21 Jan
2010
21 Jan
'10
2:38 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Kai Schaetzl maillists@conactive.com wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:00:48 +0100:
I wonder now if the owner of that directory should actually be named?
Hm, after looking on other machines that have named installed but not in use it's excactly the same there. So, if named wants write permission there, but the rpm always removes that permission - isn't the rpm wrong then? Should I report this as a bug?
Kai
I don't think you'd want a compromised named to be able to make changes to your authoritative DNS records, which is what could happen if you have permissions set that way.