Quoting Brian Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, here's a wierd question from one of my clients...
> He's working in a lab environment where he's testing traffic with a
> few
> other people in an isolated environment.
> He needs for general users to run a program that makes socket calls
> usually r
In a message dated: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 20:02:19 EDT
Benjamin Scott said:
> Ahhhmmm, I think you misunderstand the OP's point. The developers are
>working on the binary that needs the special privileges. All they need to
>do is add
>
> system("/bin/sh");
>
>near the top, and ... well, I'm
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 3:46pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I had him chmod 4755 the binary. This works as a temperary solution,
>> but as it is this binary they are working on, it would require all the
>> users to have sudo and that would defeat the purpose.
>
> Ahhhm, I think you misundersta
In a message dated: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:47:47 EDT
Brian Chabot said:
>So I had him chmod 4755 the binary. This works as a temperary solution,
>but as it is this binary they are working on, it would require all the
>users to have sudo and that would defeat the purpose.
Ahhhm, I think you misund
> He suggested that we chmod the *interface* device. AKA, eth1.
The interfaces to the network devices generally
exist in a different namespace than those of other
devices - they don't appear as nodes under /dev and,
even if they did, the privilege restrictions are
enforced (IIRC) using a diffe
OK, here's a wierd question from one of my clients...
He's working in a lab environment where he's testing traffic with a few
other people in an isolated environment.
He needs for general users to run a program that makes socket calls
usually reserved for root.
So I had him chmod 4755 the binar
