[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: Fun with FUP and root.

- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:52:13 PST
- From:
- cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 02:42:34 PST." <l03020903af39bd41f5d3@[128.243.31.122]>

    > If you want to have your MOO listening to a port numbered less than 1000
    > (or is it 100?), you have to have it running as root.  You might want to do

    	On most UN*X-based systems it's ports below 1024.

    > this if you want a WWW connected MOO running on the default HTTP port (80),
    > or if you want anyone telnetting to the machine to get straight to the MOO
    > (port 23).  While the latter is extremely unlikely if not downright stupid,
    > the former could well be useful in some cases.

    	I don't believe there are too many MOOs running on ports below
    	1024, but I'm not really replying to argue why one would want
    	to bind a low port number.

    	My question is, once the port is bound, is there any reason
    	NOT to setuid(some_other_user)? I'd actually suggest adding
    	code that checks the (e?)uid of the process after binding the
    	port and does a setuid(nobody) (configurable, of course) if
    	the server is running as root.

    	Of course, it's easy to say that without looking at the source
    	to see what it's doing already...

    	Just my $.02 (converted to local currency as needed)

    --
    Erik R. Ogan                                        Mail with Subject:
    Webmaster/Applications Programmer                    "send public key"
    GALT Technologies / Intuit, Inc.             Returns my PGP public key
               4E C8 9E AC 2E 79 1E 26  62 4E 40 AA A9 52 98 21

References:

- Re: Fun with FUP and root.

- From: Jeni Tennison <jft@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk>

- Prev: Re: Fun with FUP and root.
- Next: Re: Fun with FUP and root.
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index