Subject: Re: evil? sshd patch
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-security
Date: 11/04/1999 08:03:03
  by with SMTP; 4 Nov 1999 13:03:16 -0000
	by Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA18968;
	Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:03:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:03:03 -0500 (EST)
From: der Mouse  <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-Id: <199911041303.IAA18968@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: evil? sshd patch

>>> oh, and you'd probably have a lot of trouble interoperating with
>>> other systems.  :)
>> Why?  I can't see how this would cause any interoperability
>> problems.  Or do you know of some wire protocols that care about
>> what UIDs may be given special powers?
> Yes, NFS, for example.  It maps userid 0 to anon-userid by default.

Someone else suggested NFS privately.

I think you're confusing NFS the wire protocol with certain
implementations of it.  Some *implementations* map UID 0 to something
else; this is orthogonal to the *wire protocol*.

(Hmmm.  If your super-user isn't UID 0, you will find that other
implementations of NFS will likely map your UID 0 but not your
super-user; this can be good or it can be bad...and thus it can be an
example of an interoperability problem, even though it isn't really an
answer to the question about wire protocols.  Good point.)

					der Mouse

		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B