Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!sgi!vjs
From: vjs@rhyolite.SGI.COM (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: bin owns stuff (was: Installing 4.3-Tahoe on a VAX)
Summary: when is 'updating' ok?
Message-ID: <21879@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 14 Sep 88 02:01:47 GMT
References: <26049@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <5416@zodiac.UUCP> <21791@sgi.SGI.COM> <8481@smoke.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 19

In article <8481@smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> The basic idea is to avoid forcing the system administrator to act under
> UID 0 unless absolutely necessary.  Files owned by "bin" can be updated
> by "bin" rather than "root".

Should anyone besides root be allowed to 'update' sh or crontab?

It occurs to me that I'm slow on the uptake--Is this a joke?
	(intending no offense if it's not.)

Is there some <<risk>> with root owning things?  Other than the hassle of
having to su when you install something?

again:  I have used bin-ownership in obvious ways to become root when the
root password was not handy.  No doubt most of us could at need.
(I was doing nothing illegal or even wrong, of course.)

Vernon Schryver
vjs@sgi.com