Re: cvs commit as root

[Larry Jones]

Harry Putnam writes:
> 
> I haven't tried this yet but it looks like the thing that has been
> missing. But at risk of seeming to pound this to death.  Just at first
> blush it seems this would mean that the files in /usr/local/cvsroot
> would have to belong to `joe' or a group `joe' is part of.

Correct.

> Like I mentioned, this is a single user system, but in the event a
> script kiddie got in.  I think I would want those files to be under
> root protection.  ( Of course, if someone takes root, all bets are off)

root is just another user as far as file ownership goes.  If a file is
owned by joe and readable only by the owner, then no one other than joe
can read it (except for root) just like no one other than root can read
a root-owned file that is readable only by the owner.  When a file is
readable only by the owner, there's no more or less security depending
on whether that user is root or some other user.

> Further, if files on the local machine's checked out module are under
> root protection then an `update' by `joe' wouldn't overwrite them
> would it?
> 
> Or if Joe tries to check out a module when in / or some other root
> only directory, he won't be able to right?

In this case, you are still running as root on the local machine; you're
only running as joe on the server machine.

> One last thing that doesn't seem to add up here.  If suing with no `-'
> is ok for cvs how is not ok as `su -'.  Seems the same kind of
> problems would obtain in either case.

Because a simple `su' just changes your current user-ID.  `su -' goes
out of its way to make it look exactly like you logged in as the other
user which generally prevents CVS from finding out who you really did
log in as.

-Larry Jones

I don't NEED to compromise my principles, because they don't have
the slightest bearing on what happens to me anyway. -- Calvin