On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:39:15 +
hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm still not going away like that.
>
> Why is a suid script more dangerous than i.e. suid mount? What else is
s/i\.e\./e.g./
> dangerous about suid root in general (apart from the bad code you
> shouldn't execute anyway)?
On Friday, 24 December 2010, Robert Ransom wrote:
> sudo has the advantage over su that, if you learn how to configure it
> properly, you can allow certain users to run certain commands without
> typing the root password.
Which has certain implications. If you have a bunch of people who need
admi
On Saturday, 4 December 2010, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> just wanted to share a simple idea here – a little feature implemented
> in my statusbar script: remount the rootfs sync, when the battery
> level is below some predefined threshold and falling.
Although the conversation has moved to su/sudo/
> Suid scripts are considered more dangerous than suid binaries because,
> historically, many scripts have been interpreted by /bin/sh (i.e. bad
> code), and thus their meanings depend on the values of environment
> variables such as IFS and PATH.
So the kernel forces you to have your own executab
Connor Lane Smith dixit (2010-12-24, 12:26):
> On Saturday, 4 December 2010, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> > just wanted to share a simple idea here – a little feature implemented
> > in my statusbar script: remount the rootfs sync, when the battery
> > level is below some predefined threshold and fal
