Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:39:34 -0500 (EST) Return-Path: Delivered-To: gopher@complete.org Received: from christoph.complete.org (christoph.complete.org [10.201.0.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "christoph.complete.org", Issuer "John Goerzen -- Root CA" (verified OK)) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403333B81F; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:39:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by christoph.complete.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B4851660B; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:39:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:39:22 -0500 From: John Goerzen To: gopher@complete.org, rcooley@myrealbox.com Subject: [gopher] Re: [Fwd: Re: Gopher+ Suggestion] Message-ID: <20020722133922.GL1410@complete.org> References: <3D3BBB13.8090405@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D3BBB13.8090405@myrealbox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 654 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: jgoerzen@complete.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-ID: Gopher X-List-ID: Gopher List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: gopher On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:58:11AM -0700, R. Cooley wrote: > > I'm way ahead of you. I've already been using the hostalias feature. > One problem is just that it does make setup more complicated, and > Gopher+ less flexible. My problem is that I choose to run gopherd as a > normal user, rather than as Root. Of course, that prevents the use of > any port below 1024. OK, I've made a patch to pygopherd that adds a new "advertisedport" feature that will do what you need. I'm including the patch below; download 3.0.0 and apply the patch to it. It will go into 3.0.1 when it is released. PyGopherd lives at gopher://quux.org/1/devel/gopher/pygopherd or http://quux.org/devel/gopher/pygopherd. > If I used chroot to secure gopher+, I could use port 70, but I avoid The port number had nothing to do with chroot; it has things to do with root. > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=567313&group_id=11118&atid=311118 Well, your analysis pits privilege dropping and chroot versus starting as a non-privileged user and not using chroot. I don't believe that your "not trusting the program to properly drop privileges" argument holds water when you're dealing with software that you have the source code to. You can check for yourself to see. In Pygopherd's case, you can read pygopherd/initialization.py. In gopherd's case, you can read gopherd.c and serverutil.c. Personally, I would (and do) trust PyGopherd completely. If you accept as a given that the privilege dropping is done properly, then I think it is self-evident that chroot mode is more secure than not. -- John -- John Goerzen GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F www.complete.org