|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: re: open_as vs fuid
From: matthew green (mrg
eterna.com.au)Date: Sun Nov 05 2000 - 21:10:24 CST
- Next message: matthew green: "re: open_as vs fuid"
- Previous message: Brett Lymn: "Re: $HOSTALIASES thing."
- In reply to: Todd Vierling: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Next in thread: Andrew Brown: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Next in thread: Thor Lancelot Simon: "Re: $HOSTALIASES thing."
- Reply: matthew green: "re: open_as vs fuid"
- Reply: Andrew Brown: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Has ANYONE in this thread considered that we already have a possibly more
secure mechanism for this, that could be combined simultaneously with
authentication for use by a non-suid program?
See unix(4) and its description of passing fd's via a "cmsghdr".
how does this fix ping & traceroute as they currently stand?
- Next message: matthew green: "re: open_as vs fuid"
- Previous message: Brett Lymn: "Re: $HOSTALIASES thing."
- In reply to: Todd Vierling: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Next in thread: Andrew Brown: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Next in thread: Thor Lancelot Simon: "Re: $HOSTALIASES thing."
- Reply: matthew green: "re: open_as vs fuid"
- Reply: Andrew Brown: "Re: open_as vs fuid"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]