On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> Christopher Cain at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> This is I believe Bergstein's daemontools?
> >
> > To be honest, I'm not sure. It's how alot of the standard init.d scripts
> > are coded in Linux, so that's how I've also done mine. Whatever it is,
> > it's installed by default on every Linux distro I've ever used. Perhaps
> > I could throw a small patch into RUNNING.txt with a one-liner for *nix
> > users that the above is a safe way to put TC startup in a script file?
> > Does Solaris include this "daemontools" by default as well?
>
> Nope. It doesn't (as most of the systems I've seen). That's why I wrote my
> little wrapper (before I know that daemontools even existed!).
Its a function thats defined in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions on a redhat
(and mandrake) box.
cheesr
dim
>
> >> Yeah... Same thing that my little C thing does. But being paranoid, su is
> >> installed setuid, so... :) :) :)
> >
> > Agreed. While the above should technically be secure, you never really
> > know the what next security flaw will be. The daemon approach is
> > probably a little more ultimately secure.
>
> Exactly... If a binary is SUIDed, I don't trust it by default :)
>
> > Tripwire rules. Like any solution it is not 100% foolproof (no such
> > thing), but the possible attacks are fewer than with any other solution
> > I've ever seen and would be VERY involved.
>
> That's why I'm running 4 similar programs at a time, checking all possible
> bugs :)
>
> Pier
>
>
