Figured out one can use an alias if the name of the command is
difficult to type to somebody, and the author of the software is the
one deciding how is the utility called. I have to think more instead of
posting.
I don't think we need the wrapper, but a config-check mode like pfctl
has could be
so, why not type su rather than doas? I will not type doas. Do you?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:42:54PM +0300, li...@wrant.com wrote:
doas is extremely foul to type, compared to sudo or su
stop inventing reasons not to make it right first time
I don't know why you are sending so many foul messages to this list. I
have gotten to the point of not wanting to
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM, li...@wrant.com wrote:
so, why not type su rather than doas? I will not type doas. Do you?
If doas supplies kind of sudo functionality than I would rather use it
instead of su and being root all the time. So yes, I will.
Your diff doesn't apply here, can you resend?
Your diff doesn't apply here, can you resend?
You can kiss anybody's ass. Are you traditionally ridiculing your
origin or the general state of software? Idiot.
Quit the crapping and do some real thinking and work actually.
tekk t...@parlementum.net writes:
I've never used a fully qualified path with doas and it works just fine.
(doas mount, doas pkg_add, doas mg.) Do you mean in the config file
or something? Requiring you to specify a full path on filtered commands
or whatever? This may just be a recent change
Ability to define alias in the doas config file might be nice. Just
like ssh with the ssh_config file.
I have always wanted a .lsrc file, which would allow me to override
the special options for ls, as well. That's kind of what you are
talking about, right?
No, I think you are serious.
And
2015-07-21 10:56 GMT+02:00 Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org:
Ability to define alias in the doas config file might be nice. Just
like ssh with the ssh_config file.
I have always wanted a .lsrc file, which would allow me to override
the special options for ls, as well. That's kind of
Less code running with setuid root, the better.
That is the entire point.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:58:34PM -0700, Manuel Giraud wrote:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Hi,
I've just shot myself in the foot after /etc/doas.conf tweaking. This
patch adds a failsafe permit :wheel rule in case of syntax error. Is
this safe
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Hi,
I've just shot myself in the foot after /etc/doas.conf tweaking. This
patch adds a failsafe permit :wheel rule in case of syntax error. Is
this safe enough? Should it be done elsewhere (with some kind of
visudo)?
I think
2015-07-21 8:58 GMT+02:00 Manuel Giraud man...@ledu-giraud.fr:
Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com writes:
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Hi,
I've just shot myself in the foot after /etc/doas.conf tweaking. This
patch adds a failsafe permit :wheel rule in case of syntax error. Is
this safe enough?
doas is extremely foul to type, compared to sudo or su
stop inventing reasons not to make it right first time
once again, please ignore this if you are emotional
Hi,
I've just shot myself in the foot after /etc/doas.conf tweaking. This
patch adds a failsafe permit :wheel rule in case of syntax error. Is
this safe enough? Should it be done elsewhere (with some kind of
visudo)?
Index: doas.c
Manuel Giraud wrote:
Hi,
I've just shot myself in the foot after /etc/doas.conf tweaking. This
patch adds a failsafe permit :wheel rule in case of syntax error. Is
this safe enough? Should it be done elsewhere (with some kind of
visudo)?
I think the failsafe is run su. Since it is possible
I'm a lowly user but I ++ this, when testing out doas I did this a few
times. allow : deny, permit : forbid
Is that you, Flynn?
I think the failsafe is run su.
Visudo(8) style wrapper for doas(1) that would respect the editor
preferences... is only a suggestion, no? We're 2015 here.
Since it is possible to configure doas to
even less than permit :wheel this would in some cases be a fail open.
I'm not sure how much
li...@wrant.com wrote:
I think the failsafe is run su.
Visudo(8) style wrapper for doas(1) that would respect the editor
preferences... is only a suggestion, no? We're 2015 here.
and vipf after that? there are countless config files, even more dangerous
than doas.conf, that you edit at your
I think the failsafe is run su.
Visudo(8) style wrapper for doas(1) that would respect the editor
preferences... is only a suggestion, no? We're 2015 here.
and vipf after that? there are countless config files, even more dangerous
than doas.conf, that you edit at your own peril.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:36:45PM -0700, lists wrote:
So why can't allow fit as opposite to deny? (normally silence means
no change in security model, hopefully).
I'm a lowly user but I ++ this, when testing out doas I did this a few
times. allow : deny, permit : forbid
On 2015/07/20 19:18, Ted Unangst wrote:
li...@wrant.com wrote:
I think the failsafe is run su.
Visudo(8) style wrapper for doas(1) that would respect the editor
preferences... is only a suggestion, no? We're 2015 here.
and vipf after that? there are countless config files, even more
22 matches
Mail list logo
