[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <551BA847.3040609@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:11:51 +0200
From: Harald Becker <ralda@....de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Busybox on musl is affected by CVE-2015-1817
Hi !
On 01.04.2015 09:41, u-wsnj@...ey.se wrote:
> Suid is a very old and nowadays quite redundant tool, mostly holding
> ground due to its "simplicity" (say, compared to talking to a daemon)
> and to the tradition. Seen from a different perspective, it is from the
> pre-network epoch ("the computer is the universe") and enforces among
> others hardcoded paths - which is a PITA for reusable and globally
> placed software.
IMO suid and sgid has there advantage over complex communication with
separate running daemons, but there is one topic, which is missed by so
many discussions about this: There is a big difference if you talk about
suid *root* programs or other suid usage.
The former is definitely very dangerous and should be used with extreme
care (I think this is the case we are talking about), the later use may
even be used to drop privileges (not to raise), or to temporarily hop to
the privileges of a different user (may be allowing access to some files
only by using specific commands).
When used with care and as intended, suid and sgid is a nice feature,
but nowadays there are too many Unix novices, who misunderstand or
misuse this, punching big holes in every security concern.
>> I think it would be worth it
>> even if it doubled the size of the ping utility (which it does not).
> +1
ACK +1
--
Harald
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
