Re: Fun with FUP and root.

• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:52:13 PST
• From:
  "Erik R. Ogan" <erik@galt.com>
• 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

• 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