I have the PR, and I will fix this :-)
M
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > The reason for this is that the pam code for doing the enforcement
> > is being trusted utterly. In the past, we would consider both
> > the primary group (the group from the passwd file entry), and t
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The reason for this is that the pam code for doing the enforcement
> is being trusted utterly. In the past, we would consider both
> the primary group (the group from the passwd file entry), and the
> auxillary groups (the groups from the groups file
On 31-Jul-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>> > The FreeBSD 4.3 manpage says:
>> > Only users who are a member of group 0 (normally ``wheel'') can su to
>> > ``root''. If group 0 is missing or empty, any user can su to
>> > ``root''.
>>
>> I guess that could (at a
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > The FreeBSD 4.3 manpage says:
> > Only users who are a member of group 0 (normally ``wheel'') can su to
> > ``root''. If group 0 is missing or empty, any user can su to
> > ``root''.
>
> I guess that could (at a stretch) be interpreted the same as OpenBSD
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 05:35:00 +0100, Joshua Goodall wrote:
> The FreeBSD 4.3 manpage says:
> Only users who are a member of group 0 (normally ``wheel'') can su to
> ``root''. If group 0 is missing or empty, any user can su to
> ``root''.
I guess that could (at a stretch) be int
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:20:45 MST, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > Isn't this backwards? Code shouldn't be making assumptions about the
> > special meaning of numeric gids. What if you wanted to renumber gid
> > wheel to something else?
>
> So? My primary
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:20:45 MST, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Isn't this backwards? Code shouldn't be making assumptions about the
> special meaning of numeric gids. What if you wanted to renumber gid
> wheel to something else?
So? My primary group is 0. In /etc/group, group wheel's numeric val
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:46:15AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:15:38 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > I've completed a pretty clean crossgrade [1] to -CURRENT and find that
> > su is broken. I thought this had been fixed.
> >
> > I have a virgin rev 1.17 /etc/pam
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:15:38 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> I've completed a pretty clean crossgrade [1] to -CURRENT and find that
> su is broken. I thought this had been fixed.
>
> I have a virgin rev 1.17 /etc/pam.conf, I'm in group wheel, I built
> world with no funky options, the su binary
Hi folks,
I've completed a pretty clean crossgrade [1] to -CURRENT and find that
su is broken. I thought this had been fixed.
I have a virgin rev 1.17 /etc/pam.conf, I'm in group wheel, I built
world with no funky options, the su binary (built from su rev 1.39)
really is setuid root and yet I
10 matches
Mail list logo
