Subject: Re: Security problem
From: Philip Bertuglia (pbertugl@wheatonma.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 10:09:59 EST
For afpd to do the "permission forcing" that smbd does, it needs to run as
root. I don't think that was ever the intention for afpd and it would
need to be totally rewritten. If anyone disagrees please chime it.
I am looking forward to your new release A. Sun, and thank you for your
hard work on this project.
Philip Bertuglia
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Patrick Zwahlen wrote:
> a sun wrote:
> >
> > currently, afpd doesn't handle group situations that well. in the next
> > development series, i plan to redo the permissions stuff to handle AFP
> > permission semantics. some of that will entail being clever with
> > seteuid().
>
> In fact, the way SAMBA handles this problem is quite clever. It lets you
> decide for each share the UID and GID of any created file and directory,
> and to force the permissions as well. However, I admit that the config
> file becomes much more complicated...
>
> Is there any reason why this could pose a problem with Netatalk ?
> --
> Patrick Zwahlen E-Mail: pzwahlen@worldonline.ch
> B2B, WAN Administrator Phone: +41 (0)21-641-5950
> World Online Switzerland Mobile: +41 (0)78-671-1554
> Av. Gratta-Paille 2 Fax: +41 (0)21-683-1344
> CH-1000 Lausanne 30 (Switzerland) Web: http://www.worldonline.ch
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:29:50 EST