Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!lml
From: lml@cbnews.ATT.COM (L. Mark Larsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Need to use newgrp or equivalent
Message-ID: <1993@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 88 17:03:55 GMT
References: <514@voodoo.UUCP> <1843@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7668@dunkshot.mips.COM>
Reply-To: lml@cbnews.ATT.COM (L. Mark Larsen)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 17


In article <7668@dunkshot.mips.COM> dce@dunkshot.UUCP (David Elliott) writes:
#In article <1843@cbnews.ATT.COM> lml@cbnews.ATT.COM (L. Mark Larsen) writes:
##Assuming you are using the standard /bin/sh, turning on the setuid bit
##of /bin/newgrp is unlikely to have any impact since the newgrp command
##is a built-in command (also built-in in ksh).  Without further details,
##it is hard to say what might be the problem.  Suffice it to say that
##newgrp works fine in SysV UNIX.
#
#This is not correct in System V.3, System V.3.1, or any other sh I've
#ever worked with.  The builtin newgrp command simply execs the newgrp
#command (this is done so that the current shell is replaced by a new
#one with the new gid set), so turning on the setuid bit and making the
#owner root will have a major impact.

Hummm...  Can I plead temporary stupidity?  I can't believe I wrote that.

L. Mark Larsen