Re: cons.saver not suid root

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:13:00PM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 17:03, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > and "punish" the upstream users, including ourselves? interesting.
> This issue can be easily fixed with package builds.
suppose i prefer configure && make && stow ...

> I'd assume people that don't use a form packaging on their systems
> should be knowledgeable enough to read the docs and fix this issue by
> hand. How much effort is it to suid root the binary anyway if you
> really don't want to figure out how to setup the device access?
are you kidding?
do you really expect every new user to do a bughunt as the first thing?

also, don't underestimate the "usage rate" of the upstream build system.
it is the de-facto standard of installing 3rd-party unix software.

> > ugly is this paranoia wrt just making it suid root.
> What about the concept of "least necessary access"?
what about the concept of "user friendliness"?
yes, there is a tradeoff. well, everywhere is.

> You ignore the possibility of eventualities in the future.
what type of eventualities do you talk about?

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]