[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110516222642.GA18032@altlinux.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 02:26:42 +0400
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Multiple libraries privilege checking
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56:37PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:27:41PM +0200, Sebastian Krahmer wrote:
> > Its probably about time to review libraries that are commonly
> > linked to (formerly-) suid programs, such as
> > libldap, libssl etc. In near future, in the advent of file caps
> > they are often lacking proper checks.
>
> Good idea.
>
> > They usually just compare uid against euid (not even gid sometimes)
> > and do not check the dumpable flag or AT_SECURE (dont know whether
> > glibc exports a proper function to easily check that at all).
>
> glibc exports the __libc_enable_secure variable, which is initialized
> based on AT_* including AT_SECURE. It also exports __secure_getenv().
There is a problem: in upstream glibc, __libc_enable_secure is placed into
GLIBC_PRIVATE section, thus making it unavailable in most of rpm-based
distros. This is surely not the case in Owl and ALT Linux, where
__libc_enable_secure is legal interface for use in applications,
and some essential libraries are already patched to use
__libc_enable_secure instead of uid comparisons.
--
ldv
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
