* Thordur Bjornsson <[email protected]> [2011-10-04 21:16]: > On 2011 Oct 04 (Tue) at 12:12:38 -0600 (-0600), Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > On 2011 Oct 04 (Tue) at 12:00:08 -0600 (-0600), Theo de Raadt wrote: > > master.passwd used to say: > > "Unprivileged user for NFS". > Which I'm arguing it is. Just like _bgpd is the BGP daemon user.
ack > > But locate uses that login, too. If it wanted to be very > > truthful, it could say > > > > "Unprivileged user for NFS and locate(1)". > Again, I have no clue what locate(1) is doing, but given this I > suspect it is wrong and warrants some looking into. ack > > Or it can just say > > > > "Unprivileged user". > > > > That is what was commited. > And this I think is wrong. There should be no general unprivileged user. ack! > There should be ,,application specific'' unprivileged users. > > Am I the only one who sees this parallel between the numerous _daemond > users and there respective daemons and nobody and NFS ? no, you're not at all the only one. when we made this change originally we wanted to make sure people don't get tricked into thinking they can/should use nobody for $random_privsep_task (not just classic privsep). and I think that reasoning is still very very very valid and I think this commit made things worse. -- Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services. Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
