On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Kai Schaetzl <mailli...@conactive.com> wrote: > Kai Schaetzl wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:00:48 +0100: > >> I wonder now if the owner of >> that directory should actually be named? > > Hm, after looking on other machines that have named installed but not in > use it's excactly the same there. So, if named wants write permission > there, but the rpm always removes that permission - isn't the rpm wrong > then? Should I report this as a bug? > > Kai
I don't think you'd want a compromised named to be able to make changes to your authoritative DNS records, which is what could happen if you have permissions set that way. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
