Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/etc
To: Peter Postma <email@example.com>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/06/2005 12:37:52
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Peter Postma wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:20:58AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
>> >Log Message:
>> >Add _pflogd group.
>> Is there any reason this group cannot be simply `pflogd'? We don't have
>> any other groups with _ in their name...
>The idea is to prefix new system-users/groups with an _, so that they are
>in their own namespace.
Really? Whose idea? Where was this discussed? What other groups have
we ever introduced this way?
Please change this group name to pflogd.
>>> More generally, what does _pflogd have access to that prevents it from
>> being subsumed into, e.g. `daemon'?
>None. If pflogd(8) gets compromised then no-one can do anything with it
>because _pflogd has no special privileges and no other program is using the
>user/group. daemon, however, is used by other programs, so when one of
>them gets compromised, the others might be easy/easier to compromise too.
>This maybe sounds like OpenBSD paranoia, but I think it's reasonable to
If the goal is to ensure that someone who compromises pflogd does not
get access to useful services, it should run as nobody or as daemon.
I do _not_ think it makes sense to have one group per possible service a
host might run -- if we go that, /etc/group will grow very long indeed.
Let's not just cargo-cult over `security' practices when importing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----