On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 05:37:19AM +0000, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > > So if this is still a problem in arch, but works in ~arch, you > > SHOULD file a bug report. > Why not just wait for the newer releases to make it to arch? See my note as to why they haven't moved yet, and consider testing them yourself, and reporting back (via bugzilla!).
> > However the original reasoning for vchkpw NOT being setuid was > > that setuid is NOT always needed depending on which backend you > > are using. > I can confirm that - bincimap and qmail-pop3d run as root, so the > setuid bit is not necessary. I believe this is also the case for > dovecot 1.0 beta releases, though there are no ebuilds for them so > I haven't yet tested (<1.0 releases use libvpopmail directly > instead of the checkpassword interface). However it is necessary > for any server running as a non-root user, i.e. qmail-smtpd. For common operation of qmail-smtpd, vchkpw is NOT required. SMTP AUTH is the only reason qmail-smtpd would call vchkpw. > Thus I believe this should have the same treatment as binaries like > chsh - they won't work for non-root users without the setuid bit, > but running as a non-root user is generally accepted. If I want to > be paranoid (which I am), I can use suidctl (which I do), and only > uncomment the binary when I discover the need to. There's not > really any reverse of suidctl to my awareness. chsh has also been vetted for security problems a LOT more closely than vchkpw. I don't trust vchkpw with suid-root. > Nor is there a use flag for qmail or similar on vpopmail, but the > vpopmail ebuild requires qmail regardless of USE settings (postfix > support is not present), so at least in the current state, since > the package is built for qmail, it should assume qmail's non-root > qmail-smtpd will need to access vchkpw. The postfix maintainers were asked about it once before, and the answer was that there wasn't enough demand for it. You're only the second person that's asked (that I am aware of). > I would encourage making vchkpw suid even if postfix is supported > and used instead of qmail, because there are other softwares (i.e. > IMAP & POP servers) which have a checkpassword interface which do > may not run as the root user. This is decidedly not a good idea, unless vchkpw gets locked up more so that only specific things can run it (otherwise it can easily be used to brute-force passwords). > > And as I've mentioned before I'd like MORE reports of packages > > working well before they are moved to stable arch. Without those > > stable working reports I don't have any means to judge just how > > much testing has been done on a package, other than my own use of > > a package (and as such I do leave things longer than the 30 days, > > because I don't entirely trust them). > This sounds like a request for the QA team. I tend to stay away > from most ~arch packages simply because most of our systems are > live production servers, but I'd be happy to test-drive new ebuilds > of vpopmail if it would help get new versions into the stable tree > faster. In the absence of a proper QA team, users are some of the best large-scale QA available. All I'm asking for are reports that a package "Works for me". Try the ebuilds out, and send some feedback in. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpY9hQGK2qO5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
