[indiana-discuss] scope

[Keith Bierman]

On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:

> Would '$ sudo cat /path/to/somefile > /path/to/otherfile' work in  
> case the user itself has no rights to otherfile with that solution?

I'm not certain that I understand the question.

"sudo" touch /foo works (viz. creates a 0 length file foo with root  
root).

rm /foo fails

sudo rm  /foo works

I'd propose that /etc/sudoers be a documentation file which explains  
what pfexec is, why it's better and someone more clever than I would  
have to figure out what are the interesting edge cases which still  
require real root (or real sudo) ;>

Anyone who was trying to do a variety of fancy things with sudo would  
eventually try to edit the sudoers file....


Keith H. Bierman    keith.bierman at Sun.COM   |  khbkhb at gmail.com
Strategic Engagement Team                   | AIM: kbiermank
<speaking for myself, not Sun*> Copyright 2007




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/attachments/20070809/52ae337a/attachment.html