From: imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) Subject: Re: rsh: "rcmd: socket: Permission denied" Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 05:36:51 GMT
In article <23broe$9v0@europa.eng.gtefsd.com> niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com writes:
>>rsh should be installed setuid(root)
>This will make things work, but it is a security hole big enough to fly a
>747 through, just in case you care.
How so?
rsh needs to be root so it can bind to that special socket range that
only root can bind to. It doesn't make the user root, or make your
machine less secure. What am I missing here? rsh is designed to be
setuid root.....
Warner
-- Warner Losh imp@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.