jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) (06/09/88)
I have not yet heard anyone describe this problem:
The system seems to be running just fine. When I try to cu or uucico out
over the OBM, setgetty returns very quickly without haveing done it's job.
The getty can be killed off by doing everything by hand.
Is this caused by bugs introduced into the 3.51a kernel?
I switched back to 3.51 just in case.
When the system is installed from floppy, the root directory, / is 777.
From a security standpoint this is stupid. The real question is:
Does the UNIXpc need root writable by everyone?
John
--
John Bly Milton IV, jbm@uncle.UUCP, {ihnp4|osu-cis}!n8emr!uncle!jbm
home: (614) 294-4823, work: (614) 459-7641; talk to me about fractalslenny@icus.UUCP (Lenny Tropiano) (06/12/88)
In article <288@uncle.UUCP> jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) writes: ... |>When the system is installed from floppy, the root directory, / is 777. |>From a security standpoint this is stupid. The real question is: |>Does the UNIXpc need root writable by everyone? |> Yes, the root directory DOES NOT need to be world-writable. This is true for some other permission problems that exist on the UNIX pc. I would check this with a handy find command... # find / -type d -perm -2 -print | xargs ls -ld -Lenny -- US MAIL : Lenny Tropiano, ICUS Computer Group IIIII CCC U U SSS PO Box 1 I C U U S Islip Terrace, New York 11752 I C U U SS PHONE : (516) 968-8576 [H] (516) 582-5525 [W] I C U U S TELEX : 154232428 [ICUS] IIIII CCC UUU SSS AT&T MAIL: ...attmail!icus!lenny UUCP : ...{talcott, boulder, pacbell, sbcs, mtune, bc-cis}!icus!lenny
cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) (06/20/88)
In article <288@uncle.UUCP> jbm@uncle.UUCP (John B. Milton) writes: ... >When the system is installed from floppy, the root directory, / is 777. >From a security standpoint this is stupid. The real question is: >Does the UNIXpc need root writable by everyone? As Lenny has said, no. In the stock installation, lots of directories are mode 777 unnecessarily (like /etc). I think the 3B1 has to win the 'most unsecure Unix right out of the box' award; anyone know *why* they did it this way (besides sloppy programming and setup)? -- But he said leave me alone I'm a family man And my bark is much worse than my bite Chris Siebenmann uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!cks cks@ziebmef.UUCP or .....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/25/88)
In article <1988Jun19.161105.2799@ziebmef.uucp>, cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) writes: > I think the 3B1 has to win the > 'most unsecure Unix right out of the box' award; anyone know *why* > they did it this way (besides sloppy programming and setup)? My guess: the unix-pc was not intended for use: 1. by more than 2 people at a time, more than 1 in a development situation; 2. as a standalone, or as a single-user node for a LAN; 3. in situations where users did not trust one another, or the sysadmin did not trust the users. -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... "But why should I type "rm -r $HOME" if I want to play trek???" J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
clb) (06/26/88)
In article <954@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > In article <1988Jun19.161105.2799@ziebmef.uucp>, cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) writes: > > I think the 3B1 has to win the > > 'most unsecure Unix right out of the box' award; anyone know *why* > > they did it this way (besides sloppy programming and setup)? > > My guess: the unix-pc was not intended for use: > > 1. by more than 2 people at a time, more than 1 in a development situation; > 2. as a standalone, or as a single-user node for a LAN; > 3. in situations where users did not trust one another, or the sysadmin > did not trust the users. Here we go again. Periodically, for some reason, everyone seems to flame anything and everything about their unixpc and I feel compelled to say ... MY UNIXPC WORKS FINE AND I LIKE IT. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are some problems and I some combinations that don't work so well, but my system is quite stable and reliable. It has been on line for as much as six months at a time, without panics or anything. On the other hand, I know a couple of things that are sure kills on the machine, like exiting from DOS-73 in skinny font or doing a rastop to an odd address, but mostly the unixpc is every bit as good as any machine I've ever seen and much better than most. What am I running? SysV, vers. 3.0, standard uucp, OBM, smail. What am I not running? ua, ph (the PANIC BUTTON program took over the ph spot on the upper line). I used to have trouble running several users but more ram fixed that. Development can coexist with hack and uucp or whatever. SO...please try to keep some balance here. the unixpc isn't perfect but it's not that bad either. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
thad@cup.portal.com (07/02/88)
Precisely. I, too, am very pleased (overall) with the UNIX PC 3B1. My ONLY real gripe is the green phosphor monitor; would like to replace the tube with a white phosphor job.
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (07/03/88)
In article <4600@killer.UUCP>, loci@killer.UUCP (loci!clb) writes: > In article <954@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > > In article <1988Jun19.161105.2799@ziebmef.uucp>, cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann) writes: >>> [thinks 3b1 is really insecure] >> [some reasons why they didn't bother making it really secure] > Here we go again. Periodically, for some reason, everyone seems > to flame anything and everything about their unixpc and I feel > compelled to say ... Did I flame? I didn't think so. I was stating what I thought.... > MY UNIXPC WORKS FINE AND I LIKE IT. Don't get me wrong, I know Me too. I like it a lot more than any other computer I've used. Even my C64! :-) -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/