Subject: Re: Security problem

From: Patrick Zwahlen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:31:21 +0100

a sun wrote:
> 
> currently, afpd doesn't handle group situations that well. in the next
> development series, i plan to redo the permissions stuff to handle AFP
> permission semantics. some of that will entail being clever with
> seteuid().

In fact, the way SAMBA handles this problem is quite clever. It lets you
decide for each share the UID and GID of any created file and directory,
and to force the permissions as well. However, I admit that the config
file becomes much more complicated...

Is there any reason why this could pose a problem with Netatalk ?
--
Patrick Zwahlen                    E-Mail: [email-masked]
B2B, WAN Administrator             Phone:  +41 (0)21-641-5950
World Online Switzerland           Mobile: +41 (0)78-671-1554
Av. Gratta-Paille 2                Fax:    +41 (0)21-683-1344
CH-1000 Lausanne 30 (Switzerland)  Web:    http://www.worldonline.ch

---

From: Philip Bertuglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:09:59 -0500 (EST)

For afpd to do the "permission forcing" that smbd does, it needs to run as
root. I don't think that was ever the intention for afpd and it would
need to be totally rewritten. If anyone disagrees please chime it.

I am looking forward to your new release A. Sun, and thank you for your
hard work on this project. 

Philip Bertuglia