GUI when the user tries to perform an > action that they don't have sufficient rights to do. If you read > the patent in question, in all its TIFF glory (what do they have > against text?) they list a number of possible scenarios. > > Sudo doesn't contain any logic to try and figure out what user a > command should be run as in order for it to succeed (and no, root > isn't always the right answer, especially when NFS is in the picture). > > - todd > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-Microsoft-patent-may-put-Linux-security-components-at-risk-857848.html
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
