i have been getting this error message every time i try to start X as a regular user.
I can only start the X server as root. I am using gnome and KDE as my managers.
___
XFree86 mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in a message from Monday 13)
> i have been getting this error message every time i try to start X as a regular
>user. I can only start the X server as root. I am using gnome and KDE as my
>managers.
You got something wrong when installing your X server and it doesn'
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i have been getting this error message every time i try to start X as a
> regular user. I can only start the X server as root. I am using gnome
> and KDE as my managers.
The explanation requires a tiny bit of Unix/Linux knowledge:
X requires direc
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> -rwsr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1740879 Sep 30 22:36 /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
>
> To fix the file modes run the following commands (as root):
>
> chown root /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
> chmod 4755 /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
>
> Otherwise you can use xdm (or gdm or kdm
Title: RE: [XFree86] fatal error: server must be suid-root
i think the XFree86 binary must have the "sticky" bit set,
which means that it will be executed as root, regardless
of which user is executing it.
x runs as root. check file access rights for /usr/X11R6/bi
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Peter Finderup Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
>
> > -rwsr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1740879 Sep 30 22:36 /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
> >
> > To fix the file modes run the following commands (as root):
> >
> > chown root /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
> > chmod 4755 /u
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>> (on my Debian 3.0 XFree86 has the mode bits 4711 -- there's no need for
>> anybody to read the binary and it makes harder, in principle, for Evil
>> Hackers to look for holes in it if they can't read it)
>>
>> I still think it would be great if
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:08:50 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
> >> (on my Debian 3.0 XFree86 has the mode bits 4711 -- there's no need for
> >> anybody to read the binary and it makes
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> It isn't clear what the "correct" permissions are.
> Setting the "sticky" or suid bit (the 4 in chmod 4711) makes the machine
The sticky bit (also called saved-text bit) is not the same as the suid
bit. The former was originally a speed up on s
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Any machine requiring more security than that, shouldn't have X
>> installed on it at all (IMHO).
>
>
>The original poster sis not say what OS he was running, but FreeBSD
>never installs the X server SUID. Instead it uses a separate Xwrapper
>which is
> The original poster sis not say what OS he was running, but FreeBSD
> never installs the X server SUID. Instead it uses a separate Xwrapper
> which is SUID and greatly limits the amount of code executing at
> elevated privs.
Not really. The value of the wrapper is that it does more commandline
Eric Anholt wrote (in a message from 13)
>
> My todo list includes fixing this, probably by making 'X' be a script
> that checks for Xwrapper-4 and otherwise runs XFree86. I'm interested
> in what other distributions have done about this.
In OpenBSD we've implemented a scheme where the X s
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:01:04PM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>>> Any machine requiring more security than that, shouldn't have X
>>> installed on it at all (IMHO).
>>
>>
>>The original poster sis not say what OS he was running, but FreeBSD
>>never in
13 matches
Mail list logo
